Wilderness

 

 

I don't see anything wrong in being wild. To be too much civilized may be dangerous -- a little wildness is good. And in a better world, with more understanding about human nature, we will keep a balance between civilization and wildness.

 

We have become very lopsided: we have become just civilized. When you become too much civilized you become plastic. The wild roseflower has a beauty -- may not be so permanent as the plastic flower, by the evening it may be gone, gone forever, it was only for the moment, but still it is alive. Look at the wild animals -- they have something -- don't you feel jealous? Don't you feel a radiancy, an aliveness, God more solidly present in them than in you?

 

So first, I don't see anything wrong in being wild. If your wildness is not destructive to anybody, it is perfectly religious. If your wildness is just your expression of your freedom and it is not in interference with anybody else's freedom, if it is not a trespass on anybody else's life, liberty, it's perfectly good.

 

In a RIGHT world people should be allowed all kinds of wildness, with only one condition: that their wildness should not be violent to anybody else. They should be given total freedom. Civilization only has to be negative, it should not be positive. The function of the police and the state has to be negative, it should not be positive. It should not tell you what you should do, it should only tell you what you should not do, that's all. Because we live in a society you cannot be absolutely wild, there are other people. You have to be careful about them too. They are careful about you, they are making compromises for your happiness, you have to make a few compromises for their happiness. But that's all.

 

The society, the state, the law, should be negative. They should only pinpoint a few things: that which interferes with other people's lives and happiness should not be done. And everything else should be left open.

 

-Osho, "Zen: The Path of Paradox, Vol 3, #8, Q5"