A more human technology

Question 1:

Dhyan Tara, it is one of the most complicated questions.... It is true that, "by using modern technology we are hurting this vibrating, juicy earth with the dead garbage of plastic, radioactivity, bad air and so on."

This question has two possible answers. One is that of Mahatma Gandhi: "Go back... to the point where all modern technology is dropped" - which superficially looks right. If modern technology is creating an ecological crisis on the earth, disturbing the balance of nature, then it is a very simplistic solution to drop modern technology and go back.

But you have to understand that in Gautam Buddha's time, just twenty-five centuries ago, this country only had twenty million people. The earth was enough to support them. Today, this country alone has nine hundred million people. If you want to go back to the days of Gautam Buddha, you will have to kill or allow to die such a large part of the population. And when only twenty million people are saved, and the remainder of the nine hundred million people are lying dead all around you - do you think those twenty million will be able to live either?

And the population goes on increasing.... By the end of this century, the population of India may have increased by half again. That means it would be one billion, three-hundred million people - from nearly nine-hundred to thirteen-hundred million people.

That is why I have been disagreeing with Mahatma Gandhi on every point. He talks about nonviolence - but this is not nonviolence; nothing can be more violent a step than this. No war has destroyed so many people as will be destroyed without any war. And it is impossible to live amongst dead bodies piled all around you. There will be nobody to take them to the funeral or to take them to the graveyard. So many people dying at such a rate is going to kill the remaining twenty million people too; their rotting bodies will create thousands of diseases, infections.

Mahatma Gandhi used to think that we should stop technology at the point where the spinning wheel was invented. The spinning wheel was invented somewhere around ten thousand years ago or even earlier. The people were so few and the earth was so big... the earth was giving so much that those people could not even absorb it all; most of it was going to waste.

So this is one solution, which came to Mahatma Gandhi from Leo Tolstoy - he was also against modern technology. But I cannot support it, because it means no railway trains, no hospitals, no surgery, no medicine, no post offices, no telegraphs, no telegrams, no telexes, no electricity; and all these have become part of your life. You cannot conceive of yourself without electricity!

There was just one failure of electricity in America. For three days people were in such a panic, because the elevators were not working and to go by the stairs in a high-rise building - perhaps one hundred stories, one hundred and twenty stories - just coming down and going up was enough to finish anybody. People became aware for the first time, in those three days in New York, that now there is no possibility of dropping technology.

I have another alternative. It is not the fault of modern technology; the fault is that we have not been very clear what we want from modern technology and what we don't want. The scientist has been discovering almost in a blind way, and whatever he discovers we start using - without thinking of the aftereffects.

Going back is impossible and idiotic, the only way is forward. We need a better technology - better than modern technology, which can avoid plastic garbage and disturbance in the ecology. The scientist has to be very alert that whatever he is doing should become an intrinsic part of the organic whole; technology should not go against the whole. And it is possible, because technology does not lead you somewhere in particular; it is you who go on discovering things in a blind way.

Now that it is clear that whatever we have discovered up to now, much of it is a disturbance in the harmony - is finally going to destroy life on the earth - still, scientists go on piling up nuclear weapons. They don't have the guts to say to the politicians, "It is enough. We are not slaves. We cannot create anything that is going to destroy life."

All the scientists of the world have to come to a consensus: they have to make a world academy of sciences, which decides what should be discovered and what should not be discovered. If something wrong is discovered, it should be undiscovered immediately.

We need a superior technology, a more enlightened technology. There, I part from Mahatma Gandhi, who goes backwards - where there is nothing but death. I go forwards. Technology is in our hands; we are not in the hands of technology. We can drop all those parts which are dangerous, poisonous, and we can discover substitutes which enhance the ecology, which enhance the life of man, which enhance his outer and inner richness and bring a balance into the world.

But I don't see anybody in the whole world preaching for a more sophisticated, more enlightened technology. Sometimes I wonder: millions of people, thousands of great scientists - are they all blind? Can't they see what they are doing is cutting their own roots?

And if technology can manage to do miracles - it has managed on the path of destructiveness, it can also manage miracles on the path of creativeness. All that has been discovered, if it is a disturbance to nature, should be dropped. But I don't see that electricity is a danger to nature; I don't see that railway lines or airplanes are disturbing the ecology; I don't see that innocent telegrams, post offices, have to be destroyed. That will be moving to the other extreme.

That is how the human mind works: it works like the pendulum of a clock, from one end to the other end. It never stops in the middle. I want human consciousness to stop exactly in the middle, so that it can see both sides. Certainly, destructiveness cannot be supported; and the energy that goes into creating destructive things has to be converted into creativity.

But Mahatma Gandhi is not the way. His ideology will prove more dangerous than modern technology has proved. Modern technology may still take hundreds of years to destroy everything.

If we follow Mahatma Gandhi, within a day everything that we have achieved in thousands of years will be destroyed.

You could not have cold and hot water in your bathrooms - that depends on modern technology.

It is true that it has polluted the air, but that is our fault, not the fault of modern technology. If we had insisted that petrol should be refined to such a point that it did not pollute the air, and that there should be devices which went on every car, to purify the air of whatever damage the petrol was doing, so the balance remained the same.... but it was, in a way, natural. You know something only when it has happened.

Nobody was aware that going to the moon was creating dangerous holes in the protective shield around the earth. There is a subtle, invisible layer of ozone twenty miles above the earth, all around it. This ozone layer has been protective. It does not allow all the rays of the sun to enter; it allows only the rays which are helpful for life, for trees, for human beings - and the destructive rays are turned back. But nobody was aware of it, so nobody can be blamed for it.

When our first rockets went beyond the twenty-mile thick atmosphere, they created holes in the ozone layer; and from those holes, the protective layers disappeared. Now the all the rays of the sun can enter through those holes, and they have brought many diseases which have not been known before.

But now we can make arrangements if we want to go to the moon. In the first place, it is lunatic; only people who are in some way mad want to go to the moon. For what? - there is neither water nor greenery nor air to breathe. What is the point of it all? Perhaps military experts may be the only ones who are deeply interested in acquiring the moon - because then the moon can be made a base for throwing nuclear weapons at the Soviet Union, if America gets hold of the moon, or if the Soviet Union gets hold of the moon, it becomes their territory.

But even if you want to go to the moon, you should be careful not to create these holes; and if you are creating them, you should immediately make arrangements that they are covered again, so destructive rays from the sun cannot reach the earth.

One thing has to be remembered, Tara: man can only go forward; there is no way backward. And there is no point, either. It is just people's imagination that in the past, when there was no technology, everything was beautiful and good. That is absolutely wrong. I will give you a few examples.

Hindus brag very much that in the golden old days, people were so rich that locks were never used on the doors. Yes, it is mentioned in the scriptures that locks were not used. But it does not say that people were so rich and there was no stealing around - hence, locks were not used. My conclusion is just the opposite: locks were not invented yet, so how could they use them? Secondly, people were very poor; there was nothing to lock up.

And if somebody says that people were rich and there were no locks and there was no stealing, then they should look again into all the scriptures of the past. Gautam Buddha, every day for forty-two years continually, was teaching that stealing is evil. I wonder whom he was teaching? If there was no stealing happening - even locks were not needed - then he must have been mad, talking to people who have never stolen and who were not going to steal, they were themselves so rich. Then why did he go on, every day?

And it was not only Gautam Buddha; Mahavira went on doing the same, and other scriptures and other masters of the past all insisted that stealing was a sin. That is enough proof that there were thieves all around. So the only possible way to explain why locks were not used is mine: because locks were not invented yet.

Locks are also part of technology. If you go to an aboriginal society living in the forest they don't use locks, because they cannot create locks and they are not rich enough even to purchase locks from the cities. And for what? - because they don't have anything in their houses. If they can get one meal a day, that is a great blessing from God. Most of them don't get even one meal a day.

Technology should not be looked at only negatively. In India, just before this century, nine children used to die out of ten. Today, the situation has reversed: only one child dies out of ten, because of the advancement of medicine. The clothes you are wearing... soon it will be impossible to provide cotton clothes for everybody - and there is no need either: better clothes can be produced by technology. Just as a symbol of my philosophy, I never use anything that is cotton. My clothes are pure productions of technology - one hundred percent polyester.

Technology can create better houses, lighter houses and more beautiful; there is no need to use heavy material, costly material. Technology is bound to create better food, more proportionate, giving you all the vitamins that are needed and giving you a better taste, too - now plants are not so scientific. Any flavor can be given to your food. There is no need for people to eat meat just for taste, because any food can be given the flavor of meat.

Technology has a better side also; but if you drop all modern technology, you will be falling into the dark ages, and it will be the greatest violence on the earth, preached by the man who thought that his philosophy was nonviolent.

But something has to be done. Up to now, technology has been just groping. Now we can give it a direction; and we can drop all those things which are destructive of ecology, harmony, nature, life.

I am all for technology - but a better technology, a more human technology.

Question 2:

Dharma Priya, it is difficult but not impossible. Just a little understanding is needed.

A few basic truths have to be recognized. One is that nobody is born for another. The second is that nobody is here to fulfill your ideals of how he should be. The third is that you are master of your own love, and you can give as much as you want - but you cannot demand love from the other person, because nobody is a slave.

If these simple facts are understood, then it does not matter whether you are married or unmarried, you can be together - allowing space to each other, never interfering in each other's individuality.

In fact, marriage is an out-of-date institution.

In the first place, to live in any institution is not good. Any institution is destructive. Marriage has destroyed almost all possibilities of happiness for millions of people - and all for useless things. In the first place, marriage, the very ritual of marriage, is bogus.

I used to work in a university. One of my colleagues, a professor of psychology, was continuously tortured by his wife. It is very difficult to find a couple who are not tortured; and strangely enough, the wife tortures the man. It has a long history behind it - because man has reduced the woman to a slave, she is taking every opportunity to take revenge. It is all unconscious.

That woman was really a monster - she used to beat the poor fellow. One day he came to me and he said, "You are the only person whom I can tell and trust that you will not say anything to anybody else."

I said, "I promise."

He said, "My wife beats me."

I said, "This is not a secret!"

In some way or other, every wife beats the husband. It may not be physical, but to beat psychologically is more dangerous and more harmful.

But the woman cannot be held responsible for it; for centuries she has been tortured, killed, beaten, buried alive - and all that has accumulated in her unconscious. The nearest man is the husband, so any excuse and she starts creating trouble. The husbands don't want the neighbors to know; and wives know the weakness, so screaming is one of their methods - throwing things, shouting - so the whole neighborhood knows. And the husband has to compromise immediately, because it is a question of his respectability.

So I told the professor, "Don't you be worried - they all come to me and say the same thing. The moment somebody says, ?Please don't tell it to anybody,' I know what the secret is. I can tell even before they have told me."

He said, "But I want to get out of this prison - I have lived in it enough. It is a twenty-four hour torture."

So I said, "There is no problem in it."

He said, "No problem? But I am married to her!"

I said, "Marriage is just a children's game. How did you get married?"

He said, "A priest was chanting mantras, the fire was burning...." The fire is thought to be the divine, the presence of the divine. So if you take an oath in front of fire, then you cannot go against it. And he said, "I walked in a circle seven times, and the priest tied my clothes to my wife's sari. We took the oath, he chanted, and we moved seven times around the fire."

I said, "Clockwise or...?"

He said, "It is always clockwise."

I said, "Then there is no problem - bring your wife, I am the priest - because whatever the priest was chanting, you did not understand...."

He said, "No."

I said, "So that's perfectly okay. I will chant something that you will not know - nor will I. I will go on inventing as I chant, and you can move seven times anti-clockwise around the fire - and then I will cut the knot that has been tied by the priest, so the marriage is finished."

He said, "My God! - but who is going to bring my wife here? You suggest a very simple solution, but you don't know my wife."

I said, "I know her - because she came even before you did! She also wants to get rid of this continuous quarreling - she is not living a joyous life. Either you can both be joyous or you can both be miserable; it is not possible that one remains joyous and the other remains miserable. So I will convince her - she is almost ready - you just go and tell her that I have sent you. So get into your marriage clothes...."

He said, "Marriage clothes?"

I said, "Yes. The whole ritual has to be done in the reverse order."

The man never came back. I had to go to his house many times. I would knock, and he would plead, "Forgive me for telling you. When I came home I got such a beating that I forgot all the beatings that had happened before! In this life there is no way out; and now I understand why Hindus have invented future lives!"

But I said to him, "Do you know that on a particular day every year Hindu wives fast and pray to God in the temple that they should get the same husband in the next life?"

He said, "That's true - but I never thought about it. So how to avoid it?"

I said, "Simply fast on the same day. Go to the temple and pray - silently so your wife cannot hear.

She is praying that she should get the same husband; you simply say, ?One life is enough. My wife is great - give her to somebody else now!'"

He said, "That's good - that I can do."

You are asking, Priya: "Is it possible to be married and to be free?"

If you take marriage non-seriously, then you can be free. If you take it seriously, then freedom is impossible. Take marriage just as a game - it is a game. Have a little sense of humor, that it is a role you are playing on the stage of life; but it is not something that belongs to existence or has any reality - it is a fiction.

But people are so stupid that they even start taking fiction for reality. I have seen people reading fiction with tears in their eyes, because in the fiction things are going so tragically. It is a very good device in the movies that they put the lights off, so everybody can enjoy the movie, laugh, cry, be sad, be happy. If there was light it would be a little difficult - what will others think? And they know perfectly well that the screen is empty - there is nobody; it is just a projected picture. But they forget it completely.

And the same has happened with our lives. Many things which are simply to be taken humorously, we take so seriously - and from that seriousness begins our problem.

In the first place, why should you get married? You love someone, live with someone - it is part of your basic rights. You can live with someone, you can love someone.

Marriage is not something that happens in heaven, it happens here, through the crafty priests. But if you want to join the game with society and don't want to stand alone and aloof, you make it clear to your wife or to your husband that this marriage is just a game: "Never take it seriously. I will remain as independent as I was before marriage, and you will remain as independent as you were before marriage. Neither I am going to interfere in your life, nor are you going to interfere in my life; we will live as two friends together, sharing our joys, sharing our freedom - but not becoming a burden on each other.

"And any moment we feel that the spring has passed, the honeymoon is over, we will be sincere enough not to go on pretending, but to say to each other that we loved much - and we will remain grateful to each other forever, and the days of love will haunt us in our memories, in our dreams, as golden - but the spring is over. Our paths have come to a point, where although it is sad, we have to part, because now, living together is not a sign of love.

If I love you, I will leave you the moment I see my love has become a misery to you. If you love me, you will leave me the moment you see that your love is creating an imprisonment for me."

Love is the highest value in life:

It should not be reduced to stupid rituals.

And love and freedom go together - you cannot choose one and leave the other. A man who knows freedom is full of love, and a man who knows love is always willing to give freedom. If you cannot give freedom to the person you love, to whom can you give freedom? Giving freedom is nothing but trusting.

Freedom is an expression of love.

So whether you are married or not, remember, all marriages are fake - just social conveniences.

Their purpose is not to imprison you and bind you to each other; their purpose is to help you to grow with each other. But growth needs freedom; and in the past, all the cultures have forgotten that without freedom, love dies.

You see a bird on the wing in the sun, in the sky, and it looks so beautiful. Attracted by its beauty, you can catch the bird and put it in a golden cage. Do you think it is the same bird? Superficially, yes, it is the same bird who was flying in the sky; but deep down it is not the same bird - because where is its sky, where is its freedom?

This golden cage may be valuable to you; it is not valuable to the bird. For the bird, to be free in the sky is the only valuable thing in life. And the same is true about human beings.

Question 3:

Anand Neerjo, have you not heard that Jesus used to transform water into wine? Now you know how water becomes wine. It is not a miracle. You are drinking champagne - but keep it secret. The police commissioner of Poona should not know about it: that all these people are drinking champagne and getting addicted and drunk.

As far as I am concerned, if your love can transform water into champagne, it is absolutely the right thing to happen. And to be addicted to love is to be addicted to God. To be addicted to love is to forget yourself and your ego and disappear into the whole, without leaving a trace behind. It is perfectly okay.

If my words make you drunk, then drink them as much as you can; be a drunkard, because this champagne is going to transform you totally. And no government can prohibit this champagne, because it is a miracle that is happening within you. And words changing into champagne must be coming from a source which is totally drunk. I am a drunkard, and my whole mission is to make as many drunkards in the world as possible - because only people who are drunk with the divine know what beauty is, what truth is, what ecstasy is.

Okay, Vimal?

Yes, Osho.