Alone

 

 

Question 7

In a lecture you said that the really aware were able to live alone. how does this fit with the dream of a community?

 

 

Sitaro, the really aware person is certainly one who is capable of living alone. But that is only half the truth. The other half is that the one who is really capable of being alone is also capable of being together with somebody In fact only he is capable of being in togetherness.

 

The person who is not able to be alone cannot be together with somebody, because he has no individuality. The person who has no individuality cannot be together with somebody -- why? There are many problems. First, he is always afraid that if he comes too close to the other person he will lose himself. He has no integrity yet: he is afraid.

 

That's why people are afraid of love, of too much love. People are afraid to come too close, because if they come too close they may dissolve in the other. That is the fear. The other may overpower them, the other may become their whole reality. They may be possessed by the other -- that is the fear.

 

Only a person who knows the beauty of being alone is capable of coming as close as possible, because he is unafraid. He knows that he IS, he has an integrated being in him. He has something crystallized in him, because without that crystallized something he would not be able to be alone.

 

The second thing: when a person is not capable of being alone he is always dependent on the other. He clings -- because he is afraid the other may leave, and then he will have to suffer loneliness. He clings, he exploits the other, he creates all kinds of bondages around the other.

 

And whenever you make the other your possession, you become the possession of the other. It functions in both ways. When you reduce the other to a slave, the other reduces you to a slave. And when you are so afraid of the other's leaving you, you are ready to compromise; you are ready to compromise in any way.

 

You will see this happening to all husbands and wives. They have compromised, they have sold their souls, for a single reason: because they cannot be alone. They are afraid the woman may leave, the man may leave -- and then? They very idea is so frightening, scary.

 

The capacity to be alone is the capacity to love. It may look paradoxical to you, but it is not. It is an existential truth: only those people who are capable of being alone are capable of love, of sharing, of going into the deepest core of the other person -- without possessing the other, without becoming dependent on the other, without reducing the other to a thing, and without becoming addicted to the other. They allow the other absolute freedom, because they know that if the other leaves, they will be as happy as they are now. Their happiness cannot be taken by the other, because it is not give by the other.

 

Then why do they want to be together? It is no longer a need, it is a luxury. Try to understand it. Real persons love each other as a luxury; it is not a need. They enjoy sharing: they have so much joy, they would like to pour it into somebody. And they know how to play their life as a solo instrument.

 

The solo flute player knows how to enjoy his flute alone. And if he comes and finds a tabla player, a solo tabla player, they both will enjoy being together and creating a harmony between the flute and the tabla. They both will enjoy it: they will both pour their richnesses into each other.

 

And, Sitaro, you ask: HOW DOES THIS FIT WITH THE DREAM OF A COMMUNITY?

 

That is the difference between the so-called society and a commune. The society consists of people who are needful, who are all dependent in some way or other. The children are dependent on the parents -- but remember, the parents are also dependent on the children. It may not be so obvious, but it is so -- just search a little more. The mother cannot be without the child; of course the child cannot be without the mother, but the mother also cannot be without the child.

 

Family members are dependent on each other, they cling to each other. It gives a certain comfort, security, safety. Then the family depends on other families. People depend on the church, people depend on clubs, people depend on societies. It is a great world of dependent people, childish ungrownups.

 

A commune is a totally different world. It is not a society. A commune is a gathering of people who are all capable of being alone, and they would like to be together to create a great orchestra of being. A commune is not a dependent phenomenon, it is an independence.

 

That's why many times in this ashram people come and tell me, "Everybody here seems to be so happy with himself that it looks as if nobody is interested in anybody else." Particularly the newcomers feel it, that it is as if people are indifferent. It is not so; they are not indifferent. But you are coming from a society where everybody is dependent on everybody else. This is not a society -- not like your old society. Here, everybody is enjoying HIS being, and nobody interferes in anybody's life, there is no interference.

 

My whole effort is to make you so alert, so loving, that you don't interfere. Love never interferes, love gives total freedom. If it is not giving freedom, then it is not love. It is not indifference that newcomers feel -- and, slowly slowly, they understand. By the time they have lived here for a few weeks, they know what is happening. People are not indifferent, people are very loving. But they are non-interfering, so they don't impinge upon you. And they are non-needy, they are not greedy, they don't cling to you.

 

Of course, you have known only that kind of people, so this new type frightens you. You think that you are not needed, that nobody cares, that these people are very selfish, that they are too self-occupied. It is nothing like that; that is not the case at all, it is absolutely untrue. But to you it may appear so in the beginning.

 

A commune of sannyasins will be a celebration, a gathering of people who are not in any way needy of the other. It is beautiful if two persons are together; it is good if it continues and they can sing a song together, it is good to sing a chorus. But if things go wrong, if it becomes heavy, if being together interferes with your freedom, then you can go and sing your song alone. There is no need to be part of a chorus.

 

And the commune is a space where this much freedom is allowed. There will be couples, but there will not be husbands and wives. There will be FRIENDS in the commune.

 

That's why the Indian government, the Indian society, is very much afraid of me, because I am going to create a totally different kind of community which will shatter all their ideas -- their so-called morality, and their traditionally cherished ideals of marriage, and all that nonsense.

 

People can live together if they enjoy being together, but only just for that joy of being together -- it is not a need. If at any moment a person decides to get out of a relationship, he can get out of it without any trouble, without any turmoil, without any crying and weeping and fighting and making things ugly, without any nagging and prolonging.

 

People have to be true. If they feel good being together, good. If they feel it is no longer "growthful," it is no longer maturing, they say goodbye to each other. They feel grateful to each other: whatsoever has been shared was beautiful, they will cherish the memory for ever, but now the time has come to depart. They lived in joy, they will depart in joy; their friendship will remain intact. And it may happen again: they may start living together again. They will not leave any scars on each other, they will not wound each other, they will respect the other's freedom.

 

My commune particularly -- and whatsoever I am saying, I am saying about my commune -- my commune will create individuals who are capable of being alone and who are also capable of being together -- who can play solo music and who can become part of a chorus.

 

-Osho, "Unio Mystica, Vol 2, #6, Q7"