Confucian in office, Taoist out of office

 

 

Question 4 :

This is a marxist, a christian theologian's question -- so many diseases together!

In traditional china there was a saying, 'Confucian in office, Taoist out of office.' this represented a deep division and dilemma in chinese society, perhaps all societies. Can there be an enlightened society which does not teach the way of the ego? Or is society by nature of its very ordered and patterned reality of the calculating and repressive collective mind or ego; is society, even that of enlightened individuals or would-be enlightened individuals, by its very nature, opposed to enlightenment?

 

 

First, the old saying is perfectly beautiful: A Taoist out of office, and a Confucian in the office. When you live with people, you have to follow certain rules. Those rules have no ultimacy about them; they are rules of a game. For example: if you walk on the road you have to walk to the right or to the left, as the society has decided. If you start walking anywhere, you will be in trouble and you will create trouble for others. Keeping to the left is not something ultimate; it is utilitarian, it has use. It is not that God has commanded you to walk to the left; because in America they go on keeping to the right. Whether you keep to the right or to the left does not matter; but you have to keep to either the right or left.

 

A rule has to exist because there are so many persons. If you are alone on the road, then there is no problem. If you have a private road where you walk alone, it is up to you. There is no need to keep to the left, because then that would be an obsession, foolish. Then you can walk in the middle of the road, or whatsoever you like you can do. In your privacy there should be no rules. One should live a life of total freedom -- that is what Lao Tzu is. But where there are others your freedom can become a chaos, and chaos is not freedom. Where others are involved you have to follow certain rules. There is no need to get obsessed about them. There are people who get obsessed about rules.

 

I used to stay in Calcutta in one friend's house. He is a Justice of the High Court. His wife told me once when he was not at home,'My husband follows you, reads you, loves you tremendously. It will be great compassion on me if you can tell him one thing to do.' I asked,'What is that one thing?' The woman said,'Tell him not to be a Justice in the bed. Even in the bed he remains a High Court Justice; he never comes out of the role.'

 

It is good to be a Justice in the court. It would be as wrong to be a husband in the court, as wrong as to be a Justice in the bed. In the court one has to be a Justice: this is what Confucianism means.

 

Confucius thinks about the relationship between people, the society, the world: etiquette, manners, the law. Confucius is like Moses or Manu: the law-giver. Lao Tzu brings love, freedom to the world. And it is good to move in these two polarities. Don't think that they divide you. They don't divide you. In fact, they give you more freedom, more flow, more possibilities, because if you remain Taoist, then you will have to move to the Himalayas some day or other. You cannot live in the society because wherever you go, there will be trouble. Either you will have to go to the Himalayas, or people will crucify you. That's what happened to Jesus.

 

One Christian bishop was saying to me, 'Wherever Jesus went there was revolution, but wherever I go people serve tea!' Jesus was dangerous.

 

The proverb is of a very deep wisdom: there is no need to be continuously creating revolution wherever you go; there is no need to be constantly forcing people to make a cross for you. It will be wiser, sometimes it is good, if tea is served. To be an obsessed revolutionary is a disease. And to bring etiquette and manners back home so that you cannot even relax in your bathroom, that too is obsession.

 

The proverb is perfectly beautiful. I approve of it totally. Be a Confucian in the world, and in your innermost world be a Taoist, a follower of Lao Tzu. And there is no division! There is nothing wrong with it. You simply have a fluidity: when the other comes you follow the rules, because with the other, rules come; when you are alone there is no need for any rules. Without the other, rules disappear. In your aloneness you are totally free, but whenever you are with somebody else you have a responsibility. The other is there and you have to be careful. That is part of love: to care about the other. So I don't see any dichotomy, and I don't see any dilemma. The dilemma is created if you have not understood the point. If you understand the point, there is no dilemma.

 

And the second thing: 'Is society, even that of enlightened individuals or would-be enlightened individuals. by its very nature opposed to enlightenment?'

 

Yes, society, by its very nature, is opposed to enlightenment, because enlightenment is basically individual. It happens in your aloneness. When you are absolutely alone, only then does it happen. The other functions as a barrier. The society is opposed to enlightenment and will always remain opposed, because the society is an organization. The society, even if it calls itself revolutionary, cannot be revolutionary. All societies are traditional, even the society of Mao. It may be a new tradition, that's all, but it is a tradition. The Russian society now is as traditional as any society.

 

Society cannot be revolutionary because the society has to settle, it has to have some type of establishment, it has to follow certain rules. Only the individual can be purely, innocently revolutionary, rebellious. There is no need for any organization and any structure. But once there is the other, organization comes in. Society can never be for enlightenment, because people who become enlightened go, in a certain way, beyond the society. They go beyond the rules; they start living their freedom. That will not happen if you follow the Chinese proverb. Then, the society will not be against enlightenment. It may not be for it, but it will not be against.

 

If you move in the world and follow the rules there, and in your aloneness you go into the unknown, then there is no problem. The problem arises when just in the middle of the road you start meditating, or you start dancing. Nothing is wrong with dancing; you have just chosen a wrong place. Dancing is perfectly good, but choose a right place for it. There is a right time and a right place for everything. Don't just stand in the middle of the road and create a nuisance. If one understands the proverb, there will be no trouble.

 

But society itself can never be for enlightenment, because enlightenment is basically individual. It happens to the individual, never to the society. You become enlightened, not the group, not the society. In fact, society is just a name for the collectivity, for the collective of individuals. There is no 'soul of society'; the soul is individual. The society is just the arrangement -- superficial. It is needed, necessary, but it is a necessary evil; it has to be tolerated. But society does not bother about whether you become enlightened or not. For society, Confucius is enough. For the individual, Confucius is not enough, Lao Tzu is needed. For society, Moses is enough. For the individual, Moses is not enough -- maybe necessary, but not enough -- Jesus is needed. And once you understand, you can create an inner synthesis of the two, and there is no problem.

 

In the TALMUD is said one of the most beautiful sentences ever uttered: One man outweighs all creation. Not only society, not only this earth, but,'One man outweighs ALL creation.' This is true, because one man can become a vehicle for the divine. One man can become the opportunity for God to exist, to be present, for God to express Himself. One man can become the flowering of the ultimate. The society is utilitarian; one man outweighs all creation.

 

There is another sentence in the TALMUD: Wherever you come across a footprint of man, God stands before you: bow down. Wherever you come across a footprint, God stands before you -- the possibility. Society is just a structure with no soul. The soul is of the individual. One individual outweighs all societies. And, one individual's revolution outweighs all revolutions in the whole of history, because one man can become the womb for God to be reborn.

 

- Osho, "Come Follow To You, Vol 4, #4, Q4"