Society made these groups to keep poor people stuck below so the powerful had no competition—not because God wanted it.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
A friend has asked: Osho, why should we think about death at all? We have life—let us live it. Be in what is present. Why allow the thought of death to come in between?
Just as there can be fear of sleep. Sleep is, in a way, a daily death. The day is life; the night is death. It is a piecemeal death. Every day we die a little, we sink within; in the morning we return fresh again. Then after seventy or eighty years the whole body gets tired—work, work, work—the body wears out. Then full death takes hold; the entire body changes. But we are very afraid of that. It is a deep sleep. Yet we are very afraid of it. Have you noticed that the body changes every morning too? It changes a little, which is why you don’t notice. It does not change completely; there is a partial transformation. When you go to sleep in the evening, your body is in one condition; when you wake in the morning, your body is in another. By morning the body has become…
Osho, the second part of the question is: moved by Krishna’s stream of life, into what dimensions of living might human civilization and culture enter? Please outline it briefly and clearly.
For this one would have to speak at great length. In fact, that is what we have been doing all these days. Two–three words can be said. Through Krishna’s understanding, human civilization will become effortless and natural; it will become moment-to-moment; it will be devoted to joy; it will no longer be sorrow-centered, time-centered, negation-centered, renunciation-centered. Life will be recognized, graciously, as a benediction. And there will be no division between life and God: life itself is God. That dignity will, little by little, grow. There is no God sitting somewhere opposed to life—life itself is God. There isn’t some creator sitting apart from creation; the very process of creation, the energy of creation—creativity itself—is the Divine. If you keep in mind all that I have been saying in the meantime, the last point I have just made will become clear. In these days I said many things to you;…
Osho, in your ashram people from many countries and many castes are dyed in the same color and engaged in all kinds of work. But isn’t this a new kind of varna system, a new kind of ashram system? The scientific system Maharshi Manu gave thousands of years ago may change in form, but its foundations can never be erased. Varna and ashram have always reappeared in new forms. In that sense your sannyasins are not new, nor is your ashram system new. Can you prove Maharshi Manu’s scientific system and the ashram system wrong?
Pandit Gyan Shankar Jha, try asking someone here whether he is brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, or shudra—and then see how he treats you. A scuffle might break out. The question itself is inhuman. But in this country such inhuman questions are common. Asking someone’s caste, varna—bad manners. Yet people here even ask salaries: “What do you get paid?” They even ask, “And, anything under the table…?” And the fun is, the answerer responds without shame: “Yes, a little under the table too—God’s grace.” No shame in either. “Salary isn’t much, but there’s plenty on top, so we’re happy; the household runs fine.” No embarrassment to either party. But in this ashram be mindful what you ask. No indecency is tolerated. On what basis do you say, Pandit Gyan Shankar Jha, that the “scientific system” of Manu—its forms may change, but not its foundations? It has no foundation—baseless, forcibly imposed, artificial. Man…
Osho, it seems that whereas the sages and enlightened ones of ancient India came from affluent and high lineages, the medieval saints were born mostly among the poor and the backward classes. Would you kindly shed some light on this historical fact?
It did happen. The reason was India’s varna system. India has suffered under the varna system; even now it is not free of it. That is why the earliest tradition of saints in India was Brahmin. The rishis and seers—of the Vedas and Upanishads—were Brahmins. There was a belief that only the highest class was worthy and eligible to enter the realm of religion. Because of this belief, thousands, millions, hundreds of millions were deprived of a living relationship with the Divine. Whoever is human is qualified to attain God. Being human itself confers that qualification. Beyond being human, no other qualification is needed. It is not necessary to be a Brahmin. But the prevailing notion in this country was that only a Brahmin is so pure that he can move toward God; hence he is called “Brahmin”—one who can go toward Brahman. The rest—Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra—were cut off;…
Beloved Osho, the longing for a better life, for a utopia, has been constantly in man's mind since he became aware of his consciousness. On the other hand he became more and more afraid of all his irrational powers. Can you please comment?
That's why marriage was created; otherwise it was easier for man not to have any marriage, because marriage was simply a responsibility -- of children, of a wife. When the woman is pregnant, then you have to feed her.... And there was no need to take all that responsibility. The woman was taking the whole responsibility. But the man wanted some immortality, and that his property should be possessed by his own blood. And the woman wanted some protection -- she was vulnerable. While she was pregnant, she could not work, she could not go hunting; she had to depend on somebody. So it was in the interest of both to have a contract that they would remain together, would not betray in any sense, because the whole thing was to keep the blood pure. So Marx's idea was that when communism comes, and property becomes collective, marriage becomes meaningless…