Good and Evil

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.…

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…

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 yourself have said there is no way to go against nature in any direction. Then whether, in the ocean of nature, we float or swim—whether we live in friendship with it or in enmity—where does any violation of nature occur? Yet you also explain: move in harmony with nature; in its river don’t swim, float. Osho, in this context, what is the alchemy of “nahin Ram bin thav”—there is no resting place without Ram? Please help us understand.

There is no way to be against nature, because there is nothing that is not nature. Whatever is, is nature. There is no path to fight with nature—who would fight? There is none other than nature. But the feeling, the idea, the vision that “I am fighting nature” can be adopted, it can be cultivated. When you swim in the river, you still are not going against nature, because swimming too is natural. Even when you “fight” the river, the river is not fighting you. So there is no way to be an enemy of nature. But in your mind the notion can arise that you are fighting, that you must win, must not lose—and you can fall into the madness of winning and losing. You will suffer from that. Nature suffers nothing. Nor will nature obstruct you or demand you change. Nature will go on as it is, endlessly.…