Good and bad are two sides of the same coin—don’t pick a side; watch both calmly until you find the quiet beyond them.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, yesterday it was said that there is a balance of good and evil in the world. The two are always equal in measure. When one evil is erased, some good also diminishes. If this balance is never going to change, then what is the purpose of sadhana?
Arjuna too is afflicted with this same duality. What is his question, his concern, his entanglement? It is this very entanglement. He sees that this war is evil: people will die, there will only be killing, blood will flow. Who knows how many women will be widowed, how many children orphaned. Sorrow and wailing will spread from house to house. This is bad. So he says to Krishna: let me drop this evil. This does not seem like something to do. Better I go to the forest, take sannyas, become detached, renounce everything—drop the bad and hold to the good. And what is Krishna explaining to him? That is why Krishna’s message, while simple, is exceedingly difficult. Krishna is explaining: as long as you think, “This is bad, I should drop it; this is good, I should do it,” you will remain in confusion. Drop the very notion of karma.…
पहला प्रश्न: ओशो, कल कहा गया कि दुनिया में अच्छाई और बुराई का संतुलन है। ये दोनों सदा ही सम परिमाण हैं। एक बुरा मिटता है, तो अच्छा भी कम होता है। अगर इस संतुलन में कभी बदल होने वाला नहीं है, तो साधना का प्रयोजन क्या है?
… वह देखता है कि यह जो युद्ध है, बुराई है। इसमें सिर्फ लोग मरेंगे, सिर्फ हत्या होगी, खून बहेगा। न मालूम कितनी स्त्रियां विधवा हो जाएंगी। न मालूम कितने बच्चे अनाथ हो जाएंगे। घर-घर में दुख और हाहाकार छा जाएगा। यह बुरा है। तो वह कृष्ण से यही कह रहा है कि इस बुराई को मैं छोड़ दूं। यह बुराई करने जैसी नहीं लगती। इससे तो अच्छा है कि मैं जंगल चला जाऊं, संन्यास ले लूं, विरक्त हो जाऊं, छोड़ दूं सब। बुराई को छोड़ दूं, अच्छाई को पकड़ लूं। और कृष्ण उसे क्या समझा रहे हैं? इसलिए कृष्ण का संदेश सरल होते हुए भी अति कठिन है। कृष्ण उसे यह समझा रहे हैं कि तू जब तक यह सोचता है कि यह बुरा है, इसे छोडूं; यह भला है, इसे करूं; तब तक तू उलझन में रहेगा। तू कर्म की धारणा छोड़ दे। …
Osho, in this chapter of the Gita the qualities of the divine and the demonic are described. The earth seems packed with asuras, while a deva appears only once in millions. Why is this so?
There is an indispensable balance in life. As much evil as there is here, there is that much good. As much darkness, that much light. As much life, that much death. Neither can be more or less. Both are needed in equal measure, only then does life move. They are the two wheels of the cart. The world is moving, has moved, will go on moving—because its two wheels are equal. Yet the question is meaningful. Ordinarily it does look as if the earth is full of demons; where are the devas? Try to understand. We see only what we are. If the earth appears full of asuras, that is a vision of our own demonic tendency. We cannot even recognize a deva. He may appear, he may be present, yet we will not recognize him. Unless a little glimpse of divinity has been kindled within us, no relationship is…
पहला प्रश्न: ओशो, गीता के इस अध्याय में देवों और असुरों के गुण बताए गए। हम असुरों से तो धरती पटी पड़ी है, किंतु देव तो करोड़ों में कोई एक होता है। ऐसा क्यों है?
जीवन में एक अनिवार्य संतुलन है। जितनी यहां बुराई है, उतनी ही यहां भलाई है। जितना यहां अंधेरा है, उतना ही यहां प्रकाश है। जितना यहां जीवन है, उतनी ही यहां मृत्यु है। दोनों में से कोई भी कम-ज्यादा नहीं हो सकते। दोनों की बराबर मात्रा चाहिए, तो ही जीवन चल पाता है। वे गाड़ी के दो चाक हैं। संसार चल रहा है, चलता रहा है, चलता रहेगा। उसके दोनों चाक बराबर हैं, इसीलिए। लेकिन फिर भी प्रश्न सार्थक है। क्योंकि साधारणतः देखने पर हमें यही दिखाई पड़ता है कि असुरों से तो पृथ्वी भरी है; देव कहां हैं? समझने की कोशिश करें। हमें वही दिखाई पड़ता है, जो हम हैं। पृथ्वी असुरों से भरी दिखाई पड़ती है, वह हमारी अपनी आसुरी वृत्ति का दर्शन है। देव को तो हम पहचान भी नहीं सकते। वह दिखाई भी पड़े, मौजूद भी हो, तो भी हम उसे पहचान नहीं सकते। …
Osho, you said that life exists in polar opposites -- birth and death, good and evil, peace and violence, kindness and cruelty, beauty and ugliness. It seems that these polar opposites are inevitable and are bound to be there. Then what do we strive for through religion? Then what is meant by spiritual transformation? Saints and prophets try to create a spiritual society and culture. Does it not mean that they want to change the natural state of things? And if we succeed in creating a healthy spiritual society, then what will be the situation of the other polar opposites like cruelty, violence
This is one of the most significant problems, and much confusion exists about it. So first, know well that religion is not ethics, religion is not morality. Morality goes on endeavouring against that which is evil, bad, immoral -- that which is sin. So morality is a conflict, a struggle, against that which is evil. Morality is trying to create a moral world where no immorality should exist. That is impossible! Only you can change, but the balance remains the same. This is one of the. deepest laws of nature -- that it exists as polar opposites. If you destroy one, the opposite will also be destroyed. In a world where there is nothing bad, nothing will be good. Where there is no sinner, there will be no saint. The saint exists as a polar opposite to the sinner; they are interdependent. So moral effort cannot create a world where…
Osho, you said... then you will find that the devotee is God. The question arises: if one devotee prefers to be God and another wants to remain only a devotee, then which of the two is superior?
The one who wants to be God will not be able to be. And the one who wants to remain a devotee will become God. The question of superior or inferior does not arise, because only one of the two will happen. The one who does not want to be will be. The one who wants to be will be deprived. That very wanting is of the ego. But the matter is a little delicate. Sometimes humility too belongs to the ego. Beware that your humility may not be of the ego. Perhaps you are saying, “No, I don’t want to be,” because you know that those who refuse are the ones who attain. Then you are clever. Then your humility is adulterous. Your humility is not pure, not sacred, not virginal—it is like a prostitute. The one who wants to be God, whose ego says, “I must become God,”…
दूसरा प्रश्न: ओशो, आपने कहा... तब पाओगे कि भक्त ही भगवान है। प्रश्न उठता है कि एक भक्त भगवान होना पसंद करे और दूसरा सिर्फ भक्त रहना चाहे, तो दोनों में श्रेष्ठ कौन है?
जो भगवान होना चाहे वह तो हो न पाएगा। और जो भक्त भक्त ही रहना चाहे वह भगवान हो जाएगा। श्रेष्ठ-अश्रेष्ठ का सवाल नहीं उठता, क्योंकि एक ही हो पाएगा। जो नहीं होना चाहता वही हो पाएगा। जो होना चाहता है, वह तो वंचित रह जाएगा। वह तो चाह भी अहंकार की ही है। लेकिन मामला थोड़ा नाजुक है। कभी-कभी ऐसा होता है कि विनम्रता भी अहंकार की ही होती है। कहीं तुम्हारी विनम्र्रता भी अहंकार की ही न हो। कहीं तुम इसलिए ही न कर रहे होओ कि नहीं मैं नहीं होना चाहता, क्योंकि तुम जानते हो कि जो इनकार करते हैं वही हो पाते हैं। तो तुम चालाक हो। तो तुम्हारी विनम्रता व्यभिचारी है। तो तुम्हारी विनम्रता शुद्ध नहीं, पवित्र नहीं, कुंआरी नहीं, वेश्या जैसी है।
Question: BELOVED OSHO, AND ONE OF THE ELDERS OF THE CITY SAID, SPEAK TO US OF GOOD AND EVIL. AND HE ANSWERED: OF THE GOOD IN YOU I CAN SPEAK, BUT NOT OF THE EVIL. FOR WHAT IS EVIL BUT GOOD TORTURED BY ITS OWN HUNGER AND THIRST? VERILY WHEN GOOD IS HUNGRY IT SEEKS FOOD EVEN IN DARK CAVES, AND WHEN IT THIRSTS IT DRINKS EVEN OF DEAD WATERS. YOU ARE GOOD WHEN YOU ARE ONE WITH YOURSELF. YET WHEN YOU ARE NOT ONE WITH YOURSELF YOU ARE NOT EVIL. FOR A DIVIDED HOUSE IS NOT A DEN OF THIEVES; IT IS ONLY A DIVIDED HOUSE. AND A SHIP WITHOUT RUDDER MAY WANDER AIMLESSLY AMONG PERILOUS ISLES YET SINK NOT TO THE BOTTOM. YOU ARE GOOD WHEN YOU STRIVE TO GIVE OF YOURSELF. YET YOU ARE NOT EVIL WHEN YOU SEEK GAIN FOR YOURSELF.