Rebel or Robot?

 

 

Question 1:

Osho,

You say the rajneeshees need to be unorthodox, untraditional, unconventional. it is clear what this means in a world full of traditions and conventions, but in your commune i find it more difficult to understand.

Would you speak about the flavor of rebellion in your commune?

 

 

THE question is very significant. It reminds me of Bertrand Russell's paradox which I talked about a few days before. It will be good to remember it again.

 

Bertrand Russell became famous because of this paradox; before it he was not known outside Great Britain, and there too only as a very young, intelligent philosopher. But with this paradox he entered into the highest ranks of world philosophers. The paradox was sent to a mathematician, Freger, who was working his whole life on a single theme: he wanted to prove that mathematics can be without any paradox. And he had almost come to the conclusion of his immensely valuable thesis; at that very time Bertrand Russell sent this paradox to him.

 

It is very simple and yet as complex as only simple things can be. The paradox is, that the government of Great Britain asked all the libraries of the country to make a catalogue of all the books in their library, keep a copy of the catalogue in their library, and send the original copy of the catalogue to the central library of Great Britain. Almost every librarian was puzzled by the end of the catalogue.

 

The problem faced by every librarian was whether or not to include the catalogue in the catalogue.

 

The order was clear: all the books in the library have to be included in the catalogue. A copy of the catalogue is going to remain in the library; hence, it should be included in it. But to include the catalogue itself in itself seemed to be absurd.

 

The catalogue should be outside; while it is being prepared it is not a book in the library - how can you include a book of the future? The order is only to include the books that are in the library. But the problem becomes difficult because once the catalogue is ready and it goes, one book in the library will remain uncatalogued.

 

So a few librarians chose the first alternative, a few chose the second alternative; a few included it, a few did not include it. These hundreds of catalogues came to the central national library. Now the librarian was very much in trouble, because he was ordered by the government to make a master catalogue only of those catalogues which don't include themselves.

 

To separate them was not difficult. He piled those catalogues on one side which had included the catalogue in itself. He piled on the other side the other kind of catalogues, in which only other books were included, the catalogue was not included. Now, he was ordered to make a master catalogue only of those catalogues which didn't include themselves. He was in a terrible mess.

 

The problem was again the same: He made the catalogue; now, whether to include this catalogue in the master catalogue or not? The problem had become now more complex. If he does not include the catalogue then one catalogue which does not include itself in it is left out. The order is clear - the catalogues which do not include themselves are to be in the catalogue.

 

So the first problem is, if he does not include it then the order is not fulfilled; one catalogue of the same category has been left out. On the other hand, if he includes it then he is not fulfilling the order rightly. He is including one catalogue which includes itself in the master catalogue which is supposed to have only those catalogues which do not include themselves.

 

Russell sent this paradox to Freger and asked him what his suggestion was as to what should be done. "You are the master authority on dissolving paradoxes, it is a mathematical question." Freger was shattered - his whole life's work was finished. He was a world famous mathematician... but he did not publish the books which he had finished, in which he had proved that a man-made system is possible without paradoxes, because this paradox.... His masterpiece, his thesis on mathematics, was published posthumously, when he died, because he refused to publish it. What would he answer to Bertrand Russell?

 

I remind you because this is actually the question. I have been telling you to be rebellious, not to be orthodox, not to be conventional; be individual, a rebel. The problem is, What to do in this commune of rebels? It is exactly the same problem.

 

If you are in tune with everybody in the commune, you are no longer a rebel; you have become part of the society, part of a group, part of an organization. Where is your rebellion? You have become orthodox. And I am against your being orthodox.

 

The second alternative is to rebel, but to rebel against rebellious people can only mean that you become again orthodox, conventional.

 

It is the same paradox. Paradoxes are all the same; you just have to find out where the similarity is.

 

But to me there is no paradox because I am not Freger. Nobody can shatter me. I am not Bertrand Russell. I can see something more in life than mathematics and philosophy.

 

Paradoxes exist only in man's mind.

 

If you have the insight of no-mind there are no paradoxes at all.

 

All mind systems will have paradoxes, you cannot avoid them. Sooner or later you will stumble upon the paradox in every man-made system.

 

But there is something which is not man-made:

 

Existence.

 

Existence is absolutely beyond paradoxes.

 

In fact it is something that is not only beyond paradoxes but which enjoys paradoxes, contradictions, and makes a harmony out of contradictions. Contradictions turn into complementaries.

 

Only one man in the whole history of America has my respect, and that man is Walt Whitman. I don't consider any other American to be of much worth. But Walt Whitman belongs to the giants of world history.

 

He is reported to have said one thing which is also true of life, existence. Just the way I have been told again and again that "your statements are contradictory," he was told again and again that "your statements are contradictory."

 

In response he said, "Yes, I am contradictory because I am vast enough to contain contradictions.

 

You are little, you cannot contain contradictions; that's why you are so much troubled. I am not troubled; I am vast enough, contradictions can coexist in me."

 

What Walt Whitman is saying is exactly the case with existence. It is so vast, so infinite, that contradictions lose their contradictoriness, they become complementaries.

 

Take this question: you can look at it as a paradox; then it is exactly another form of Bertrand Russell's paradox. If you rebel you are wrong, because you become orthodox; if you don't rebel you are wrong because you have become orthodox already. But this is only in the mind. Put the mind aside and look into reality.

 

This commune is not an organization in the sense in which organizations exist. It is not a Catholic church, it is not a communist party. Organizations have a certain structure, a bureaucracy, a hierarchy.

 

Here you listen to me, who is nobody.

 

I am not even part of your commune, I am just a tourist, not even a resident. This house is not my residence, just a guesthouse. I don't have any status in your commune. I am not the head of your

 

commune, the chief I am nobody; even my name is not part. I would have loved to be in red robes, but I have simply avoided it just to make it clear that I am not in any way part of you.

 

Still you have listened to me who has no power. I cannot enforce anything on you, I cannot order you, I cannot give you commandments. My talks are just exactly that, only talks. I am grateful to you, that you listen to me; to accept what I say or not to accept it is your business. To listen to it, or not to listen to it, is your decision. Your individuality is in no way interfered with.

 

So the first thing in the organization is missing: the head is missing. And that is the most important thing; when the head is missing you won't even call somebody alive. This organization has a totally different meaning. It is more literally concerned with the origin of the word: it comes from "organ."

 

Your hand is your organ, your eyes are your organs, your legs are your organs; your whole body consists of millions of organs. Millions of cells are in the small skull, each a living organism. Who is controlling your body? Your body is an organization - who is controlling your body? Nobody. There is no one whose order is the law. It functions perfectly well; even when you are asleep it continues to function.

 

Even if you are in a coma, for months unconscious, your body continues to function. Each cell goes on functioning, each nerve goes on functioning, goes on doing its work. It is a miracle that without there being any bureaucracy, without there being any regimentation, any controlling system, the body goes on functioning perfectly well.

 

In fact, if you interfere then the functioning is not perfect. For example, you can try one day.... You have never thought about it: you go on eating all kinds of things, and once they go down your throat you never bother about them, about what happens to them. You think the real work is finished - it has only begun. The real work is not eating and swallowing, the real work is after that. And it is tremendous.

 

It goes on so silently - no noise, no quarrel, no strike, no problem. All food is being separated, divided, being sent to different parts where it is needed. Blood is continuously carrying all nourishment to every corner of the body and in return taking back all the used remains which are of no more use - dead cells, taking them back.

 

How does the blood decide what is nourishment, and what has to be sent to a particular spot and delivered there? And what is dead, used, is dangerous if it is left in the system, because it will become poisonous it has to be taken out as quickly as possible and delivered to the place from where it can be thrown out of the body. You are throwing out in many ways all that is dangerous inside the body, not only through defecation and urination and perspiration - no, there are so many other ways.

 

Your hairs are dead cells. That's why when you cut your hair you are not hurt. Cut another part of your body, and you will know! The hairs are dead, they are dead cells. Your nails are dead cells; a certain kind of dead cell, which cannot be thrown in any other way, is being thrown in this way.

 

The whole body is the true meaning of"organism."

 

A commune is an organism.

 

In that sense it is an organization.

 

So first you have to understand that the commune consists of rebels. And no idiot can be a rebel, only a very intelligent person can be a rebel. For the idiot, the stupid, the mediocre, it is easier to remain with the orthodox conventions, traditions; with the crowd, with the mob.

 

To be a rebel means you are going on your own:

 

You are leaving the crowd.

 

You need courage, you need intelligence.

 

You have to be a gambler:

 

You enjoy risking even your very life.

 

And my commune consists only of rebels.

 

Now, when intelligent people are together there is no need of any hierarchy. There is no need of anybody telling you "right turn, left turn, turn about, forward march." That kind of thing is needed for retarded people.

 

I have heard of a philosopher in the second world war - everybody had to be a participant in the war. This poor philosopher was also asked to go to war. He said, "I am absolutely useless because I cannot do anything before I think about it deeply, profoundly."

 

They said, "You can think, there is no need to worry, but you have to go to war."

 

He went. The first day, the drill started. "Left turn!" Everybody turned left, but the philosopher remained standing as he was. He was asked, "Why are you not turning left?" He said, "Why should I turn? I don't see any reason. I am really puzzled why so many people have turned, just because you say, 'Turn left!' First tell me, What is the reason why we should turn left? Why not right?"

 

The brigadier said, "Are you are a fool or something? I am saying, 'Turn left!"'

 

The philosopher said, "You can say anything, that does not mean that I have to do it."

 

The brigadier left him standing, and ordered people to turn right, to turn this way and that. And finally they were all facing the same way again. Then the philosopher said, "I don't see the point.

 

I have been standing in this position the whole time! These poor chaps have been turning around and around, and finally they have come to the same state where I have always been."

 

The brigadier inquired at the office, "What to do with this man? What reason can I give him why he has to turn left? This is a training, but that man seems to be strange; he says, 'But why should I be trained to turn left? What is special in the left? And in the first place I don't see the point of any training: I am a trained man. I am a professor, I am a philosopher - the whole world knows my name. I am a trained man - what training are you giving me?"'

 

The brigadier asked headquarters. They said, "We were aware that there may be some trouble.

 

You send that fellow - he is a philosopher - you send him to the mess. Let him do something else, vegetable chopping or something else. You cannot argue with him, you cannot convince him - there is not time enough. He may take years or lives to be convinced. And he will need a greater professor, greater philosopher than he is. It is beyond you; you just train your idiots, those who never ask why."

 

The philosopher was sent to the mess. The chief in the mess said, "What kind of work can you do here?"

 

He said, "I can do thinking. I don't do any other kind of work."

 

The officer said, "Thinking? What are we going to do with thinking in the mess? But if you are sent, then something has to be done. You do one thing. These peas are here; you make two piles - bigger peas on one side, smaller peas on the other side."

 

And you come again to the paradox of Bertrand Russell.... After half an hour, the officer returned and the philosopher was sitting exactly as he had left him and the peas were Lying exactly as he had left them. He had not even touched a single pea. The chief said, "What are you doing? Half an hour has passed, here are the piles?"

 

The philosopher said, "I have not been told where I have to put the peas which are not big, not small, just the middle size. And I am figuring it out. I am looking at the peas; two piles won't do. Even three won't do even five won't do. In fact each pea has its own pile because there is no other pea exactly like it. How can I make a pile? In fact they are perfectly fine as they are, individual. No two peas are similar, they have never been similar, will never be similar."

 

My commune is an organism rather than an organization.

 

We are intelligent people:

 

There is no need for anybody else to tell you what to do, how to do.

 

Your intelligence is your responsibility.

 

Nobody is going to force any responsibility on you. But I know why the question arises - because you have been trained from your very childhood.

 

Just now I was reading about a woman, Judith Martin. She is well known in America as Miss Manners. She is the topmost authority on manners, etiquette, and particularly how to train children.

 

She says that each child is a savage, and you have to teach him as early as possible. And what are the methods of teaching? Two methods: example and nagging. Nagging is a method of teaching children manners....

 

And what is the purpose of this teaching, this training? So that the child can manage to be diplomatic, can have a face that works in the society, can be successful in business, in politics. Train him, she says, so he will be able to use others as means.

 

And of the things that she says the child has to be trained in, one was particularly striking - that even in such small details the child is not to be left free: when he goes to sleep, he should sleep with half of his face uncovered. Why? So that visitors, guests, can see whom he looks like. Even this has to be taught! He is not free even to cover his face or not to cover his face; he should cover half of his face.

 

That was very striking. I can understand half uncovered for the guests so that they can see whom he looks like, but why cover half? Why not leave the whole face uncovered so the guest can actually see completely, perfectly? No, half has to be covered because that helps people's imagination. In fact no child looks like anybody, you have to project. And guests, if half is covered, are in a better position to project.

 

You can imagine about a man or a woman's body when it is covered. When the man or woman is standing naked in front of you, you can have a look; there is no need for imagination. How long can you stare? - and you look silly. But when a woman or man's body is half covered, covered in such a way that gives scope for imagination.... That's why in PLAYBOY magazine and in all obscene literature, pornographic photographs, magazines, you will see one thing: they don't allow you the complete nudity of the woman or the man.

 

In many ways they keep a few parts hidden; even if the woman is naked she will be sitting or Lying in such a way that you will be able to see only part of her. That which you see is not pornography, that which you are not allowed to see, there is the real pornography. The real art of pornography is to keep parts hidden from you which trigger your imagination.

 

For twenty years, Miss Manners has been teaching American children and their parents all kinds of nonsense. And this has been happening around the world for centuries; this Miss Manners is not new. Everything has to be taught because it has been accepted that the child is basically a savage - to be more frank, basically evil - so he has to be put right.

 

You all have been fixed, put right. So when you become part of a commune like this, the question arises are you to be orthodox here too? I am telling you continually to rebel - but to rebel against whom? because all here are rebellious people.

 

One thing - rebellion is not something that you have to do; it is an approach, an attitude. The attitude is that you will respect yourself as an individual and you will respect everybody else in the same way. Nobody is lower than you, nobody is higher than you, remember. It is very easy to accept the idea that nobody is higher than you. But that is not rebellion, that is jealousy. Communism is not rebellion, it is jealousy.

 

Rebellion is when you accept that nobody is higher than you, nobody is lower than you. In fact, the categories of lower and higher are inapplicable. Each individual is so unique that it is not possible to compare two persons. So how can you put somebody higher and somebody lower? - they are so different and so unique.

 

Communism is not rebellion. That's why I continuously try to make the distinction between the words revolution and rebellion.

 

Revolution is orthodox, it is nothing new.

 

There have been many revolutions in the world, and every revolution has been very orthodox in its functioning. Whether it was the French revolution, or the Russian revolution, or the Chinese revolution, you can see the pattern there working. There is no uniqueness, it is all the same. And in the end they all fail also in the same way. They succeed in the same way; they fail in the same way.

 

What is revolutionary about revolution?

 

And what is the base of all these revolutions?

 

It is always jealousy.

 

It is not intelligence, it is a reaction.

 

A few people have money, many people don't have money. Those who don't have money are boiling within. They also want to have money but they don't have the talent or the opportunity to manage to become rich. Then their jealousy turns into a great ideology, that there should be no classes at all, there should be nobody rich, nobody poor.

 

But how many people are rich? For example, in Russia when the revolution happened, only two percent of the people were rich; ninety-eight percent of the people were poor. Now what are you going to do? Two percent of the people are rich - you can distribute their wealth. But the small amount of the wealth of two percent of the people distributed to ninety-eight percent of the population does not make anyone richer. Yes, they all become equally poor.

 

All that revolution succeeds in doing is, it makes two percent of the people more poor. Whereas before only ninety-eight percent of the people were poor, now one hundred percent of the people are poor. But this gives tremendous satisfaction to the ninety-eight percent because they dragged those two percent down to their level. They are still poor - perhaps more poor than before, because in the revolution wealth was not distributed but destroyed.

 

I had never heard the name Portland before I read a book in 1950 by John Reed: TEN DAYS THAT SHOOK THE WORLD. It was because of John Reed that I came to know Portland. John Reed was born in Portland, lived in Portland, was a journalist in Portland. I have read thousands of books but I can say John Reed's book stands separate in its own glory. He was really a courageous man. He went from Portland to Russia to witness the actual revolution.

 

And the book is a masterpiece. He was not a communist then but whatever he saw he described, and it is certainly one of the greatest descriptions, an eyewitness description.

 

When the people entered the czar's palace, he could not believe what they were doing. In the czar's palace there were perhaps more valuable things than in any other palace in the world. All kings were paupers compared to the Russian czar. The carpets were so valuable that nowhere were there such carpets available. They were specially made by craftsmen from the Middle East who had worked their whole life in making those carpets.

 

And what were the people doing? They were distributing... they were cutting up those carpets - because how can you distribute those huge carpets made for huge halls? People were cutting whatsoever they could manage to get - a piece, something like a souvenir.

 

There were paintings - people were tearing paintings. Somebody was taking just the frame because the frame was gold, pure gold, solid gold. But the painting was far more valuable than the gold; the frame was only a frame. Somebody else... but it was such a crowd. You could not take the whole of the painting alone, there were so many people tearing it away from you, trying to get hold of it.

 

John Reed says at one place, "I was just watching - what is happening? This is distribution? This is destruction! Nobody is getting anything, just a beautiful palace is being destroyed. Immensely valuable statues are being broken. People are tearing apart great chandeliers and taking pieces.

 

Nobody can prevent it, it is now a mob. Where are the leaders? And who is going to listen to the leaders in such a situation?"

 

And this was happening all over the country. He saw that everywhere houses were being burned.

 

The czar's whole family, including a six-month-old child - in all, nineteen people - were burned alive.

 

Now, what was the crime of a six-month-old baby? Just that he was born in the family of the czar?

 

That was just accidental he could have been adopted by somebody. And what was the reason to kill the czar also?

 

You were going to distribute wealth, not kill people. And now the czar is no longer the czar, you are in power: he is nobody, just a prisoner. What was the point of killing these people - women, old women, children - who have nothing left? You have taken everything from them - now life also has to be distributed?

 

I remember one time in Jabalpur.... Jabalpur w as one of the most vulnerable cities for Hindu - mohammedan riots because both communities were almost equally balanced. And strangely, the division of the city was such that the Mohammedan community lived in almost half of the town and the Hindu community in the other half So riots were very simple and easy. It was almost every two, three years that there would be a riot.

 

Anybody can create one, it is so simple. Somebody can just go and play on a flute before a mosque, and escape. That's enough! Music before a mosque is enough to trigger a riot in which hundreds of people will be killed, houses will be burned. Or just kill a cow before a Hindu temple in the night, and in the morning there is going to be a riot. It was anybody's... whoever has some vested interest in some riot will do it. And then the mob takes over.

 

I was in a bookstore... the bookstore was on the first floor sol could see from there what was happening on the street below. And there was no way to leave so I had to simply wait and see.

 

There was, across the street, a big, the biggest watch company of Jabalpur, and people were taking watches, clocks.

 

One man, a Gandhian, was trying to say, "Don't fight! Hindus and Mohammedans are all brothers.

 

Mahatma Gandhi has been telling us that both the religions are the same." But he was seeing also that people were taking things; nobody was listening to him.

 

Who bothers about such sermons in such a place where you can get a beautiful watch or a clock or anything, just free? It was yours, you just had to find it. And I saw in the end that man... nothing was left, just an old grandfather clock which was so heavy nobody had bothered to take it; he was carrying that.

 

I had to come down, and I asked, "What happened?"

 

He said, "What to do? Nobody listens, I was just losing out. So I thought, 'The sermon I can give again, but only one clock is left there."'

 

"But," I said, "that doesn't look right for you. You are a Gandhian, dressed in a Gandhi white robe."

 

He said, "That's all right, but one has to look to one's business too." Who is going to listen to leaders and their sermons once the mob takes over? Then it is all destruction, fire.

 

So I don't think they have been able to distribute any wealth in Russia. Yes, They have been able to destroy those two percent of the people. And the ninety-eight percent felt very happy; and since then they have not felt any jealousy because all people are equally poor.

 

This kind of revolution I don't call a revolution, it is nothing. It is just that you get fed up with one system, with one imprisonment, and you enter another prison; it is only a change. Hence, I use the word rebellion to make the distinction.

 

Rebellion is individual.

 

Revolution is collective.

 

You need a communist party for a Russian revolution. Without the communist party you cannot make the revolution. To be a rebel, you don't need to first organize a communist party.

 

You can be a rebel this very moment, the moment you understand that you have been forced by the society; that these Miss Manners and all kinds of stupid people have forced you to become what you are. This is not your reality, this is a facade, painted, created around you, and you have been carrying your own prison everywhere. You simply throw it out. You say, "To hell with Judith Martin and her kind!"

 

Rebellion is individual.

 

Hence, only very intelligent people can be rebels.

 

Revolution is the same mob; the mob that was going to the church starts going to the communist party office. It is the same mob, the same mob mind; they have just changed their church. Now they don't look towards the Vatican, now they look towards the Kremlin; but there is no change. Now, their old trinity of God, the son, and the Holy Ghost, they have dropped; they have chosen a new trinity. Marx, Engels, Lenin - that is their trinity.

 

They have their religion - materialism is their religion. They have an orthodox attitude. Those who were a little bit rebellious... for example, a man like Kerensky, who was the prime minister of Soviet Russia before the revolution.

 

He died just ten years ago in New York. For all these sixty years nobody even knew where Kerensky had disappeared to; he was running a grocery store in New York. He had to escape from Russia -

 

not only to escape, he had to hide in such a way that nobody came to know that he was the prime minister under the czar.

 

He was a very intelligent man, and it was not that he was against communism. Lenin was not as intelligent a person as Kerensky - that was the trouble. Kerensky had said, "Karl Marx was right in his time, but things have changed, and we have to change the Marxian ideology according to the times. We cannot change the times according to the Marxian ideology; we cannot move the clock backwards. We can make Marx up to date but we cannot change the world and make it according to Karl Marx."

 

And he was perfectly right. But he was an intellectual, and the mob does not understand the fine, delicate subtleties of thinking and ideology. The masses went with Lenin because he was a great orator - not a great intellectual, but a great orator. And the mediocre people are not interested in the argument, they are interested in how loudly, how forcibly, how emphatically the person goes on saying his thing. They are interested in authoritativeness. Lenin was an authoritative person.

 

It is strange authoritative people have always influenced the masses. Now what has Jesus got as an intelligent argument for his philosophy? Not a single word, just authoritative statements: "Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the kingdom of God." Now please give us the detailed argument, the procedure why, how? Why are the poor blessed?

 

It does not seem so; they are the cursed, the wretched of the earth, and you are calling them blessed - please give some reasoning. And if they are so blessed, why does God make them poor? And why should He make His blessed people wait till after death to inherit the kingdom of God? Why not give them the kingdom of God right now? Are they not poor enough yet? Do you want them to become more blessed? For what are you waiting? But there is no argument.

 

In the whole gospel of Jesus there is not a single reasoning for what he is saying. But the "greatest"

 

religion of the world comes out of this man. Certainly he had some authoritative impact on people.

 

People are not interested in very intelligent things because they can't understand them. They are impressed by Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse-tung, Joseph Stalin - all authoritative people. None of them can be said to be above average intelligence; in fact they are below average intelligence. Adolf Hitler cannot have more than the mental age of a thirteen-year-old boy. But people are impressed.

 

Revolutions have been created by authoritative people. And authoritative people are orthodox people. Yes, they are against the old orthodoxy, but they create new orthodoxy. And the new orthodoxy seems to be a revolution. It is not, it is simply changing your handcuffs.

 

You will have different handcuffs, perhaps better manufactured, more beautiful looking, more ornamental - but handcuffs are handcuffs, and soon you will realize that the old ones were easier to break because they were already rotten and very old. These new ones it is impossible to get out of; they are well manufactured, well engineered, they are more scientific. Now, in Russia, try to make a revolution....

 

In czarist Russia, revolution was possible because it was an old, very old, ancient empire, tottering, just needing an excuse to be finished. But the new empire that is now communistic is fresh, young,

 

with all high technology behind it - well organized, because it knows what happened to the czar; it won't allow the same to happen to it.

 

Every revolution dies into another orthodoxy.

 

It has been always so.

 

That's why I am not for revolution:

 

I am for rebellion.

 

Rebellion is individual.

 

But when many rebels are there and they want to live together, respecting each other's individuality, each other's freedom, each other's uniqueness - that's the meaning of a commune. It is not a society. It is not an establishment. It is not an organization in the old sense.

 

A commune is a communion of individuals who have all rebelled against all kinds of stupidities, superstitions. That is their meeting point. But that does not mean that they create an alternative society, another establishment. Then it would only be revolution.

 

Try to understand the difference clearly. If they don't create any establishment, and start living intelligently together, howsoever difficult it is - it is going to be a little difficult; otherwise why have people chosen to make organizations and establishments? - because it is less difficult.

 

The trend all over the world is to replace man with the machine, because the machine is more convenient. It never asks for more wages, bonuses, it never goes on strike, never tries to make a trade union; it is very convenient. So everywhere, man is being shifted out of employment; the machine is taking his place.

 

Soon you will see that people will be paid if they are ready to remain unemployed. If they are ready to give their place to the machine, they will be paid for it. It is going to happen in the advanced countries very soon because machines can do better work than you, more work than you. There is no question of a five-hour, six-hour, seven-hour day, or a five-day week, four-day week; there is no question. And no trouble - if something goes wrong once in a while, you change the part.

 

With man there is constant trouble. Establishments, organizations, societies, were created to cut down the trouble, make it less and less. But to cut that trouble you have to begin just as Judith Martin says: "From the very beginning the savage child has to be civilized, nagging is the method."

 

The woman has some nerve! She says nagging is the method. I don't think... what happened to her husband? I don't think that he could have survived; either he would have escaped, or died, or perhaps he would have become a robot. While sleeping he will cover half his face so everybody can know whose husband....

 

All around the globe people had to create these systems just to create a convenient way to live together; otherwise, if all people are left alone, on their own, there will be chaos. Now, there are two

 

ways.... Yes, there will be chaos if people are not intelligent; but if people are intelligent, there will be a chaos - but a chaos out of which stars are born, a chaos which is creative. A certain anarchy will happen but it will not be destructive.

 

I am an anarchist.

 

I basically believe in the individual.

 

I don't believe in the society at all.

 

I don't believe in civilization, in culture. I simply believe in the individual.

 

I don't believe in the state, I don't believe in the government. I don't want any government in the world, any state in the world.

 

I simply want intelligent people to live harmoniously out of their intelligence. And if they cannot live out of intelligence, it is better to die than to become robots, to become machines, to be nagged and to be imprisoned in all kinds of slavery. It is better to be finished. We should live intelligently, and our order will come out of our intelligence, not vice versa.

 

That's what has been tried before; enforce order so that people can function intelligently. Now, that is absolutely stupid. Once you enforce order you destroy intelligence, you destroy even the possibility of it ever growing. There is no need.

 

I say, Live intelligently, even at the risk of disappearing from the earth. What harm will it be? If Hindus are not there, Mohammedans are not there, Christians are not there; if nobody goes to the church, and nobody goes to the temple, what harm?

 

The birds will be there, the deer will be there, the horses will there - and they will be enjoying, really, that man is gone. There will be such a celebration that even trees will be dancing; they will forget that they are rooted and they cannot dance, they are not supposed to dance. They will dance if they come to know that man is gone.

 

Man has been a calamity, a curse to existence.

 

Rebellion means making man a blessing to existence, not a curse.

 

It is a risky step, but there is no gain without any risk. And this is such a tremendous change, almost a discontinuity with the past - not any modified form of the past society, just a totally fresh and new society.

 

There is no paradox. Here you have to be a rebel, but your rebellion does not mean that you have to go against something which is intelligent, intelligible. You rebel against any stupidity. Any idiocy that happens in the commune, you rebel against it. That is your responsibility, to be on guard that no stupidity, no superstition, starts getting its roots within you. Be alert.

 

But rebellion does not mean that you have to be unnecessarily destructive just to prove that you are a rebel; otherwise, somebody may think that you look very orthodox: two days have passed and

 

you have not rebelled even once! Rebellion is not something that you have to do every day. It is not some kind of exercise, like going for a morning walk.

 

Rebellion is your attitude of looking at things, of watching things; what is happening in you and what is happening around you. No rust should be allowed to settle. Your sword of intelligence should remain shining, that's all. And everybody is keeping his own sword shining, nobody else is keeping your sword shining. Here, nobody is his brother's keeper.

 

You have to be on your own so orthodoxy cannot enter Bertrand Russell's paradox is mathematical, it is not existential. He should have asked me; he asked the wrong person, Freger - because even in that mathematical question there is a way out. All that is needed is simply that a catalogue should not be counted as a book, a catalogue is not a book. It is only a question of definition. That poor Freger unnecessarily got disturbed.

 

He should have simply said, "A catalogue is not a book, because a book has some message, some ideology, some philosophy. What ideology, what message, has a catalogue? A catalogue is only a list, a list of books. Now the list itself cannot be a book."

 

That is so simple, but what to do? Freger was a great mathematician, Bertrand Russell was a great mathematician and philosopher. I am nobody. But it is always from people who are nobodies that you can find the answers to life. These other people are all stuck with words. They got stuck with the word book; it would have been so simple just to change the definition.

 

In India there was a situation.... In the Himalayas there is a wild cow, it is called NILGAI 'blue cow'; it has a bluish tinge to its white color. It is wild and dangerous. It looks like a cow but don't be too much impressed by the word cow. It is not a cow, it is more like a wolf; but it looks like a cow, so its name is cow.

 

In the Indian parliament there was a problem because the population of these blue cows was increasing so fast and they were coming down from the Himalayas to the plains, destroying people's crops; and they are so dangerous that they were killing people. Their horns are such that they just put their horns into your chest, and their horns will go right through your chest and come out your back. You are finished in a single attack.

 

People were so afraid.... The cows never used to come down to the plains - they remained in the Himalayas, so there was no problem. But their population increased so there was not food enough for them there; they started coming down.

 

Now, in India there is a problem - the cow is a holy animal, the holy mother, so Hindus are against killing them. The parliament was thinking to kill all these cows which were coming to the plains, to just shoot them; there seemed to be no other way. But the Hindus were against that. They said, "You cannot kill our cows. If you kill our cows then there will be immense trouble" - and there would have been immense trouble. "They are our mothers."

 

But one man, a very intelligent man, Doctor Babasaheb Ambedkar.... He was a sudra, an untouchable and he was against the Hindus. He was a Hindu, but the lowest, so he was continually

 

trying his hardest: either the sudras should become Mohammedans or they should become Christians, but they should not remain Hindus; because what is the point? - you live in a society, you are part of a society, and the society treats you absolutely inhumanly. And this treatment has continued for five thousand years.

 

The sudra cannot read any Hindu scripture. He cannot even hear somebody reciting it. If a sudra hears it, he will be punished - he has heard the holy word. The holy word becomes unholy because a sudra has heard it!

 

Doctor Ambedkar, just by his sheer intelligence, became a world authority on law. He suggested a simple solution: change the name of the cow; call it a blue horse, drop calling it blue cow. And that worked.

 

A bill came against the blue horse. No Hindu bothered; who bothers about horses? They are nobody's fathers - blue horses? Nobody bothered about who were these blue horses. Blue horses were shot, killed; and it was only after everything was finished that it was realized that these were the blue cows. But it was too late, and now what to do? They were dead already. Just by changing a little word!

 

In this paradox of Bertrand Russell's there is nothing much. The catalogue is a list, it is not a book.

 

And the list cannot contain itself because it is a list of books. And the final, the master list can also be very simple. The master list cannot be included in the list itself because that list is not of master lists, it is of ordinary lists. How can a master list be included in an ordinary list? When you make a list of master lists of all the world libraries, then of course it will go into it. But then the super-master list will be left out. Something has to remain left out. There is no problem, no paradox in it; it is just jugglery of words.

 

In my commune you have to remain rebels.

 

Of course you won't have enough chances to use your rebellion - that's the whole purpose of the commune. You have used your rebellion, your chance to rebel against the orthodoxy; now we will not give you any chances. And you should remain alert that no chances are given that you have to rebel against anything.

 

In a commune of rebels, every rebel is a guardian, a guard, of the rebellious spirit.

 

And remember, I am using the words rebellious spirit.

 

It is not a question of action. Action is needed only when something goes against the spirit.

 

So whenever anything in the commune goes against the rebellious spirit, destroy it, rebel against!

 

And you are not going against the commune:

 

You are saving the commune, the commune of the rebels.

 

You are saving the rebellious spirit.

 

-Osho, "From Misery to Enlightenment, #29, Q1"