According to Osho, the search into violence, sin, or untruth cannot become an ideal; it is simply the clear recognition of what is. Ideals like nonviolence are dreams about what should be and function as escapes. Real transformation happens by totally acknowledging the factual presence of violence, anger, and sorrow—meeting them with awareness rather than projecting ideals.
Don’t dream of a thornless road; notice the thorn in your foot and remove it.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
A friend has asked— Yesterday I said, “Do not accept any ideals.” He has asked: Osho, couldn’t the very search into anything—violence, sin, or untruth—also become an ideal?
No. Knowing the fact is not an ideal. Knowing the fact is a fact. There is a thorn in my foot. To know that a thorn is in my foot is simply the discovery of a fact, an awareness of a truth. But the thorn is in my foot and I am reading a book that says one should walk only on paths where the foot is never pricked by thorns—this is to live in the world of ideals. And because there is a thorn in my foot, I read this book to forget the thorn. We dream of a path on which there are no thorns. An ideal means: that which is not, but should be—that which should be. A fact means: that which is—that which is. There is hatred, there is anger, there is sorrow, there is violence. Nonviolence is an ideal; freedom from anger is an ideal.…
Osho, you and Shri Krishnamurti seem very opposed to having ideals in life. It is true that ideals create a great deal of hypocrisy. But if we look from the other end, the danger appears that without the challenge of ideals, growth will become impossible. There will be no difference between human and animal. So is the mistake in choosing the wrong ideals? Would you be gracious enough to say something on this?
By “ideal” you mean: distant stars in the sky… to become this, to become that. In that race of becoming you forget how you are. What is, gets forgotten; what should be, fixes your gaze. But what is—that alone is real. A man has tuberculosis—that is the reality. He “should” be healthy, he should be a wrestler like Muhammad Ali or Gama—that is an ideal. So he hangs Gama’s picture at home, does a daily arati to it. And he has TB—rotting within—while his eyes are fixed on Gama’s picture! What will come of it? Will TB vanish? The truth is: because of it, the very means of release from TB is lost. Your eye is not on TB; it is stuck on Gama’s picture. Your eye should have been on TB—then something could be done, treatment could happen. A man is burning with anger and sits with the ideal…
No—there is no ideal; there is reality. And the one who knows reality begins to change. If I fully recognize my violence, it will become impossible to be violent. And if I do not recognize my violence, I can try to be nonviolent while remaining violent. Even if I manage to become nonviolent, my nonviolence will be violence in its depths, and I will use ahimsa itself for the work of himsa. The nonviolent man too can do the work of violence. He can harass, suppress, and torture another. He too can knot his fists on another’s neck. In truth, a violent man feels a little fear in pressing another’s throat—lest it be violence. The nonviolent man feels no fear at all—there is no cause for fear. Therefore, if one must do an evil deed, always paste a good label upon it.
Bahaudin el-shah, great teacher of the naqshbandi dervishes, one day met a confrere in the great square of bokhara.
THE NEWCOMER WAS A WANDERING KALENDAR OF THE MALAMATI, THE "BLAMEWORTHY". BAHAUDIN WAS SURROUNDED BY DISCIPLES. "FROM WHERE DO YOU COME?" HE ASKED THE TRAVELER, IN THE USUAL SUFI PHRASE. "I HAVE NO IDEA," SAID THE OTHER, GRINNING FOOLISHLY. SOME OF BAHAUDIN'S DISCIPLES MURMURED THEIR DISAPPROVAL OF THIS DISRESPECT. " WHERE ARE YOU GOING?" PERSISTED BAHAUDIN. "I DO NOT KNOW," SHOUTED THE DERVISH. WHAT IS GOOD?" BY NOW A LARGE CROWD HAD GATHERED. "I DO NOT KNOW." " WHAT IS EVIL?" "I HAVE NO IDEA." " WHAT IS RIGHT?" "WHATEVER IS GOOD FOR ME." "WHAT IS WRONG?" "WHATEVER IS BAD FOR ME." THE CROWD, IRRITATED BEYOND ITS PATIENCE BY THIS DERVISH, DROVE HIM AWAY. HE WENT OFF, STRIDING PURPOSEFULLY IN A DIRECTION WHICH LED NOWHERE, AS FAR AS ANYONE KNEW. "FOOLS" SAID BAHAUDIN NAQSHBAND. "THIS MAN IS ACTING THE PART OF HUMANITY. WHILE YOU WERE DESPISING HIM,' HE WAS DELIBERATELY…
Osho, you said that all ideals are wrong. But is the ideal of attaining one’s destination, one’s destiny, equally wrong?
An ideal is wrong; it makes no difference what you make an ideal of. “Ideal” means: it will happen in the future. “Ideal” means: tomorrow. “Ideal” means: it is not available today. An ideal is postponement—for the future. What is your destiny does not need to be made into an ideal; it is bound to happen—it has, in a way, already happened. Destiny means your intrinsic nature. That which is wholly available to you in this moment is your destiny. All ideals are anti-destiny. The very meaning of an ideal is that you want to be what, in your heart of hearts, you know you cannot be. A rose becomes a rose; a lotus becomes a lotus. Nowhere in the lotus’s heart is there an ideal, “I must become a lotus.” If the lotus tried to become a lotus, it would go mad—and fail. What you are, you already are—from…