Calling women anyone’s property—whether one man’s or everyone’s—is wrong; women are free people, not things to own.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Morarji desai said in an interview given to "sunday": "rajneesh puts emphasis on the socialization of woman." he said, "just as prostitutes are socialized, he wants all women to be socialized." he also said, "rajneesh goes even further and says that there is no need of marriage. Rajneesh also advocates free sex." what do you say about it, beloved master?
Let things cool down, let things become ordinary. Let them see wether they can manage with ordinary life, with day-to-day problems, and only then allow them to get married. That too should be temporary. Maybe every two years they have to come back to renew it; if they don't come, it is finished. The licence should be renewed every two years, and whenever they want to separate, no problem should be created. AND HE SAID, "RAJNEESH ALSO ADVOCATES FREE SEX." WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT IT? It is very difficult for Morarji Desai and people like him to understand what I am saying. What I am saying really means transcendence of sex. I am not teaching sex, I am teaching love. But in people's minds there is no difference between love and sex. In their minds love means sex, because they have not known love, they have only known sex.…
Osho, after wasting forty years in an atheist socialist ideology, I came into contact with you fifteen years ago. How can I describe the joy and celebration I have experienced in life since then? How can I express my gratitude? Words have become utterly poor. Having met you, it feels as if everything has been found! Lord, please accept my salutations.
Moore spoke truly. Destroying the other, you do not become. The other’s death is not your life. You can ruin the flowers of another’s garden, but that won’t make champa, chameli, or juhi bloom in yours. Set the neighbor’s house on fire—your hut won’t become a palace. So the one who has said no—authentically, who is an atheist... My definition of an atheist is: one who has become absorbed in saying no; who says no so much that he says no even to God, no to soul, no to life’s highest values; who says life is only matter and nothing else—mere dust, with no essence, nothing eternal. For a little while, there may be some fun in saying no. But how long? Soon the thought will dawn: If nothing exists—no God, no truth, no beauty, no goodness, nothing eternal, no deathlessness, no Buddhahood—then life is utterly futile, “a tale told…
Economic. Yes. If she has no personal standing, no property, then she is always weak; all her freedom is just empty talk. She knows deep down that the husband is everything, because the property is with the husband.
In the West, the freedom of women began when women began to have personal property. When she had her own wealth standing behind her, a personality started to form. If we take wealth away from a human being, take away his dream, and hand everything over to the state, we depersonalize everyone; then we remain a crowd and cease to be human. And it is difficult even to imagine how many ill effects this will have on human beings. The effects on culture are equally hard to imagine. And the great irony is that whoever comes to dominate such a State becomes powerful in direct proportion to how much the individual is stripped of selfhood. Here the strength of each person is snatched away, and all that power is gathered into the hands of a few. Then they can do anything. Stalin killed anywhere from five to eight million people…
So all that is unnecessary to teach and waste time, should be optional. Or for what libraries exist? People should go -- if they have an interest in geography and history, they look in the library. But more basic things... And whenever you create something, when your rose bush brings beautiful roses, you have a certain happiness that destruction cannot have. So education should be divided. A part we certainly need, but that too will not be a slave. But the major part should be made creative, he should not be dependent on anybody. Students should be supported in making communes, not factories owned by one individual. The commune owns everything and the commune provides everybody's need. This is my conception of an authentic socialism. VEDANT: SINCE YOU MENTION SOCIALISM, I HAVE A QUESTION. IS SOCIALISM VIABLE, AND IS SOCIALISM RELEVANT TO INDIA?
Osho! I have been listening to you for years, and I listened again yesterday. It seems that in general you honor women with deep compassion and appreciation. But when you speak of a woman in the role of a wife, you scold her and depict a very different image. Why is that?
An hour later, when he came out and walked back toward the ship with his friends, the friends began telling him what all they had done. They asked Gandhi what had happened. Poor fellow—what could he say! He kept it hidden. Later, years later, he wrote in his autobiography that nothing happened—nothing could have happened; he just sat there with eyes lowered. The woman took so much pity on him that she even returned his money. “Brother, take your money back. If the loss of the money grieves you, then at least take it back. And if you need anything, say so.” She felt such compassion: “What kind of man is this!” The ways women have always used in their behavior, rebellion, revenge—those are precisely what Gandhi used. He gave them sweet names—ahimsa, nonviolence; satyagraha, the force of truth. If a man gets angry, he will beat the woman; if…