Only a meditator can be a lover

Question 1:

Anand Nadam, I have been looking at your questions. It seems your mind is consistently searching for some contradiction in my statements. Perhaps you are not even aware of it. And because you are so preoccupied that you cannot even see when there is no contradiction, you start seeing one just because you want to see it.

It is one of the problems with the mind: whatever it wants to see, it can manage to see it; whether it exists or not is not the point. The mind has a tremendously creative imagination. And once it takes a certain standpoint it goes on finding things which have no existence anywhere, but to the mind they appear absolutely real.

Before I answer your question, you have to be reminded that your being a disciple does not mean that you have to agree with me on anything whatsoever, except meditation. Our relationship is only of meditation and nothing else. I am not proposing a doctrine to which you have to subscribe.

Neither am I proposing a religion that you have to become a member of; I am not working to create an organization that you have to be a part of.

You don't have to agree with me on anything - any of my statements. I am not in search of followers; I don't have that kind of investment at all. You are absolutely free to agree or disagree, or remain indifferent. Only on one point are you here with me, and the day you feel disagreement on that point you need not be here at all. That point is meditation.

Meditation is not philosophy, it is not theology. It is simply a method of being silent, a method of searching within. If you even disagree on that point, and you say that there is no within and that there is no need to search, that there is no question of going in, I am not at all interested in convincing you. I am not a missionary.

At that point you are absolutely free to go anywhere, to do anything you like with all my blessings, with all my love. Other than meditation, you need not worry about whether I have said something which is not right according to you or according to your knowledge.

For example, you had another question today. A few days before, I had answered a question about why Indian women seem to be so graceful compared with Western women. I had said that the Western woman was just as graceful as the Eastern woman before this century. But in the West, deep research into the science of sex has revealed many new things of which women have been unaware, or perhaps have been kept unaware by man.

One of the most significant findings was that women have a capacity of multiple orgasm. A man has the capacity of only a single orgasm. The difference is so great that once a woman knows what orgasm is, no man can satisfy her.

Perhaps that is the reason why for centuries the woman has not been allowed to have even a single orgasmic experience. It was easy to avoid it, because the woman has no vaginal orgasm; hence she can produce children without orgasm. Man can make love to a woman and yet prevent the orgasmic experience happening to her.

She has a totally different organ, the clitoris, which has nothing to do with making love. It is a separate growth. So one can become a mother of a dozen children and not know at all the experience of sexual climax, because the vagina is absolutely insensitive. It has to be insensitive for the simple reason that the child has to be born - if the vagina was sensitive, childbirth would be an absolutely unbearable pain. Even though the vagina is not sensitive, childbirth is still a great pain.

It is natural and very logical and scientific that the vagina should be insensitive, so that when the child is born the woman is not in much pain. The pain depends on your sensitive organs. The vagina is a blind spot; on the body you have many blind spots. You will be surprised to know that inside your skull where the brain is placed, it is absolutely insensitive. One would never have thought that the brain is our most significant organ and it is in a place, inside the skull, which is absolutely insensitive.

It was found in the first world war that a man got shot in his head, and by some mistake the bullet was never removed from his head. The wound healed and the bullet remained inside his skull. And he was not even aware that he was carrying a bullet in his brain. It was only because he was suffering from migraine - he again and again reported about having migraines and no medicine was working.

Finally, some doctor thought about having him x-rayed, because he saw the wound that had healed - perhaps the migraine had something to do with the wound. And when they x-rayed him, they could not believe their eyes: there was a bullet inside the brain. The skull was opened up again and the bullet was taken out, and the migraine disappeared. But the man had no sensitivity to the bullet.

After that, many experiments proved that this too is part of nature"s great strategy. Because mind has seven hundred centers which control everything in your body, if the inside of your skull was sensitive, life would become impossible. Just any small thing happens in the body and you would be troubled, because the mind would go into a turmoil - you would become sensitive to it.

So much is happening inside of which you are not aware. And it is for your sake that you are not allowed to be aware. When you eat, as the food passes down your throat, you don't know how it is digested, how it is transformed into its basic elements. You don't know how it is changed into blood, into bones, into nerves, into brain cells - into a thousand and one things that are needed by the body.

If you were aware of all this continuously, life would be impossible. You would be so occupied continuously - so much information inside would be coming to the brain - that you would not be able to live in the outside world at all.

For centuries man was not aware that blood circulates. In the old scriptures on medicine - East, West, both - it is depicted that the body is filled with blood, but nowhere is it mentioned that it is in constant circulation. The blood that is in my feet, by the time I have finished the sentence, will have gone around my whole body. It will have passed through my brain and back to my feet; with such great speed the blood is continuously moving. If we were aware of this movement, it would be a great nuisance.

Once in a while, sitting in one posture, your legs start feeling pins and needles because the blood is being stopped. It starts making you aware that the circulation is being hampered and obstructed, and if you don't listen to it, then your legs go dead. The circulation has stopped. Suddenly you find you have no control over your own legs. The control was in the circulation of the blood; that was your control. Just sixty years before, just in the beginning of this century, man became aware that not only is the body filled with blood, the blood circulates.

For thousands of years, man has believed that the woman has a vaginal orgasm. It was believed all over the world. There was no way of checking it, and perhaps man never wanted to explore the fact, because if the woman becomes aware that she has a separate organ for having orgasm, she becomes free of man. It is part of her slavery to keep the idea floating in her mind that there is only vaginal orgasm.

So when, in the beginning of this century, the function of the clitoris was discovered, it was a tremendous boost to the women"s liberation movement - because the woman became aware, in the West, that for sexual pleasure she does not have to be dependent on men; that basic slavery is not a necessity anymore.

I had said that day that the woman has no vaginal orgasm. Anand Nadam has asked today, "There are scientific researchers who say that the woman has a point in her vagina called the G-point, which is sensitive and which has the capacity of orgasm."

It is not something new. For almost this whole century, since the function of the clitoris has been discovered, even a man like Sigmund Freud continued to say that the woman may have clitoral orgasm, but that it is not important - the important orgasm is vaginal. He could not deny the clitoris, but he could not deny the vaginal orgasm either.

And since then there have been researchers who have insisted that the woman has two sensitive organs for having sexual orgasm. But the greatest researchers have found that the vagina cannot have this sensitivity by its very nature, because it is going to be used in giving birth to children. It cannot have any sensitive part which can give orgasmic pleasure; then giving birth to the child would not be painful, it would be great pleasure, which even a man cannot give to a woman by making love.

The birth of a child would be such a tremendous orgasmic pleasure.

The reality is: there is no vaginal orgasm.

But why do a few scientists go on insisting on it? Now they have started talking about some imaginary G-point. It is absolutely absurd, according to me, because it goes against the very nature.

Childbirth prevents the vagina from having any sensitive point, and particularly an orgasmic point.

But why do these few researchers go on insisting, again and again? The reason is that these are male chauvinists. Just being a scientist does not mean that you have gone beyond your male chauvinistic ideas. They still want to emphasize the fact that for sexual pleasure the woman is dependent on the man. This is possible only if there is that imaginary G-point.

Now, Nadam had asked in the question, "What do you say about the G-point?" I am not a scientist.

I am not a sex researcher. This is not my business.

My logic was simple and natural. I have looked at both the researches and I agree with those who say that the woman has only clitoral orgasm. It seems to me that these people are more authentic, more sincere. They are more interested in the truth than in the supremacy of man over woman. And I am absolutely against any supremacy, either of man or woman. They are both unique, and both are independent.

Nobody is dependent for his or her pleasure on the other. If they share, it is beautiful. If they don't want to share, they are both independent. Man can have sexual orgasm without a woman, but he is not ready to allow the woman to have the sexual orgasm without him.

I am simply making a logical point; I have no vested interest in the woman having a G-point or an X-point - she can have the whole alphabet! It is not my interest at all. But I can see the cunningness of a few people who are even scientists, but their mind and their approach is not scientific, it is not logical - it does not convince me.

But I am not emphasizing the fact that you have to be in agreement with me. You are absolutely free.

I have simply expressed my opinion; I am only expressing my opinions. These are not dogmas.

And this has to be remembered in every reference, that I am simply an observer - a very objective witness. I have no leanings, no prejudices, no preconceived ideas to support or not to support.

I am not party to any ideology.

I am an absolutely free thinker.

So whatever I feel is logically sound, I will say it. If it goes against your prejudice, against your preconceived opinion, you are not supposed to agree with me. You can keep your opinion, you can keep your prejudice, but remember that you are not being logical, you are not being intelligent.

The same is the situation in this question. You are saying, "I have heard you say that the friend will not change a person, but that the enemy will. Another time I heard you say that love will change both."

In your mind you think you have made your point - that both my statements are contradictory, because I have said "The friend cannot change you" and then I say "Love can change both." And friendship is, of course, an experience of love.

But you have forgotten the context in which I had made the statements. I had said the friend will not change you but the enemy will, in the context that you have to fight with the enemy, and when you have to fight with someone, you have to use the same methods as the enemy.

If America is going to fight with Russia, they both have to go on creating nuclear weapons. You have to watch the enemy continuously, what he is doing. India continuously watches Pakistan - what, and how many weapons they are purchasing, and from which country. And immediately India goes to purchase the same weapons from some other country. You have to keep your eye continuously on the enemy. And you have to use the same strategy, the same method, the same language as the enemy.

The enemy changes you without your knowledge; he brings you down to his own level. With a friend, the situation is totally different. You are not fighting with the friend. You can be a friend of Gautam Buddha; then, too, it is not necessary that you will become a Gautam Buddha. But become an enemy of anybody, and you will see that by and by you have become his imitation - you have to, just to survive.

In that context I had said that one should choose one"s enemy very carefully. Choose an enemy who is higher than you, so that even your enmity becomes a growth - you have to be higher than you are to face your enemy. Don't choose an enemy who is lower than you.

For friends, you can choose anybody; it is not that important. But the enemy is very important. This was the context ... that one should choose great enemies because that gives you a great opportunity to grow. You should never choose enemies below your status; otherwise they will pull you down to their state, or even lower.

And when I made the second statement, it was in a different context. When I said love will change both ... When you are in love - it is a very rare case ... what you call friendship is not more than acquaintance. Are you ready to die for your friend? What can you do for your friend? Your friendship may be nothing but a familiarity, perhaps a coincidence that you have been born in the same neighborhood, or perhaps the coincidence that you have been in the same class.

How deep is your friendship? How much can you sacrifice for the friend? And if the friend is in misery, can you share misery with him? Or is the friendship only of happy days? This is a well- known fact: when you are rich you have many friends, and when you are poor, all friends turn their backs towards you.

I used to live in a house for many years with a man who loved me not unconditionally. He had a vested interest in me. My presence in his house was making him prestigious, respectable. Hundreds of people were coming there from all over the country to see me, to meet me. And he enjoyed that.

He also enjoyed that his children were becoming acquainted with great politicians, saints, poets. He was also becoming familiar with the well-known people of the country.

But he had a strange habit, and that was that he did not have a single friend in the whole city. He never even talked with the neighbors. His servants, his gardeners - he had never talked to them; he would simply go past, looking straight ahead, and with such a long face that no servant had the courage even to say,"Good morning, sir" to him.

I asked him, "What is the matter? Why are you so cold and so inhuman? And particularly towards these poor people who work for you in your garden, in your house - your cook ..."

He said, "My experience is that the moment you become friendly with the servants they start taking advantage of you. Then somebody"s mother is sick and he needs some money, some advance.

Somebody"s father has died, somebody is going to be married .... As far as I am concerned," he told me, "nobody"s mother has ever died, nobody"s father has ever died, nobody has ever been married, because they cannot even talk to me - I don't even look at them. I don't accept them as human beings. The moment you start accepting them as human beings they start taking advantage of you.

I have learned it from my childhood not to have friends, because they are all going to be friends to you because you are rich."

I said, "This is very strange. That means you are living a very poor life, without friends ... and I don't think you have ever loved anybody." I had never seen him even talking to his wife, or sitting with her in the garden, or going anywhere with her - to a movie or to the circus or any social gathering. The same reason: the moment you are too friendly with your wife, she starts asking that she needs this, she needs that. Her hands are immediately in your pockets, and you don't want anybody"s hands in your pockets.

What are your friends? Even the people you think you are in love with .... What is your love? Just a biological urge, or something more? Is there anything more than the physical body? Have you ever thought of the spiritual being of the other person?

I have heard .... A woman was asking a man before they were going to get married ... they were in great love. People are always in great love before marriage; I have never seen anybody who is not in great love! A small love does not exist, only great love. But it exists only for a few days.

They were both in great love and the woman asked, "Tomorrow we are going to get married. One question has been continuously in my mind - will you always love me?"

Always? The man thought for a moment and he said, "As far as I can think, just one thing has to be clarified - that in your old age you won"t start looking like your mother. That is the only fear. If you start looking like your mother, I cannot love you. Things have to be made clear, plain, right now. I will love you if you will remain just as you are."

Naturally, nobody can remain, everybody has to become old. The woman who is very beautiful today, tomorrow may become blind. The man who is very strong and beautiful today, tomorrow may become a cripple, may have an accident - everything is possible. Is your love ready for the unknown future? Or is it only for this moment, for this person? Youth is fleeting.

This is not love according to me. The love I have been talking about is a communion between two souls. It is not biological, it is not physiological. It is something spiritual. And unless it is spiritual, it is meaningless. A spiritual love certainly transforms both the people who are in that communion; it is the greatest alchemy for transformation.

So there is no contradiction in my statements.

Sandy McTavish was sitting weeping at his fireside. "Eh, Sandy," said a neighbor, "what"s troubling you, man?"

"Oh dear, oh dear!" sobbed Sandy. "Donald McPherson"s wife is dead."

"Oh well," said the neighbor, "what of that? She"s no relation of yours."

"I know," wailed Sandy, "I know, but it just seems as if everybody is getting a change but me!"

This is your love. Husbands are hoping that if their wives were dead, then another chance .... Wives are waiting: if their husbands are chosen by God, then perhaps they have a chance again. This time everything got messed up; next time they will take a more experienced step.

Just today, because I have been hitting continuously on Latifa and her great boyfriend, Dhyan Om, finally - even in her German mind - something clicked. And although Dhyan Om calls himself not an ordinary nut, but a coconut, something clicked in his mind also. Because what I was saying was so clear to everybody except these two persons. In the whole of Lao Tzu House everybody was worried what to do, because they are suffering so terribly just by being together. Whenever they are away from each other, they look happy, they look healthy. The moment they see each other ...

finished, everything is finished! And they are living in the same room.

And I have been hitting continuously, hoping that some day, some understanding may arise in them; if you cannot be happy together, then at least show this much love to each other - to separate. This is kindness, gratitude.

You are both suffering. It is not only one person suffering, both are unhappy. But both are clinging with each other. And finally today, they both agreed, "It is true, we cannot deny it, that we are happy when we are away from each other and we become unhappy, very unhappy, when we are together.

And it is time that we should separate."

It was a great understanding. I was not expecting that it was going to happen so soon, because one is a German, another is a nut! What hope is there?

And you can see what I mean. Now they decide to separate and immediately - he does not lose a single moment - he rushes to the market to purchase a beautiful, costly saree, and presents it to Shunyo. They had not yet separated, and he had started making pathways .... Stupidity seems to have no limits. He could have enjoyed at least a day or two.

But one becomes so accustomed to suffering. And Shunyo ... he must have calculated that a German and an English woman are born enemies. So from a German it is better to move to an English woman. He has suffered enough with the German; perhaps there is some hope with an English woman. But he does not know that Shunyo already has a great lover. That poor fellow is taking care of my garden, and this coconut goes and presents a saree to his woman! Once he hears it, or comes to see that saree, Dhyan Om will be in more difficulty than he has ever been. Because he is a dangerous man. Dhyan Om has fallen into a greater and more dangerous ditch.

But I have heard that Shunyo was telling people, "How beautiful this Om is. Poor fellow, he is going through such torture with this Latifa, and even in this state of torture he remembers me and he goes and brings a very costly present for me." Now Shunyo cannot see what is happening to Latifa, but Dhyan Om becomes a poor fellow.

Our minds work in such a way that they always lead us into difficulties. And people cannot learn from experience. Neither has Dhyan Om learned anything. And Shunyo - they are all neighbors - knows perfectly well that he is a difficult guy. But just because of a present - and that too in such a situation, when he is going to separate - he becomes a poor fellow; she has great compassion for him. She should have told him, "Give this saree to Latifa as a present for all the suffering that she has gone through with you." That would have been the right thing to do.

And wait for a few days before you start another game, another misery, another trouble. Just rest a little. Even before he has got down from one boat, he has put his foot into another boat ... not to miss a single moment of misery.

Our love is simply an escape from ourselves. We cannot be with ourselves. And you are asking, Nadam, what I mean by love. I certainly don't mean anything that you will find happening in the world.

I mean by love a sharing of the hearts.

But first you should find your heart.

I mean a sharing of beings. But first you should meditate deeply and go into the secretmost chambers of your being, so that you have joy and bliss to share in abundance.

Your love is not to share something but just to escape from yourself so that you can be involved with somebody else. Your love is against meditation.

My love is a flower of meditation.

It is a blossoming of meditation.

Only a meditator can be a lover.

And your love is a cowardly escape. You cannot be alone. You are so afraid of yourself when you are left alone, that the moment someone leaves you, you immediately rush to anybody who is close by.

Now poor Shunyo was close by ... he had not even gone a little further, to Krishna House or Jesus House. Here, just in Lao Tzu House, immediately ... and not even bothering that she is already in love with someone.

It is not good to interfere. It is not gentlemanly. It is not in any way compassionate to interfere with two persons" love. You are being very cruel, very selfish. And the ugliness of the whole phenomenon ....

Love is one of the most precious experiences, but before you can love someone, you have to find yourself; otherwise, who is going to love? You don't know anything about yourself. You are absolutely unconscious. In this unconsciousness, whatever you do is going to be wrong.

The old bull, all drooped over, was standing in the pasture with all the cows. The farmer turned a young bull loose in the field. He got busy immediately with one cow after the other. The old bull started pawing the ground with his right foot.

"You needn"t do that," said the farmer, "because you can"t do anything about it now."

"That"s right," said the old bull, "but I can let that young one know that I ain"t a cow, can"t I?"

People are no better.

Their unconsciousness is as deep as the animals"; there is nothing different. In unconsciousness, we are animals. Only in our consciousness do we rise above animals. The more consciousness we have, the more we are beyond animals. And love is an experience beyond our animalhood. But what we know as love is nothing but our animalness.

Hymie Goldberg and his friend, Rosen, were coming home late at night after a club party.

"I"m always afraid when I return home late like this," said Hymie. "I shut off the engine of my car half a mile away, and coast quietly into the garage. I take off my shoes and sneak into the house. I am as quiet as possible, but as soon as I settle down into bed my wife sits up and starts screaming at me."

"You just have the wrong technique," said Rosen. "I never have any trouble. I barge into the garage, slam the door, stomp into the house, and make a hell of a racket. I go into the bedroom, pat my wife and say, "How about it, kid?" She always pretends to be asleep!"

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Osho.