Question 3

Osho,

Whenever, i am in love with a man, for those years no other man attracts me. but for the man, it's not the same. though he is happy and satisfied with me, and wants to keep the relationship with me, he has his short love affairs every few months. i understand the different nature of man and woman. i also understand every love relationship has its peaks and valleys. still, sadness in me keeps on coming for a short while, and leaving. i give a long rope to the man. my friends say i make myself so available that i let the man take me for granted and i lose my self-respect. osho, is it so? i'm not clear. i don't expect anything from him. you know me better. would you please like to comment?

 

 

Neelam, there are many things in your question. First, you have a misunderstanding about man's nature. You think, as many people in the world think, that man is polygamous, and the woman is monogamous... that the woman wants to live with one man, to love one man, to devote and dedicate herself totally to one man, but man is different in nature -- he wants to love other women too, at least, once in a while.

 

The reality is: both are polygamous. The woman has been conditioned by man for thousands of years into thinking that she is monogamous. And man is very cunning; he has exploited the woman in many ways. One of the ways is: he has been telling her that man is, by nature, polygamous. All the psychologists, all the sociologists are agreed upon the fact that man is polygamous; and none of them says the same thing about woman.

 

My own understanding is that both are polygamous. If a woman does not behave in a polygamous way, it is nurture, not nature. She has been utterly conditioned so long that the conditioning has gone into her very blood, into her bones, into her very marrow. Why do I say so? -- because in the whole of existence, all the animals are polygamous.

 

It would be really surprising that if the whole existence is polygamous, only woman has an exceptional nature. In existence there are no exceptions. But because a woman had to depend financially on man, man has cut the woman in so many ways: he has cut her wings, he has cut her freedom, he has cut her dependence upon herself. He has taken her responsibilities on his shoulders, showing great love, saying: you need not be worried about yourself, I will take care. But in the name of love, he has taken the freedom of the woman. For centuries he has not allowed a woman to be educated, to be qualified in any way, in any craft, in any skill -- she has to be financially dependent on the man. He has taken away even her freedom of movement -- she cannot move freely the way man moves; she is confined to the house. The house is almost her imprisonment.

 

And in the past particularly, she was continuously pregnant because out of ten children, nine children used to die. To have two, three children, a woman had to be continually pregnant the whole time she was capable of reproducing. A pregnant woman becomes even more dependent financially -- the man becomes her caretaker. The man is knowledgeable, the woman knows nothing. She has been kept ignorant because knowledge is power -- that's why woman has been deprived of knowledge.

 

And because it is a man's world, they all agree as far as keeping the woman enslaved is concerned.

 

But everything has been done with very articulate intelligence. She has been told that it is her nature to be monogamous. Now there is not a single psychoanalyst, not a single woman sociologist to refute this: if man is polygamous, then why should woman be monogamous? Man has made the way for his polygamy: he has created prostitutes. It was an accepted fact in the past that no wife would have objected if her husband, once in a while, visited a prostitute. It was thought that it is just natural for man.

 

I say unto you that both are polygamous. The whole existence is polygamous. It has to be -- monogamy is boredom. However beautiful a woman may be, however beautiful a man may be, you become tired -- the same geography, the same topography. How long do you have to see the same face? So it happens that years pass, and the husband has not looked attentively at his wife for a single moment.

 

My own approach is natural and simple. I want no marriages in the world of the new man. Marriage is such an ugly and rotten phenomenon -- so destructive, so inhuman. On the one hand it makes one woman a slave, and on the other hand, it creates the ugliest institution of prostitutes. The prostitutes are needed to save the marriage; otherwise, the man will start fooling around with other people's wives. It is a social device so that he doesn't get entangled with another's wife -- there are beautiful women available.

 

In India, in the days of Gautam Buddha, it was the tradition that the most beautiful woman in the town was not allowed to be married; she had to become a prostitute. She was called nagabadu: the wife of the whole city -- because she was so beautiful that to be married to one man was going to create jealousies, conflicts, problems. It was better to avoid all those conflicts amongst men, to make her a prostitute -- available for all.

 

In India, every temple had devadasis. Still in South India, there are devadasis. Every family was required, in the past, to donate their most beautiful girl to the temple, to God. In the name of God, those beautiful girls in the temples became prostitutes. First, they were used by the priests; second, they were used by the rich customers -- I mean the rich worshipers. And they were so many that they were available in every price range; even the poorest could afford one. Of course, it would not be so beautiful a woman, but any woman is better than no woman.

 

Even today, just a few days ago, a survey was made in Bombay of all the prostitutes -- thirty percent of them have come from South India, from temples where their parents have dedicated them to God. For the parents, there was an incentive: dedicating her to God was easier than to get a girl married. It is so difficult in India... you have to give so much money, that not all parents can afford it -- just one daughter, and they will have to sell their land, their house, they will become beggars. So it was very easy, and comfortable, convenient, and virtuous, too -- respectable, honorable -- the society honored it.

 

They offered those girls; they still offer those girls to the temples, and the temples are selling those girls to all great cities because now rich worshipers don't come to the temples. It is better to have those girls sold to agents in Bombay, in Calcutta, in New Delhi because politicians will need them, priests will need them, rich people will need them. People who are living far away from their homes, working in cities -- their families are in the villages -- will need them.

 

Thirty percent of the prostitutes in Bombay have come from temples where they were dedicated to God. Every temple in the past was nothing but a sacred facade to hide prostitutes under the name of devadasis. The word means: servants of God.

 

Man has arranged for himself, but he has prohibited the woman.... First, his ego is hurt if his woman falls in love with somebody else. That means he is rejected, that means he is not man enough, that means something is missing in him.

 

And more than that, there is another problem: private property. He has to keep a perfect guard on his woman because he wants his own blood to inherit his property. And if the women are free to have love affairs, then it is very difficult -- almost impossible -- to be certain that your son is really your son. It may be somebody else's son, and he will inherit your property. To protect private property, the woman has to be conditioned that she is monogamous. But it is not true, it is not natural.

 

Whether one is man or woman, everybody needs a change, at least once in a while -- for the weekend. Five days you can both be monogamous; for two days, on the weekend, you can both be polygamous. And what is the worry about the property -- who owns it when you are dead -- whether it is your blood or somebody else's blood? It seems to be an unnecessary worry -- somebody will inherit it.

 

And if you become interested in other women, you should understand that your woman is also human, has the same heart, the same consciousness -- she also likes sometimes to meet a new man. She also gets tired and bored.

 

In the new world, to which I have dedicated my whole life, there should be no marriage -- only lovers. And as long as they are pleased to be together, they can be together; and the moment they feel that they have been together too long, a little change will be good. There is no question of sadness, no question of anger -- just a deep acceptance of nature. And if you have loved a man or a woman, you will love to give the other person as much freedom as possible.

 

If love cannot give freedom, then it is not love.

 

Neelam, you say that, "Sadness in me keeps on coming for a short while and leaving. I give a long rope to the man." Now, the very idea is wrong. Is your man a dog that you give him a long rope?

 

You cannot give freedom -- freedom is everybody's birthright. The very idea, "I'm giving a long rope"... still the rope is in your hand. You are the giver of freedom. You cannot give freedom; you can only accept the freedom of the other person. You cannot keep one end of the rope in your hand, watching the dog pissing on this tree, pissing on that tree.... You think that is freedom? No, the very idea is wrong.

 

The other person has his freedom; you have your freedom. Neither he needs to have one end of the rope in his hand, nor do you have to have it; otherwise, both are chained. His rope is going to be your chains, your rope is going to be his chains. And you think you give enough rope -- you think you are being very generous.

 

Freedom is not something that has to be given to another person. Freedom is something that has to be recognized as the property of the other person.

 

And the freedom of the person you love will not hurt you. It hurts because you don't use your own freedom. It is not his freedom that hurts; what hurts is that you have been incapacitated by centuries of wrong conditioning -- you cannot use your own freedom. Man has taken your whole freedom. That is the real problem. Your freedom has to be returned to you, and it will not hurt; in fact you will enjoy it.

 

Freedom is such a joyful experience. Your lover is enjoying freedom, you are enjoying freedom. In freedom, you meet; in freedom, you depart. And perhaps life may bring you together again. And most probably.... All the researches about love relationships indicate a certain phenomenon which has not been accepted by any society up to now. And even today, when I say these things, I'm condemned all over the world. When your man becomes interested in another woman, it does not mean that he no longer loves you; it simply means just a change of taste.

 

Once in a while, you like to go to Sarjano's pizza place. That does not mean that you have renounced your old food, but once in a while, it is perfectly good. In fact, after visiting Sarjano's place, you go to the canteen more joyously. It takes a few days for you to forget the experience -- then again, one day, the spaghetti. These affairs don't mean much. One cannot live on spaghetti alone.

 

The psychologists are agreed on one point: couples who love each other should have a few love affairs once in a while. Those love affairs will renew their relationship, will refresh it. You will start seeing beauty again in your wife. You may start fantasies, dreams of having your wife again -- that you misunderstood her before; this time you are not going to misunderstand. And the same is true about your husband.

 

In my idea of a commune, people will be absolutely free to say to their partner: "I would like two days holiday. And you are also free; you need not sit in the house and boil." If you want to meditate, that is another thing; otherwise you have been interested in the neighbor's wife too long.... The green grass on the other side of the fence -- you wanted to chew it for so long; now your wife is giving you a chance!

 

You should say, "You are great! Just go for a holiday, and enjoy it. And I'm going to the neighbor's house -- the grass is greener there." But in two days, you will find that the grass is grass, and your own lawn was far better.

 

But an authentic experience is needed, and when after two days, you meet again, it will be the beginning of a new honeymoon. Why not have honeymoons every month? Why be satisfied with one honeymoon in one life? That is strange, and absolutely unnatural. And love is not something bad or evil so that you have to prevent your wife loving somebody else. It is just fun; there is not much to be bothered about. If she wants to play tennis with somebody, let her play! I don't think that making love has more significance than playing tennis. In fact, tennis is far cleaner.

 

Neelam, you say, "I don't expect anything from him. You know me better." I do know you better! I know everybody better. Even in your no-expectations, there are hidden expectations -- unspoken... and they are more subtle, and more binding. Simply, one has to accept a simple fact: your partner is a stranger -- it is just an accident that you are together -- and you never expect anything from outsiders, from strangers.

 

One of the wisest women I have met in my life told me that she makes love only to strangers.

 

I said, "Why? It will be really a difficult thing to find a stranger to make love to."

 

She said, "No -- in trains, in airplanes... I don't even ask their name, and I don't say anything about myself -- we remain strangers, I have made love to them, and we meet the next day in the marketplace: neither I recognize him, nor he.... There is no need -- we enjoyed the moment just out of sheer freedom, no bondage, no commitment."

 

She is a married woman, married to a very rich man in the Philippines, but she rarely goes to the Philippines. She goes on moving around the world, finding strangers. She says, "Once in a while, I go to the Philippines. My husband himself becomes by that time a stranger, and I love him. But the moment I feel that I am falling into the trap of relationship, I rush out -- again, on the road."

 

I can see something tremendously deep in her insight. Love as much as you can. Never think of the next moment; and if your lover goes somewhere else, you are also free. And don't deceive yourself: can any woman say that while she is in love with one person, she does not get attracted to other people? Maybe it is a very repressed desire, maybe she never allows it to surface; but it is impossible not to, because there are so many beautiful people around. You have chosen only one stranger amongst many strangers.

 

Keep freedom as a higher value than love itself. And if it is possible -- and it is possible because it is natural -- your life will not be a misery, it will be a continuous excitement, a continuous exploration of new human beings. We are all strangers: nobody is a husband, nobody is a wife. Some idiot registrar cannot -- just by putting his seal -- make you a husband and wife. And once that idiot has put the seal, if you want to separate, you have to go to another idiot -- bigger idiots -- and wait for months or years to be separated. Strange! -- it is your private affair; no business of any registrar, no business of any judge. Why do you go on giving your freedom into the hands of others?

 

Neelam, you say, "My friends say I make myself so available that I let the man take me for granted, and I lose my self-respect." Your friends don't understand a thing -- and they are not your friends either because their advice is that of enemies.

 

One should make oneself absolutely available. Your friends are telling you that when your man wants to make love to you, one day say you are having a headache; another day, you are too tired; the third day, you are not in the mood... so keep the man hanging around. Don't give that much rope -- just a little rope, and a beautiful bell around his neck with your name written on it, saying, "Beware, personal property." What do you mean by "availability?" You should be available to the person you love, and if once in a while he feels to change -- enjoy. And let him go joyously. That will bring self-respect to you, and dignity.

 

A divorced woman, frustrated with married life, ran an ad in the local newspaper that read, "Looking for a man who won't beat me, who won't run around on me, and who is a fantastic lover."

 

After one week, her doorbell rings. She goes to the door, opens it, and sees no one there. She closes the door, and is about to walk away when the bell rings again.

 

Opening the door once again, she sees no one there, but happens to look down and notices a man with no arms and no legs sitting on the doorstep.

 

"I'm here to answer your ad," he says.

 

The woman does not know quite what to do, what to say.

 

So the man continues, "As you can see, I can't beat you, and it will be impossible for me to run around on you."

 

"Yes, I can see that," said the woman, "but the ad also said I wanted a `fantastic lover'."

 

The man smiles and says, "I rang the doorbell, didn't I?"

 

Okay, Maneesha?

 

Yes, Osho.

 

-Osho, “The Golden Future, #32, Q3”