Viraha

Question: The third question: Osho, what is viraha? If you ask, you will not be able to understand; had you understood, you would not have asked. Even if you could understand, you still would not ask. Because viraha is not a theory, not some philosophical concept—it is the felt experience of love. Suppose someone who has never loved asks, “What is love?” How are we to explain it, how to convey it? It is like a blind person asking, “What is light?” What way is there to tell him? Whatever we say will only entangle him further. He will not understand—and he will fall into more confusion and perplexity. Viraha is an experience; if you have loved, you can know it. And one who has loved will surely come to know viraha.

Question: Last question: Osho, what is viraha? On the path of devotion, viraha is half the journey and union the remaining half. There are only two steps in devotion—viraha and union. First viraha, then union. Only the one who longs in separation will arrive. Viraha means I do not know who I am. Viraha means I do not know where the Divine is, where it is hiding. Viraha means I do not find the meaning of my life. Viraha means tears upon tears are spread over my soul; I am crying, I am calling; no way is seen, there is darkness; I grope, I wander; I fall, I rise. Viraha is thirst. Viraha is yearning. There is something that is not being revealed—and if it were to be revealed, life would find meaning, harmony would come into life, music would arise.

Osho, the saints speak often of the state of viraha. What kind of “affliction” is this viraha?

Young people come to me and say, “What to do? Very bad thoughts arise in the mind.” “Bad thoughts? Which bad thoughts?” I ask. “We have fallen in love with a woman. Very bad thoughts arise. Please free us.” They call falling in love with a woman “very bad thoughts.” Love—a bad thought! But this is what has been explained, this is what is taught. Armies of pundits and priests are spreading this poison. It is utterly natural. There is nothing bad in it. Nothing sinful or criminal. Yes—one thing is true: do not stop there. Do not gather the mud and sit with it. Do not sit in the mud. Lotuses must be born. Keep the remembrance of the lotus, keep the search for the lotus. But the lotuses are rooted in the mud. Love! Love fearlessly. Love consciously. Love, dropping all guilt. Then you will know love, you…

Say something about virah, this unknown longing in my heart.

It is such a clear and simple matter, there cannot be two opinions about it. But Mahatma Gandhi went on a fast. He was non-violent, he initiated a non-violent war. He went on a fast saying, "I will kill myself, I will starve myself. This would be tremendously harmful to the Hindus. Harijans are Hindus and will always remain Hindus." He fasted long, his health was failing, finally Ambedkar had to yield. Ambedkar agreed, don't give a separate vote. And the Gandhian historians write: a victory for non-violence! This is very strange: who is the non-violent one in this? Ambedkar is non-violent. Seeing that Gandhi would die, he dropped his insistence. Gandhi is the violent one in this. He forced Ambedkar with this threat of killing himself. Understand it. If you threaten to kill someone else it is violence and if you threaten to kill yourself it is non-violence: but…