Rules are like a walking stick for someone who can’t see—when your inner eyes open with awareness, you don’t need the stick anymore.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Several other friends have, in many forms, asked a second question in various ways. That too needs to be talked over with you. They have asked: Osho, is there any place in life for restraint, rules, celibacy? Because you never speak of them!
Man will create anew. If the mind demands, you cannot stop it. The works of great poets like Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti are full of eros—what will you do? Obscene to the core! Why has this entire sickness arisen—this literature, music, dance, painting, sculpture all clustering around sex? Because a basic error has occurred in man’s life. If a village is kept hungry for some days, do you know what they’ll dream of—women? No—bread, feasts, palaces where the king has invited them to dine. If a village is kept chronically hungry, what will its poets sing of—women? No—bread. The whole village will circle around bread; its consciousness will be seized by bread. The German poet Heine wrote: once I had to go hungry for three days. As long as my belly was full, the moon looked to me like my beloved’s face. After three days of hunger, the moon seemed like…
Osho! From your talks it seems you are against celibates, against rules, codes, and ideals. You also keep criticizing rishis and monks. You even say we should be free of the scriptures. In the end, what do you mean? What is your religion? For society, will you lay down any rules?
The poor emperor went. They say he took a chariot filled with gold and jewels. He overturned it before Raikva and said, “Gurudev, this is my offering at your feet.” Raikva said, “Hey Shudra, take it away! I have no taste for wealth.” Vinoba Bhave loved to tell this story—but only up to here. He would say: since Raikva said, “Hey Shudra, take this away! I have no faith in wealth,” it means that one who has faith in wealth is a Shudra. During his Bhoodan movement he repeated this often. No one objected. When he came to Jabalpur, I was there. I said, “The story is incomplete. Please tell it whole.” He said, “Whole? I’ve always told it like this.” I said, “It’s not a matter of how you tell it. The story is incomplete; tell it whole and the meaning changes.” And I narrated the rest: “The emperor…
A friend has asked: If Mahavira were passing along a road and a creature were being killed, what would he do? If a rape were occurring, what would Mahavira do? Would he behave as if he were absent? And if someone were groaning in unbearable pain, what would Mahavira do?
Mulla listened a long while and said, “This is nothing. Once I too went to war; I cut off so many people’s legs!” The warrior said, “Sir, it would have been better if you had cut off heads.” Nasruddin said, “Someone had already cut off the heads. We came home after cutting many legs—didn’t even get a scratch. You look quite beaten up.” So there too you will do economy: if it is a question of your head or your leg, you will have the leg cut off—what else will you do? “I am the center of the whole world. To save myself I can stake the whole world.” That is violence, that is killing. Mahavira sees so vast a perspective. In that perspective, will what you call killing appear to him as it appears to you? Certainly not. And it is obvious you cannot see as Mahavira sees. Therefore…
A friend has asked whether I am opposed to restraint.
He reached the capital. His reputation had preceded him. An old friend living there was amazed to hear that his hot-tempered companion had become a monk—Muni Shantinath! He could not believe it and went to see him. The monk was seated on a high platform. Thousands had come for his darshan. Those who sit upon high platforms do not recognize the ones below. Whether the platform is a minister’s or a monk’s makes no difference—the platform should be high; then no one below counts. For the pleasure of not having to recognize anyone, people climb to high platforms. The world should recognize them, and they should not have to recognize anyone—that is the ego’s delight. The monk saw his friend, but did not acknowledge him. The friend understood that he had been recognized, yet the monk was pretending otherwise. He thought, “It is unlikely this man has conquered anger, because…
He has asked: Mahavira and Buddha speak of self-restraint and renunciation—so what is wrong with that?
Buddha said, “In the last village some people brought sweets. I told them, ‘My stomach is full.’ They took their trays back. I say the same to you: my belly is already full of your abuses. No hunger remains. Please take your trays back.” And Buddha added, “I feel pity for you. Those people who took their sweets back must have distributed them somewhere. But what will you do with these abuses? Because I refuse to accept them. You have the right to give; at least grant me this much right—to accept or not. I refuse to accept your abuses.” This man is not “restrained,” with anger surging inside while he grits his teeth, clenches his fist, and thinks, “I won’t let the anger out.” If he is such a person, no understanding has dawned. A man of restraint need not have understanding; but a man of understanding will have…