BELOVED OSHO, I'VE
HEARD THAT IN EUROPE THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS STRIKING FEAR IN EVERYONE.
AIRPLANES ARE DELAYED BY EXTRAORDINARY SECURITY MEASURES, MANY OF THE SEATS ARE
EMPTY, AND SOME AIRPORTS ARE CLOSING. PEOPLE ARE EVEN THINKING TWICE ABOUT
GOING OUT IN THE EVENING. AND ALL THIS IS MORE PREVALENT SINCE THE RECENT
BOMBING OF IRAQ. IS THE RISE OF TERRORISM OVER THE LAST DECADE IN SOME WAY
SYMBOLIC OF WHAT IS HAPPENING TO SOCIETY IN GENERAL?
Everything is deeply
related with everything else that happens.
The event of terrorism is certainly related with what is happening in the
society.
The society is falling apart.
Its old order, discipline, morality, religion, everything has been found to be
wrongly based.
It has lost its power over people's conscience.
Terrorism simply symbolizes that to destroy human beings does not matter, that
there is nothing in human beings which is indestructible, that it is all matter
-- and you cannot kill matter, you can only change its form.
Once man is taken to be only a combination of matter, and no place is given for
a spiritual being inside him, then to kill becomes just play.
The nations are irrelevant because of nuclear weapons.
If the whole world can be destroyed together within minutes the alternative can
only be that the whole world should be together.
Now it cannot remain divided; its division is dangerous, because division can
become war any moment.
The division cannot be tolerated.
Only one war is enough to destroy everything, and there is not much time left
for man to understand that we should create a world where the very possibility
of war does not exist.
Terrorism has many
undercurrents.
One is that because of nuclear weapons, the nations are pouring their energy
into that field, thinking that the old weapons are out of date.
They are out of date, but individuals can start using them.
And you cannot use nuclear weapons against individuals -- that would be simply
stupid.
One individual terrorist throws a bomb -- it does not justify that a nuclear
missile should be sent.
What I want to emphasize is that the nuclear weapon has given individual people
a certain freedom to use old weapons, a freedom which was not possible in the
old days because the governments were also using the same weapons.
Now the governments are concentrated on destroying the old weapons, throwing
them in the ocean, selling them to countries which are poor and cannot afford
nuclear weapons.
And all those terrorists are coming from these poor countries, with the same
weapons that have been sold to their countries.
And they have a strange protection: you cannot use nuclear weapons against
them, you cannot throw atom bombs at them.
They can throw bombs at you and you are suddenly impotent.
You have a vast amount of atomic bombs, nuclear bombs in your hands -- but
sometimes where a needle is useful, a sword may not be of any use.
You may have the sword; that does not mean that you are necessarily in a
superior position to the man who has a needle, because there are purposes in
which only the needle will work -- the sword will not be of any use.
Those small weapons from the old times were piling up, and the big powers had
to dispose of them -- either drown them in the ocean.... That meant so much
money, so much manpower, so much energy had gone to waste; economically it was
disastrous. But just to go on piling them up was also economically impossible.
How many weapons can you gather? There is a limit. And when you get a new way
of killing people more efficiently, then the old simply has to be got rid of.
It was thought that it would be better to sell them to poor countries.
Poor countries cannot create nuclear weapons -- it costs too much. And these
weapons were coming cheap -- as help; they accepted it, but these weapons
cannot be used in a war. In a war these weapons are already useless.
But nobody has seen the possibility that these weapons can be used
individually, and a new phenomenon -- terrorism -- can come out of it.
Now, a terrorist has a strange power, even over the greatest powers. He can
throw bombs at the White House without any fear, because what you have is too
big and you cannot throw it at him. And these are the weapons sold by you! But
the phenomenon was not conceived of, because human psychology is not
understood.
My understanding is
that the way he has lived, man needs every ten to twelve years -- a war.
He accumulates so much anger, so much rage, so much violence, that nothing
short of a war will give him release. So, war after war, there is a gap of only
ten to fifteen years.
That gap is a kind of relaxation. But again you start accumulating, because the
same psychology is working -- the same jealousy, the same violence.
And man is basically a
hunter; he is not by nature vegetarian.
First he became a
hunter, and for thousands of years he was just a meat-eater, and cannibalism
was prevalent everywhere.
To eat human beings caught from the opposing tribe you were fighting with was
perfectly ethical.
All that is carried in
the unconscious of humanity.
Religions have imposed
things on man very superficially; his unconscious is not in agreement.
Every man is living in a disagreement with himself.
So whenever he can find
a chance -- for a beautiful cause; freedom, democracy, socialism -- any
beautiful word can become an umbrella to hide his ugly unconscious, which
simply wants to destroy and enjoys destruction.
Now the world war has become almost impossible; otherwise there would have been
no terrorism.
Enough time has passed
since the second world war; the third world war should have happened near about
1960.
It has not happened.
This has been the
routine for the whole of history, and man is programmed for it.
It has been observed by
psychologists that in wartime people are more happy than in peacetime.
In wartime their life
has a thrill; in peacetime they look bored.
In wartime, early in
the morning they are searching for the newspaper, listening to the radio.
Things may be happening far away, but they are excited.
Something in them feels
an affinity.
A war that should have
happened somewhere between 1955 and 1960 has not happened, and man is burdened
with the desire to kill, with the desire to destroy.
It is just that »he wants good names for
it«.
Terrorism is going to
become bigger and bigger, because the third world war is almost impossible.
And the »stupid politicians« have »no other alternative«.
Terrorism simply means
that what was being done on a social scale now has to be done individually.
It will grow.
It can only be
prevented if we change the very base of human understanding -- »which is a Himalayan task«; more so because
these same people whom »you want to change« will fight you;»they won't allow you to change them easily.«
In fact they love bloodshed; they don't have the courage to say so.
In one of the
existentialist's novels, there is a beautiful incident which can almost be said
to be true.
A man is presented
before the court because he has killed a stranger who was sitting on the beach.
He had never seen the
stranger.
He did not kill him for money.
He does not yet know
how that man looked, because he killed him from the back, just with a big
knife.
They had never met --
there was no question of enmity.
They were not even
familiar; they had not even seen each other's faces.
The magistrate could not figure it out, and he asked the murderer, "Why
did you do it?" He said, "When I stabbed that man with a knife, and a
fountain of blood came out of his back, that was one of the most beautiful
moments I have ever known.
I know that the price
will be my death, but I am ready to pay for it; it was worth it. My whole life
I have lived in boredom -- no excitement, no adventure.
Finally I had to decide
to do something.
And this act has made
me world famous; my picture is in every newspaper.
And I am perfectly
happy that I did it."
There was no need for
any evidence.
The man was not denying
-- on the contrary, he was glorifying it.
But the court has its
own routine way -- witnesses still have to be produced; just his word cannot be
accepted.
He may have be lying,
he may not have killed the man.
Nobody saw him -- there
was not a single eyewitness -- so circumstantial evidences had to be presented
by the police.
One of them was that possibly this man has killed according to his past life
and his background.
When he was young, his
mother died.
And when he heard that
his mother had died, he said, "Shit! That woman will not leave me even
while dying! It is Sunday, and I have booked tickets for the theater with my
girlfriend.
But I knew she would do
something to destroy my whole day -- and she has destroyed it."
His mother has died and
he is saying that she has destroyed his Sunday! He was going to the theater
with his girlfriend, and now he has to go to the funeral.
And the people who
heard his reaction were shocked.
They said, "This
is not right, what are you saying?" He said, "What? What is right and
what is wrong? Couldn't she die on any other day? There are seven days in the
week -- from Monday to Saturday, she could have died any day.
But you don't know my
mother -- I know her. She is a bitch! She did it on purpose."
The second evidence was that he attended the funeral, and in the evening he was
found dancing with his girlfriend in a disco.
And somebody asked,
"What! What are you doing? Your mother has just died." He said,
"So what? Do you mean now I can never dance again? My mother is never
going to be alive, she will remain dead; so what does it matter whether I dance
after six hours, eight hours, eight months, eight years? What does it matter?
-- she is dead.
And I have to dance and
I have to live and I have to love, in spite of her death.
If everybody stopped
living with the death of their mother, with the death of their father, then
there would be no dance in the world, no song in the world."
His logic is very
right. He is saying, "Where do you draw the demarcation line? After how
many hours can I dance? -- twelve hours, fourteen hours, six weeks? Where will
you draw the line? on what grounds? What is the criterion? So it doesn't
matter.
One thing is certain:
whenever I dance I will be dancing after the death of my mother, so I decided
to dance today. Why wait for tomorrow?" Such circumstantial evidences are
presented to the court -- that this man is strange, he can do such an act.
But if you look
closely at this poor man, you will not feel angry at him; you will feel very
compassionate.
Now, it is not his
fault that his mother has died; and anyway, he has to dance some day, so it
makes no difference. You cannot blame this man for saying ugly things:
"She deliberately died on Sunday to spoil my joy," because his whole
experience of life must have been that she was again and again spoiling any
possibility of joy.
This was the last conclusion: "Even in death she will not leave me."
And you cannot condemn
the man for killing a stranger... because he is not a thief; he did not take
anything from him.
He is not an enemy; he
did not even see who was the man he was killing.
He was simply bored
with life and he wanted to do something that made him feel significant,
important.
He is happy that all
the newspapers have his photo.
If they had published his photo before, he would not have killed; but they
waited -- until he kills they will not publish his photo.
And he wanted to be a
celebrity... just ordinary human desires.
And he was ready to
pay with his life to become, at least for one day, known to the whole world,
recognized by everybody.
»Until we change the basic grounds of
humanity«, terrorism is going to become more and more a normal,
»everyday affair«.
It will happen in the
»airplanes«, it will happen in the buses.
It will start happening
in the cars.
It will start happening
to strangers.
Somebody will suddenly come and shoot you -- not that you have done anything to
him, but just, the hunter is back.
The hunter was
satisfied in the war.
Now the war has stopped
and perhaps there is no possibility for it. The hunter is back; now we cannot
fight collectively.
Each individual has to
do something to release his own steam.
Things are
interconnected.
The first thing that
has to be changed is that man should be made »more rejoicing«-- which all the religions
have killed.
The real criminals are not caught.
These are the victims,
the terrorists and other criminals.
It is »ALL the religions who are the real
criminals« , because they have destroyed all possibilities of
rejoicing.
They have destroyed the
possibility of enjoying small things of life; »they
have condemned« everything that nature provides you to make you
happy, to make you feel excited, feel pleasant.
They have taken everything away; and if they have not been able to take a few
things away because they are so ingrained in your biology -- »like sex« -- they have at least been able to
poison them.
Friedrich Nietzsche,
according to me, is one of the greatest seers of the Western world; his eyes
really go penetrating to the very root of a problem.
But because others
could not see it -- their eyes were not so penetrating, nor was their
intelligence so sharp -- the man lived alone, abandoned, isolated, unloved,
unrespected.
He says in one of his
statements that man has been taught »by religions to condemn sex«, to renounce
sex.
Religion has not been
able to manage it; and man has tried hard but has failed, because it is so
deeply rooted in his biology -- it constitutes his whole body.
He is born out of sex
-- how can he get rid of it except by committing suicide? So man has tried, and
religions have helped him to get rid of it -- thousands of disciplines and
strategies have been used.
The total result is
that sex is there, but poisoned.
That word poisoned is a tremendous insight.
Religions have not been
able to take it away, but they have been certainly successful in poisoning it.
And the same is the
situation about other things: religions are condemning your living in comfort.
Now, a man who is
living in comfort and luxury cannot become a terrorist.
Religions have
condemned riches, praised poverty; now, a man who is rich cannot be a
terrorist.
Only the "blessed
ones" who are poor can be terrorists -- because they have nothing to lose,
and they are boiling up against the whole of society because others have things
they don't have.
Religions have been trying to console them.
But then came communism
-- a materialist religion -- which provoked people and said to them, "Your
old religions are all opium to the people, and it is not because of your evil
actions in this life or in past lives that you are suffering poverty.
It is because of the
evil exploitation of the bourgeois, the super-rich that you are
suffering."
The last sentence in
Karl Marx's COMMUNIST MANIFESTO is: Proletariats of the whole world unite; you
have nothing to lose and you have the whole world to gain. "You are
already poor, hungry, naked -- so what can you lose? Your death will not make
you more miserable than your life is making you. So why not take a chance and
destroy those people who have taken everything away from you. And take those things back, distribute them."
What religions have
somehow been consoling people with -- although it was wrong and it was cunning
and it was a lie, but it kept people in a state of being half asleep --
communism suddenly made them aware of.
That means this world
is now never going to be peaceful if we don't withdraw all the rotten ideas
that have been implanted in man.
The first are the religions -- their values should be removed so that man can
smile again, can laugh again, can rejoice again, can be natural again. Second,
what communism is saying has to be put clearly before the people -- that it is
psychologically wrong.
You are falling from
one trap into another.
No two men are equal;
hence the idea of equality is nonsense.
And if you decide to be
equal then you have to accept a dictatorship of the proletariat.
That means you have to lose your freedom.
First »the church« took away your freedom, »the God« took away your freedom. Now
communism replaces your church, and it will take away your freedom.
And without freedom you
cannot rejoice.
You live in fear, not in joy.
If we can clean the
basement of the »human mind's unconscious«... and that's what
»my work
is«.
It can be cleaned away.
The terrorism is not in the bombs, in your hands; the terrorism is in your
unconscious.
Otherwise, this state
of affairs is going to grow more bitter.
And it seems all kinds
of blind people have bombs in their hands and are throwing them at random.
The third world war would have released people for ten or, fifteen years.
But the third world war
cannot happen because if it happens it won't relieve people, it will only
destroy people.
So individual violence will increase -- it is increasing.
And all your governments and all your religions will go on perpetuating the old
strategies without understanding the new situation.
The new situation is that EVERY human being
needs to go
»through therapies«, needs to understand his
unconscious intentions, needs to go through
»meditations« so that he can calm down,
»become cool« -- and look towards
»the world« with a
»new perspective«, of
»silence«.
»OSHO«
Beyond
Psychology
Chapter #18
Chapter title:
Terrorism is in your unconscious
Uruguay
Archive code: 8604210
ShortTitle: PSYCHO18
Audio: Yes
Video: Yes
Length: 94 mins
PASS THIS ON ....
 ORDER OSHO'S BOOKS HERE
|
|
TERRORISM IS
IN YOUR UNCONSCIOUS
