Doctors

 

 

In ancient China there was one thing worth remembering; perhaps some time in the future it may be used again. The idea was that the doctor should be paid for keeping the patient healthy, not for curing him. If a doctor is paid for curing you then his vested interest is that you remain sick. The more you fall sick, the better; the more people are sick, the better. You are creating a dichotomy in the physician’s mind.

 

First you teach the physician that his work is to keep people healthy: “Your function is to lengthen their life, vitality, youth.” But the doctor’s vested interest is that if everybody remains healthy, young, nobody falls sick, then he will die of hunger! If everybody is healthy then the doctors will be sick, completely sick, sick unto death! What are they going to do?

 

No, a doctor’s vested interest is against the philosophy that he has been taught. His economic interest is that people should remain sick, the more sicknesses the better.

 

Hence you will see one strange thing: if a poor man falls sick, he gets well sooner than the rich man. Strange... why does the poor man get well soon? -- because the doctor wants to get rid of him, he is unnecessarily wasting time. The poor man has no money to give; on the contrary, he asks the doctor for some money for medicine.

 

If the doctor prescribes fruits, milk, this and that, the poor man says, "Then give me some money. When I have it I will return it." And the doctor knows that he can't return it. So give him medicine, give him fruits, it is better to cure him as quickly as possible.

 

But if a richer man falls sick then it takes very long.

 

Perhaps the doctor goes on praying to God, "Keep him sick." Perhaps he dilutes the medicines; and in countries like India you need not do anything because nobody knows what is in the packet. You are giving injections and it is just pure water, even impure water. So the pharmacy people are immensely helpful in keeping people sick.

 

Confucius' idea is of great importance; he says that every person should pay the doctor a monthly salary for keeping him healthy. If he remains the whole month healthy then he has to pay a certain amount to the doctor. If he falls sick then accordingly the salary will be cut.

 

Very strange in the beginning, because we are doing just the opposite all over the world -- but very logical, very sane. And Confucius is, in many ways, a sane man. Everybody should have his physician, and he should pay the physician for keeping him healthy, not for curing him. If he falls sick then the expenses go on the doctor; the medicines and all the expenses -- and his salary will be cut too because he has not been taking care of the man.

 

For centuries it continued. And it worked well, tremendously well, for both; for the doctors, for the patients, for both it worked well. Doctors were not so heavily burdened. And patients were perfectly happy because now the vested interest of the doctor was not against them, it was in their favor.

 

So the doctor was not interested that they should in any way fall sick and should depend on medicine. He was prescribing more exercises -- walking, swimming, sports -- so they would remain healthy. And for centuries, while Confucius' influence lasted, China must have been the healthiest country in the world.

 

The same is the situation with pseudo-religions. Pseudo-religions want you to be spiritually sick. They don't want you to be full of light, they want you to be full of darkness, sadness, anguish; that's their vested interest.

 

If people are really happy and joyous then churches will fall empty, synagogues will disappear. Who is going to pay all these rabbis and all these bishops? For what? Who is going to listen to their stupid advice?

 

Pseudo-religions live only because you are not aware of the authentic religion. Hence whenever anybody is there with an authentic idea of religion, all pseudo-religions are against him, immediately. That should be taken as an indication. A Jew can be against Christians, a Christian can be against a Jew, a Mohammedan can be against a Hindu; that is okay, that is just shopkeepers fighting amongst themselves, competitors fighting amongst themselves.

 

But you will not find all the so-called religions against one man. And whenever you find that, then be a little alert and cautious: that one man must have something which is hitting all the pseudo-religions in the same way. He is hitting their pseudo-ness. So it is no longer a question of Christian, Hindu, or Mohammedan; just one question is there.

 

-Osho, “From Misery to Enlightenment, #25, Q1“