Real character means being awake and brave, not scared or repressed—able to look life and people in the eyes with honesty.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
All right, so much is said about character—what is your definition of it? Its essential characteristic? Is practicing restraint what you call character? Not looking at a woman—is that called character? Different people say different things about character. What do you say?
Understand me well. I do not call self-restraint character. And one who is afraid to meet a woman’s gaze is without character.
प्रश्न: अच्छा, यह चारित्र्य के बारे में इतना कुछ कहा जाता है, उसके बारे में आपकी डेफिनिशन क्या है? कैरेक्टर स्टीक। संयम करना--उसका नाम चारित्र्य है? किसी औरत के सामने नहीं देखना--उसका नाम चारित्र्य है? अलग-अलग लोग अलग-अलग बात करते हैं चारित्र्य के बारे में। उसके बारे में आपका क्या कहना है?
मेरी बात समझ लीजिए। संयम करने को मैं चारित्र्य नहीं कहता हूं। और जो स्त्री के सामने देखने से डरता है वह चरित्रहीन है।
Osho, what is the fundamental anguish of human life?
There is only one anguish: that a human being cannot become what he was born to be. There is only one anguish: that the seed remains a seed and does not bloom like a flower; that it cannot scatter its fragrance to the infinite winds; cannot converse with the moon and stars; cannot offer its colors to the sky; cannot be expressed. If the poem within the poet cannot be revealed—anguish. If the painter cannot paint—anguish. If the dancer cannot dance—if chains lie on his feet—anguish. Anguish means only this: that what we are meant to be—our innate nature and destiny—does not come to fruition, and we are forced to be something else. Then anguish is born. Then melancholy gathers over life. And all those countless people you see burdened with sorrow, living in a kind of hell—the reason is only this: each has come carrying the seed of becoming…
चौथा प्रश्न: ओशो, मनुष्य जीवन का मूल संताप क्या है?
एक ही संताप है कि मनुष्य वह न हो पाए जो होने को पैदा हुआ है। एक ही संताप है, कि बीज बीज रह जाए, फूल की तरह खिल न पाए। बिखेर न सके अपनी सुवास को अनंत-अनंत हवाओं में; कर न सके गुफ्तगू चांद-तारों से; निवेदन न कर पाए अपने रंगों का आकाश के प्रति; अभिव्यक्त न हो पाए--एक ही संताप है। कवि के भीतर की कविता प्रकट न हो सके--तो संताप। चित्रकार चित्र न बना सके--तो संताप। नर्तक नाच न सके, पैरों में जंजीरें पड़ी हों--तो संताप। संताप का एक ही अर्थ होता है: जो हम होने को हैं, जो हमारी सहज प्रकृति और नियति है, वह न हो पाए और हमें अन्यथा होने को मजबूर होना पड़े, तो संताप पैदा होता है। तो जीवन में विषाद घिरता है।
One thing can be right in one situation and can be wrong in another situation -- the same thing. If by a small lie you can save a man's life then how will you decide what is right and what is wrong? You can tell just a small lie, that 'I was not there, I and you were there,' but that can save a human life which may have infinite potential, infinite possibilities, which may blossom. The man may become a Buddha -- who knows? Tomorrow is unpredictable, so is it right to say a lie or wrong? In this situation it is perfectly right to tell a lie, in other situations it would not be right to tell lies. Who is going to decide? -- because ultimately. You have to encounter the situations. You cannot go on carrying the Bible and the Koran and the Vedas and consulting them.
Osho, along with being a good leader, is it also necessary that their personal life be good?
Not at all necessary. This too is one of this country’s naivetés! This too is one of this country’s naivetés! (The audio recording of the question is not clear.) Yes, yes—ordinarily it will be so. The more stupid a person is, the more they will fit into what society calls character—the more stupid they are! An intelligent person will not fit neatly. He will see twenty-five differences; he will want to live life in his own way. It is not that he is characterless—that is not the point! But what you call character he may consider a very trivial thing. He will have character, but his definition of character will be entirely different. What we call character, he may not even call character—because what we call character is an idea belonging to a mind from four or five thousand years ago. Therefore I hold that these expectations of ours are…
जिसको नेतृत्व कहें, वह मुल्क में है ही नहीं। नेतृत्व ही नहीं है, लीडरशिप ही नहीं है। बहुत ही कमजोर किस्म के लोग ऊपर बैठे हुए हैं। न कोई ढंग की दिशा है, न कोई दृष्टि है। नेता होने भर का एक मजा है। बातचीत भी एकदम सामान्य है। नेतृत्व ही नहीं है देश में। यह सबसे बड़ा दुर्भाग्य है। बुरा नेता भी हो, नेता तो हो! वह भी नहीं है। (प्रश्न का ध्वनि-मुद्रण स्पष्ट नहीं है।) अराजकता को हेल्प करे तब तो बड़ा अच्छा है, लेकिन कर नहीं पाती। क्योंकि इस सारे उपद्रव के भीतर से तानाशाही के सिवाय कुछ भी पैदा नहीं होता। अराजकता इससे नहीं पैदा होती। अराजकता जो दिखती है वह फाल्स है। यह जो सब चल रहा है मुल्क में यह पूर्व-आयोजित है। इससे अनार्की पैदा होती नहीं। अनार्की तो तभी पैदा हो सकती है जब बड़ी सुव्यवस्था हो। उससे ही अनार्की पैदा होती है, नहीं तो नहीं पैदा होती। अभी इस वक्त नहीं पैदा हो सकती है।
Osho, why don't you give your disciples a certain mode of conduct? Isn't a moral character necessary for a spiritual life?
Mahendra Singh, that's why I don't give my people ANY code of conduct. I give them eyes to see, a consciousness to reflect, a mirrorlike being to be able to respond to any situation that arises. I don't give them detailed information about what to do and what not to do; I don't give them ten commandments. And if you start giving them commandments then you cannot stop at ten, because life is far more complex. In Buddhist scriptures there are thirty-three thousand rules for a Buddhist monk. Thirty-three thousand rules! For every possible situation that may ever arise, they have given a ready-made answer. But how are you going to remember thirty-three thousand rules of conduct? And a man who is cunning enough to remember thirty-three thousand rules of conduct will be clever enough to find a way out always; if he does not want to do a certain…