Economics

Osho, are you for an organized movement for the economic betterment of man? Because you have declared yourself against all organized movements. So do you propose a movement for economic regeneration, or a rebellion for economic regeneration? I suppose you do.

I am against organized movements, not against movement. Whenever a movement becomes organized, it is no longer a movement; it immediately turns into a vested interest. There should be movement—a wave in the consciousness of the whole country, a stirring. From that movement, things should emerge. But the moment it is organized, it becomes tied to a small section. A minority then starts trying to impose itself on the majority. Whenever a movement is organized, by that very organization it becomes the property of a minority and tries to impose itself on the majority. Then violence is born, because whenever a minority tries to forcibly change the majority, violence becomes inevitable. In my view, the movement should be diffused; it should spread. It should deepen, idea by idea. And when the whole country consents to an idea, then without much organization things change on their own... A decentralized social structure…

Can religion or meditation help one to be more economically well off? Can it make a poor country rich?

No, it cannot. It is not an economic movement; it is a religious movement. It has a specific dimension within which to work. It can help a person to become more conscious, it can help a person to be more silent, it can help a person to be calm and collected, but it cannot help economically in any way. If you take life as a whole, then to waste life only in economics and politics is a great wastage. If you take life as a whole then ultimately, whatsoever you achieve, what is inside you is the only achievement. All else is just superficial. Religion and meditation cannot help to make a poor country rich in any way. It cannot. But it can help a poor man to be rich -- in a very noneconomic sense. If riches only mean the outward thing then religion is absolutely irrelevant, but if…

Osho, is the result of meditation useful only for the religious life, or is it also useful in day-to-day practical life? Please explain.

Fundamentally, it is useful for religion. But religion is the soul of a person. And when the soul changes, behavior changes on its own. If the within changes, the without inevitably follows. That change, however, is like a shadow, like an outcome. It walks behind. It is like asking: if a man runs, will only the man run or will his shadow also run? The question is of that kind. If the man runs, the shadow is bound to run. Yes, the reverse is not possible: if the shadow runs, will the man run? First, the shadow cannot run. And even if it appeared to, there is no way for the man to run after it. So, if a person’s practical life changes, it is not necessary that his religious life has changed. It may be that in behavior he is a very good man, and inwardly not good at…

Master lu-tsu said: your work will gradually become concentrated and mature, but before you reach the condition in which you sit like a withered tree before a cliff, there are still many possibilities of error which I would like to bring to your special attention. These conditions are recognized only when they have been personally experienced. First I would like to speak of the mistakes and then of the confirmatory signs.

WHEN ONE BEGINS TO CARRY OUT ONE'S DECISION, CARE MUST BE TAKEN SO THAT EVERYTHING CAN PROCEED IN A COMFORTABLE, RELAXED MANNER. TOO MUCH MUST NOT BE DEMANDED OF THE HEART. ONE MUST BE CAREFUL THAT, QUITE AUTOMATICALLY, HEART AND ENERGY ARE COORDINATED. ONLY THEN CAN A STATE OF QUIETNESS BE ATTAINED. DURING THIS QUIET STATE THE RIGHT CONDITIONS AND THE RIGHT SPACE MUST BE PROVIDED. ONE MUST NOT SIT DOWN (TO MEDITATE) IN THE MIDST OF FRIVOLOUS AFFAIRS. THAT IS TO SAY, THE MIND MUST BE FREE OF VAIN PREOCCUPATIONS. ALL ENTANGLEMENTS MUST BE PUT ASIDE; ONE MUST BE DETACHED AND INDEPENDENT. NOR MUST THE THOUGHTS BE CONCENTRATED UPON THE RIGHT PROCEDURE. THIS DANGER ARISES IF TOO MUCH TROUBLE IS TAKEN. I DO NOT MEAN THAT NO TROUBLE IS TO BE TAKEN, BUT THE CORRECT WAY LIES IN KEEPING EQUAL DISTANCE BETWEEN BEING AND NOT BEING. IF ONE CAN…