Chapter 22

[NOTE: This is a typed tape transcript and has not been edited or published, as of August 1992. It is for reference use only. The interviewers remarks have been deleted where not relevant to Osho's words]

SAMYA: BHAGWAN, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRINTING NEGATIVITY AND PRINTING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION?

A:* There is no difference. It is man's birthright to express whatever he thinks, whatever he feels, in whatever language he wants to express it. To interfere in it on any grounds, is to destroy democracy.

The grounds may look valid. For example, the literature may be condemned as obscene. But who is going to determine what is obscene? If the act of making love is not obscene, then writing about it cannot be obscene. Then printing a picture or painting about it, cannot be obscene.

Freedom of expression knows no limits. Any limit is an infringement on human individuality, on the grounds of morality, religion, ethics, manners, etiquette.

These are all excuses, and these are the ways that humanity has been repressed.

Anything can be called immoral, it all depends how you define it. There is no fixed definition of morality.

One of the greatest thinkers of this age, G.E. Moore, worked for years on one book, PRINCIPIA ETHICA . And his whole concentration was to define what is good, because if that can be defined then morality can be defined, immorality can be defined, and many more complex things become easier. But the nature of goodness has to be first determined.

Two hundred fifty pages, and he comes to the conclusion that the nature of good is experienceable* but not definable. He accepts his defeat. And if you cannot define even what is good, how can you define what is bad? So all definitions are arbitrary.

What is obscene?

I have never seen anything obscene, and I have looked in the whole literature of the world. Things which have been condemned as obscene, even in the twentieth century, for example, books of D.H. Lawrence were condemned by courts as obscene, and banned, are one of the best, the highest quality literature that twentieth century has produced. But the problem is he describes intimate love acts in such depth that they become almost tangible.

He could not defend himself. But if I was there, I would have fought for him.

Because if you can love a woman or a man -- and there is nothing wrong in it -- and you can feel each other's warmth, melting into each other, reaching to a climax, to an orgasmic experience -- and it is not banned -- then why it should be prohibited if somebody is capable to describe it in such detail that it almost becomes real when you are reading it?

In fact, the man is doing a great service to humanity. It is easy to make love; it is very difficult to express it. The man should be rewarded; he is on the contrary, punished, because the churches are against it. They don't want people to know the beauties of love. They don't want people to know that something like orgasmic ecstasy exists. And this man is making people aware of something, which perhaps they may live without ever experiencing. This man is dangerous to the church.

What he is writing is not obscene. What he is writing is very authentic and very real, and very poetic and very beautiful.

But the trouble lies in the vested interest of the church, that is people start moving more and more into love, more and more enjoying the natural phenomenon of orgasm, then churches will remain empty, congregations will disappear, because people will be happy. Only it is the miserable who go to the churches. It is only the sad ones, the people who have missed life, who start searching for a paradise after life.

If you cannot find paradise before death, what guarantee is there that you will be able to find it after death? There is not a single witness. The whole thing is just fiction. But to keep that fiction alive, man has to be deprived of his natural experiences of ecstasies.

I am not against D.H. Lawrence. I will not say that his books are obscene. I will say his books are far more valuable than Holy Bible, because he is helping people to know some fragment of bliss.

And once they know that fragment then their longing to have more of it is bound to arise, and that's what leads people to meditation. That's what leads people on an inner pilgrimage to find the source from where comes this joy, because it does not come from the woman, it does not come from the man. They both are in it, but both can see it; it is not coming from the other. It is happening to both, but happening from some inner space.

Once it is realized that it happens from your own inner space, then it is very simple arithmetic, that why it cannot happen without the woman? Why it cannot happen without the man?

And a little effort, and it starts happening in your aloneness, and you are freed from the dependenc of the other. You can share your joy still, but it is no more a dependence, because in your aloneness you are as blissful as in your togetherness.

So D.H. Lawrence is making way for me.

I consider him to be the most important creator as far as literature is concerned.

But the courts were against it, the churches were against it. They condemned his literature.

I have never come across anything which is obscene. Either something is real or unreal, but there is no question of obscenity. It is only in the perverted minds that things become obscene. And the churches create the perverted minds. It is a very strange game.

For example, in the Middle Ages in Europe, ladies were covering their dogs with valuable coats when they were taking them out, because a dog is a dog. If he meets some beautiful girl on the way.... He does not believe in Christianity; he simply believes in nature. He may start moving towards the girl, and it will be very embarrassing to the lady.

And if the dog is naked, he may have erection -- that is obscene. But obscene only to the perverted mind, otherwise what is wrong in a dog having a erection? It simply shows the dog is healthy. It simply shows the dog is interested in the girlfriend. It simply shows the dog is not dead yet.

The dog is not a monk, he has not taken any vow of being celibate. He is not a homosexual; all the monks are.

Just few days before one of the monk in Vatican created an electric device for masturbation. And just to test it, he tried it, but something went wrong... short circuit, and the monk was dead. This is obscenity.

But why the monk should create such a device? He is forced to remain celibate, and his biology has no idea of his celibacy. The biology goes on functioning in the same way. So he has to find some way. Now homosexuality has become dangerous.

Homosexuality was born in monasteries. I give the whole credit to religions for homosexuality. All the religions are responsible for homosexuality. And they should accept the responsibility for AIDS, because it is the ultimate outcome of their mad attempt of going against nature and forcing celibacy on people.

So this poor monk was trying how to avoid homosexuality.

This is obscene.

So either things are natural, real -- then there is no question of preventing any expression.

If somebody is bringing unreal, unnatural things to people's mind, then he is a pervert. He should be prevented, because the freedom of expression does not mean that you can poison other people's minds.

The priests should be prevented from preaching celibacy, because that is the root cause of all the perversions. But no court rules against celibacy.

And anything that can be expressed in words can also be printed, painted, sculpted -- there should be no limitation on it. The only thing that should be prevented is anybody creating in people sick ideas.

You are free to express, but you are not free to vomit over people's mind. You are free to express, but you are not to create people nauseous, sick. That will be a crime.

So, it may be a holy book, but if it creates sickness in people's mind and perversion to their natural beings, it should be prohibited.

And you will be surprised that almost all the holy books are worth being banned.

They all carry unnatural, idiotic ideas. And because they are thought to be holy, those ideas become conditionings in people's minds.

And people like D.H. Lawrence, who are simply representing the truth of life, they should be rewarded, respected. Their books should be read in the universities, in the colleges. They should be made available to all the people, so that they can understand that what they are missing, what is possible but they have never tried it. They have never tried to reach the highest star which was within their reach.

I am for absolute expression, only with one expression: that sick people, psychologically neurotic people should be prevented.

Q:* THEN HOW WOULD YOU MAKE THE DISTINCTION OF WHO IS SICK AND WHO IS NEUROTIC? DO YOU MEAN THE PERSON THAT IS WRITING? WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT HE'S NOT SICK OR NEUROTIC? HOW WOULD YOU MAKE THAT DISTINCTION?

A:* It is very easy.

Anybody who is not going against nature, who is normal, natural, is acceptable.

And anybody who is trying to go against nature, writing things, preaching things which are not possible, which will drive anybody crazy if he tries to do them, which will be destructive.... The criterion should be whether they are according to nature or not, and it is very simple to decide.

For example, celibacy -- whether it is natural or unnatural. Now, no scientist can say that celibacy is natural, no doctor can say that celibacy is natural. Nobody who understands the nature of physiology, biology, human chemistry, can say that it is natural.

Then those who are preaching it should be prevented. They are creating a diseased society, a sick culture, and that sickness will bring thousands of perversions.

No animal is celibate -- that is very decisive. No animal in natural, wild state is ever homosexual. But animals in zoos, where females are not available, become homosexuals, start masturbating.

Nobody has seen animals masturbating in the wild, natural state. So it is very simple to decide that it is just a unnatural state; zoo is not their natural world.

The female is not available, only male are available, then naturally homosexuality.... And sometimes even males are not available, a single male animal is there -- then masturbation.

What do you suppose from the animal to do?

And your religions have changed your whole society in a zoo. These are the real criminals.

But strange, these criminals are respected. They are the popes, they are the Ayatollah Khomeiniacs, they are shankaracharyas. They are great saints, sages, wise people. And nobody bothers that these people are responsible for driving the whole humanity into perversion, into sickness.

So it is very simple: anything unnatural is sick. And nature is available, there is no problem to decide whether it is natural or unnatural. When you are hungry, you know what is natural -- to eat. But to fast is unnatural.

All the religions teach fasting. No religion teaches feasting. Why fasting? In fact, religions depend on turning human minds into unnatural directions, because those are the directions which will make you dependent on the priest, on the God. Those are the dimensions will make you hate yourself, because you cannot fulfill them.

For example, in Jainism fasting is one of the most spiritual acts, but you are not even allowed to dream about food. Now, this is expecting too much. If you have not eaten the whole day, it is absolutely certain that you will dream about food.

But Jainist scriptures say, that if you dream about food, the whole value of the fast is lost. You have eaten, although it was simply a dream, but it was your dream, it was your mind. It shows your desire, it shows your reality. So somehow you managed the whole day not to eat, but you wanted to eat -- that's why the dream.

Now you are asking something impossible, and because it is impossible the man will become self-condemned. He will hate himself, that he is a sinner, he cannot fast few days without dreaming about food. He cannot remain celibate without thinking of women in night. So he thinks of himself as the worst quality of human beings, the most third-rate.

So they do two things. They give to humanity things which are unnatural and impossible, so man becomes humiliated in his own eyes, loses integrity, loses self-respect. And on the other hand, they raise their saints to fictitious qualities.

So the difference between the common man and the saviors becomes almost unbridgeable.

The Jaina prophet, Mahavira, does not perspire. Now, that is simply stupidity.

He lived naked, and he lived in the hottest part of India. He walked -- he never used any vehicle -- for forty years continuously teaching, moving from one village to another village, and you think he will not perspire? The only possibility is that his skin is made of plastic.

But the reality is, that if all your pores in the body are closed, even though you breathe you cannot live more than few hours, because you breathe from all the pores of your body too. Your whole body is breathing. It is not only that your lungs needs fresh oxygen, your each cell of the body needs continuously to be refreshed. Those pores are for many purposes. They breathe, and when there is too much heat around you, they have glands which collect water for emergency purposes, they release water -- that is your perspiration. That is a protection, very necessary protection to keep your body at the same temperature.

For example, if it is ninety-eight degrees, normal temperature, if there is too much heat around you, you cannot remain at ninety-eight permanently. Soon you will become hotter and hotter and hotter, and your life span is not much, only twelve degrees. By one hundred ten you are finished. From ninety-eight to one hundred ten degrees -- twelve degrees is your whole life span. So your body has to be kept permanently at ninety-eight degrees. That's the function of perspiration.

When you perspire, the sun rays become engaged in evaporating the perspiration, so they don't heat you. They evaporate the perspiration and they are finished in that evaporation, and you remain intact at your normal body temperature. It is a great natural mystery. That's how you can remain continuously at the same body temperature.

When it is too cold -- for example, in this room -- you will start shaking. That shaking is a device; it is a device to keep your body warm. By shaking you are doing a certain activity, and that activity keeps you warm. Except me, it is cold for everyone here.

Saviors are put on fictitious grounds -- you cannot reach them -- and you are even degraded from your natural status. You see, they are raised from their natural status to something higher, which is not possible, which only idiot can believe, and you are degraded from your natural status. The distance becomes so big that all that you can do is worship, touch their feet, pray, and hope that in some future life perhaps you may be able to fulfill all the demands that can make you an authentic individual. But following these ideas, in no life you are going to become an authentic individual.

So the simple way of deciding is, anything natural is good; anything that goes against nature is bad. And freedom of expression means everything natural you are absolutely free to print, to say, to paint -- use any medium -- and you will be serving humanity. But remember always, don't do or say anything that can create a sick mind. Then you are not capable of having the freedom of expression. It is a great responsibility.

SUBHUTI: YOU HAVE SAID THAT FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS THE FOUNDATION OF DEMOCRACY, BUT THIS NEWSPAPER IS IN THE UNIQUE SITUATION, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF A COMMUNITY THAT IS BEING GUIDED BY AN ENLIGHTENED MASTER. IN THE PAST, ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID CRITICIZING THE COMMUNE, THE CITY AND THE CORPORATIONS HERE, OR SIMPLY OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE VIEWPOINT, WAS CENSORED BY SHEELA AND HER GROUP ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT WAS AGAINST YOUR VISION. IS THERE A ROLE FOR CRITICISM AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION HERE, NOW?

A:* This newspaper is certainly not an ordinary newspaper. It is not just that you are collecting news and printing it. It has a certain purpose behind it. It has a message, and you have to keep in mind that whatever you do, whatever you write, it does not go against the message.

This paper is not a mere newspaper; it is a messenger. So you have to keep alert that it beats with my heart, that it keeps in tune with me, that it does not lose contact with my vision.

If you simply want it to be a newspaper, then my name should be removed from it. Then you can collect all kinds of stupid things that are happening around the world -- murders, suicides, wars, and certainly you will be selling better. You can make it sensational -- which all the newspapers of the world are doing. They don't have a vision, they don't have a message. They are only a business in search of sensation. If they can get sensation, good; if they cannot get, then they have to create, because it is sensation that sells. And the motive behind those newspapers is earning. That is not the motive behind your newspaper.

We are not concerned whether we sell to millions of people or not. Our concern is not sensational, but to spread the message. And anything that you can find in the world happening which supports the message, choose it, but the message remains your criterion.

So your freedom of expression is absolutely there, but you have accepted a vision. Now, you have to use your ability of expression to make that vision available to as many people as possible. That will be your creativity.

But if my newspaper starts writing something against my own message, and you call it freedom of expression, then you are not being a gentleman, then you start a newspaper of your own and use your freedom of expression.

My newspaper has to be my freedom of expression, and you have to give it form, reality, relevant context. Your work is more difficult, because you have to constantly remember that it is not going to be against my message. And my message is your message. If it goes against me, it is going against you! Freedom of expression does not mean suicide -- that would be suicidal.

So you have to be alert, then there is no need for anybody else to prevent you from doing something. But if you are not responsible, then somebody else will interfere.

And now that Sheela is gone... she herself was not fulfilling my vision; she was trying to do her own trip in my name. She was taking an advantage which is absolutely ugly.

So now your responsibility becomes even bigger, because I never read, I never read your newspaper, so I don't now what you are doing in it. I trust you, and I have lived my whole life on trust.

So you have to be alert that somewhere you are not letting me down -- that's what Sheela did.

She did things which were absolutely against my idea. She used my name without asking me. And in fact, how she could have asked? If she bugs my own room, then how she can ask me? And what is the fear of bugging my room? The fear, perhaps, I may say to someone something which does not go with her doings. I don't know what she is doing. She is afraid also, that somebody, particularly... not many more people were saying me -- only my physician, my dentist, my caretaker -- three persons were there. But they may say something to me: that this is going on. And she had to know what information I have been given, so even before I ask her any question, she comes prepared with an answer.

That's what gave me the idea that the room is bugged. Because I will say something to Devaraj, who had just come to check me, and next day when Sheela will come to see me, the conversation with Devaraj was bound to come up.

And she was really stupid in that way, that she will say, that "I had a dream last night that you are talking with Devaraj, and this conversation happened. And not only I had the dream, Vidya also had the same dream, Savita had also the same dream."

I told Sheela, "You don't know about dreams at all. Three persons having the same dream has never been heard in the whole history. You are just ignorant.

You don't know about dreaming anything. It would have been enough that you had dreamed. There is no need for two more evidences. Those two more evidences make your dream suspicious.

"And do you think I can accept that you all are -- all the three -- intuitive? That you have some super-sensory powers? Then you will have to give a proof.

"I can open a book, and you are sitting there, you just tell me what page is open and that will prove everything, whether you have any intuitive grasp of things.

Or I can mark it and keep it here on my table, and you all three dream tonight, and tomorrow you report me what page. Otherwise, this room is bugged. You tell me exactly right. It will be easier."

And she flatly denied. "No, how we can do this thing to you?!" And she started crying, and...

I said, "This crying, et cetera, will not help. You simply say whether the room is bugged or not. I can forgive you, but you have to tell the truth."

That was the last time I saw her. Then she started avoiding me.

Then she was here for three, four months more, but she was always going to Australia, to Singapore, to Mexico, to Europe, to Switzerland, on any small excuse: that the commune needs her there.

And even when she was going on all these tours, she will not come to ask me. It is very easy with me: you can just send a message that you have a cold or a sore throat, and you don't want to infect me, so you are unable to come.

For four months continuously, she was having sore throat, colds, whenever she was here. Even the last day she left, she did not come to see me, because she became more and more afraid, because I was becoming more and more aware of things that were going on.

When I became aware that my room is bugged, then what will be happening to others?

Then Vivek was poisoned, then Devaraj was poisoned four times.

And just today my mother came to see me....

And this is the ugliest thing of all. She has done many ugly things. Laxmi had operations, major operations, in which her ovaries are removed, and some other parts of the stomach are removed. And she was sick few days before. She was hospitalized. Since then she started getting better. She came back to her place, and she was* feeling very good and recovering.

Last day, when Sheela left, just one hour before, Prateeksha, Sheela's sister, came with a glass of juice -- and she had never come. All this time Laxmi has been here, Prateeksha had never come even to see her.

And she drank the juice, and immediately became badly sick. And she is already in a dying position. Now to poison her?

They must have thought that to leave Laxmi alive is dangerous, because as far as coming from India is concerned, they have committed many crimes. But they thought because they are never coming back, so who cares? Just once they are out of the country, and governments and bureaucracies take time to find out...

But Laxmi knows everything, so she may be dangerous. It is better to finish her.

It seems killing became to them just an ordinary thing. Nothing even to think about. Very casually.

And you will be surprised what they did. They had committed all the crimes, because they moved all the literature from India that was the cost price, ten million dollars, they sold it to Chidvilas, the center in New Jersey.

According to Reserve Bank of India, those ten million dollars had to come back within six month; that is their limit. They never came back. That was not their intention, that they should come back.

And things like that. Many things they did, which were not right -- false papers they produced.

And what they have done now? Here, they poisoned* Laxmi, and from Switzerland, they informed the Indian government of all the crimes that they have been done by the Rajneesh Foundation of India. They were going just to give it again the tax exempt status, within two days, and they phoned that "Stop that, because all these crimes have been committed by the Foundation trustees."

And they were clever enough -- Savita, Sheela, Vidya -- nobody was a trustee. All the work they were doing, but they were not trustees. So now five trustees who had* nothing to do with it have received arrest warrant. And Jayantibhai had to put seven hundred thousand rupees for some guarantee, and the tax exempt status has been stopped.

Everything was ready. Papers were ready. Papers were signed by the Finance Minister, but everything has been stopped. And all the crimes were done by these people, but now all those crimes are on the head of those innocent people who had no knowledge of it.

So as I started becoming aware of all these things, she started becoming afraid to face me. She had not seen me for months. And whatever she was checking, and preventing, must have been something that was going against her.

Now, your responsibility is greater. Nobody will be checking you. Nobody will be preventing you. I never read what you write. Even if you write against me, I will never know.

And remember, this is not an ordinary paper. It is a message, and you have to use everything that is happening in the world to help the message. That's the whole function of your TIMES. If it was simply just my words, there was no question. We have another paper, NEWSLETTER, that simply reports what I say.

Your function is different. Your function is whatever I say, you can report a little bit of it, but you have to support it, that what I am saying is actually happening.

For example, if I say something about AIDS and its spread, or how it can be prevented, what measures should be taken, then you have to work out, with our medical people, find out everything supportive, because I don't read, I am not a medical man. You have to look all around the world. One day*, every day, is dying in L.A. because of AIDS. You have to find how many people in the whole world are dying, and if one man every day is dying, then how many people must be suffering from AIDS in L.A.? And why L.A. corporation is silent? Why don't they give the information?

You have to collect all these things -- what I cannot do. I can give a statement.

You have to arrange all supportive data for it.

Now, I hear that many people in the commune, as Sheela left... Some people started creating the rumor that the whole idea was Sheela's -- of creating preventive measures -- so now there is no need. And people are kissing again, and they are not using condoms or gloves or any precautions.

You have to put what is happening, and what is going to happen, to make our commune aware that this is the only place where we are taking precautions. And if you don't want to take precautions, then you will have to understand well those ten people who are positive AIDS I will bring back into the commune.

Then what is the need to separate them? That was part of the preventive measures. Then why keep them in Desiderata?

Either you take all the precautions, or drop all the precautions and go to hell.

And bring all those people from Desiderata and leave them into the commune, so within two years you are all suffering from AIDS.

You have to use your paper to support whatever I say, and to find out all relevant data. Every day there are new things coming out about AIDS. You have to keep update our people, so they don't go into such foolish things. If they go, then they should understand perfectly, that they if they want to cheat, then they will have to suffer, and suffer badly. I will bring all those ten people. Why they should be isolated unnecessarily, when you are not taking any precautions?

Just yesterday, two more people have been found having positive AIDS, and you were not taking precautions. Now, should I send these two people to Desiderata, or let them live with you? They were living with you.

And this seems so unintelligent, that you cannot even use small measures to protect yourself and your commune.

So your responsibility is great about everything. And I am saying so many things which you have to bring to the light, to the public.

For example, I said that this Attorney General is not interested at all in catching hold of the criminals. His interest is somehow to give them immunity and force innocent commune people, that they have done it. His desire is at least one thousand sannyasins should be imprisoned. Only twenty people have committed crimes. But about those twenty, they are completely silent.

So your function is there: to make it as strong as possible that Attorney General cannot protect the criminals. And the second alternative that he had is to kill them. So all criminals are erased, but crimes has happened, so he can start picking up whomsoever he wants. And he had his informers in the commune, who can say, that "These are the people who have done it. We are eyewitnesses."

So your newspaper is not an ordinary newspaper. It has to bring my vision to the world. It has to bring the problems of the commune to the world, the challenge that the commune has to face, and expose any government authorities who are trying to go against the American Constitution, against law, and are just being as fascist, or even more fascists, than Sheela's gang was.

So it is something you have to remember, and now nobody will be sitting on your head, so your responsibility becomes total and absolute.

MARY CATHERINE: BHAGWAN, HOW CAN WE AS JOURNALISTS INQUIRE INTO THE TRUTH, OR WHAT MIGHT BE THE TRUTH, WITHOUT CREATING CONFRONTATION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY? AND IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE OBJECTIVE IN DOING THAT?

(Tape side C) A:* It will be difficult for you... because you are part of the commune. It will create unnecessary confrontation, antagonism. You cannot do that kind of inquiry in the commune. That will look suspicious, as if you are serving somebody else.

What you can do is: rather than inquiring in the commune, you should start inquiring the Oregon police officers who have been investigating here, the Attorney General, and his office, the FBI -- and they have been the most sympathetic and most helpful people.

They were very angry at the attitude of the state, because the state was trying to delay everything in every possible way.

So your inquiry should be, on the part of the commune, with all those Wasco County police, attorney, state attorney, state police, FBI people, and find out what exactly are the crimes that you feel have happened. And what are the possibilities of those people to be caught? And what do you think about delaying matters? Because there are countries which have treaties with America, that if America wants their criminals, they will catch their criminals and send them to America.

But there are countries with which America has no treaties. And it is so easy to move from West Germany into East Germany -- just a question of minutes -- and the road is open now. And then America has no hold on... They can take refuge against America. So why you are delaying? Are you giving them chances so that they can take refuge somewhere where you don't have any reach?

Or you don't have enough grounds? Because we have provided every ground.

We have provided eyewitness. We have provided all kinds of testimonies. Now for what you are waiting, and you are silent?

That should be your inquiry, rather than confronting poor sannyasins, who are unnecessarily already harassed by police, by FBI, and you start harassing them too. And that will not look good. You leave them alone. You go after these people, and force them that act quickly.

There has been murder, there has been arson, there has been attempts on many people's life. There has been smuggling, of which just now reports have been coming that Sheela was doing smuggling of gold since India. And she continued it from here too. And she was doing great smuggling of heroin -- and not in small quantities, full plane loads.

So what these people are doing? We can, at the most, give them information. We can give them testimonies of people.

The woman who informed about heroin, next day she disappeared. It seems she has been killed, or she has been taken to some place and imprisoned. She was partner with Sheela, and for fifteen days we have been trying every place, because she has told on the phone that she is coming with all the proofs. That one plane is already... is in Latin America, which has been left there. Heroin was sold, but the police became suspicious about the plane, so they could not take the plane out from there. The plane is lying down there still.

She was coming. She never reached, so we started phoning all the possible contacts: her mother, her boyfriend... They are all simply surprised that she simply disappeared. And she was in Geneva, in Switzerland, where Sheela is, and the whole company is. Perhaps she must have thought about her, that she will do something like that.

So you have to enforce these people. Approach these people, harass them, ask them harassing questions. Make them do something. Write articles against the bureaucracy and the slow work, which takes years, and by that time the criminals can be out of your reach.

So don't bother commune, and inquiring commune. People will not feel good about you. And inquiry has to be harsh. Howsoever sweet you make it, inquiry is bound to be harsh. You have to ask questions which are embarrassing. You have to ask questions which* the person does not feel right to answer. Don't do that kind of work. That will simply create a hostility.

And you represent the commune. So you represent the commune and go against all the agencies that have to catch hold of the criminals.

And if there are any criminals in the commune, we are ready to hand over the criminals to the police. I don't want any crime to be committed here.

So make it clear to them. And I don't want to take the law in my own hands. But if they delay too much, that simply means they are forcing us to take the law in our own hands. The responsibility will be theirs.

We can catch hold of all those within minutes; there is no problem. Our sannyasins are all over the world. Wherever they will go, they will be caught immediately. But I don't want to take the law in our hands. Why we should take?

That is their business. They should do it. And we will force it for them to do it.

Their delay has a meaning. The meaning is somehow destroy the commune in some way or other -- and this is a good opportunity -- and we have to protect the commune.

I am against crime, and this will be a greater crime if we allow them to destroy the commune.

We have put so much love and so much labor, they have no right. So you go against them, and be a real journalist with them. A journalist has to be just a nagging wife.

Okay?