DEAR OSHO, TODAY YOU SPOKE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND LET US LAUGH AT THE IDEA OF ALL MEN WALKING ARM-IN-ARM THROUGH THE STREETS AND CALLING EACH OTHER 'DARLING' LAUGHTER IS GOOD, OF COURSE, BUT SOMETIMES IT HAS AN EDGE OF MOCKERY. AS A GAY PERSON, I FELT PUT DOWN AT THAT MOMENT. PLEASE WILL YOU TALK ABOUT HOW GAY PEOPLE OR BLACKS OR JEWS OR ANY OTHER MINORITY MAY RECEIVE AND ACCEPT SUCH LAUGHTER.

Pradipam,

YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY GAY PERSON HERE. We have many gay guys, and many lesbian ladies too. This is a miniature world -- I have all kinds of people here; my garden contains all kinds of flowerings, all kinds of plants. It is less a garden, more a jungle. And I accept all -- wild plants and all. Everybody is welcome.

Why did only you become disturbed? There are very famous gay guys here. In fact, I never knew, Pradipam, that you were also one of them. Why did you become disturbed? Why has nobody else taken any offence? They have learnt to accept -- because that is my whole teaching! Accept whosoever you are. No condemnation, no judgement, no evaluation. If you are a homosexual, so what?! Enjoy it! God has made you that way. That is his way of expressing himself through you. And there have been great homosexuals -- from Socrates onwards.

If you look at the long history of homosexuals, you will be surprised: they have had better company than the heterosexuals. In fact, great talented poets, painters, musicians, artists -- all had a tendency towards homosexuality. There is something in it, and that something has to be understood -- why artists, painters and poets? Because these are the inventive people -- they are never satisfied with things as they find them; they try to do new things.

Now, heterosexuality is a natural phenomenon; it is simply a given fact. The inventive people start trying new ways to relate; they are imaginative. Just falling in love again and again with a woman or with a man seems to be routine. They would like to try some new experiments. These are the people who have invented homosexuality. They are inventors.

And some have gone even a little further ahead: they have become bisexuals. Now the bisexual thinks the homosexual is a little behind. The bisexual is more fluid -- can adjust with a woman, can adjust with a man. He has far more opportunities of love-making. He will never be starved; he can always find a lover, a beloved.

You must be feeling guilty somehow deep down; that's why you became offended. Otherwise, you would have laughed and enjoyed the joke. And, in fact, I am not responsible for saying those words -- guess who is responsible?... And I don't think you can guess. The Pope!

The Pope went on a journey to the Holy Land. On the last day he went to the Mountain of Calvary and said his prayers. He walked down the hill looking very holy and solemn with his incense-bowl swinging from his hand. A homosexual who had been watching him from a distance came up to the Pope, pulled very gently at his sleeve and said, "Hello, darling, your handbag is on fire."

I got that idea from the Pope. But, Pradipam, please don't be offended -- I am not against anybody. Blacks or Jews or homosexuals -- I am not against anybody. My whole message is one of total acceptance.
But I don't invent these jokes: my sannyasins go on sending them to me. So if you have some jokes against heterosexuals, please send them to me. Just whatsoever jokes I receive, I use.

Sometimes a few women have written letters to me saying, "Your jokes are always against women." What can I do? Send me jokes against men! I have no interest in inventing jokes -- people go on sending me them. Send any kind of joke and I will use it.

But this guilty feeling is not good. Deep down you are feeling as if you are doing something wrong -- that's why it hurts. You have a wound inside; you may have covered it, but the wound is there. And if you understand me, uncover the wound. Only when you uncover it can it be healed. Let the sun heal it and the wind heal it. Uncover it!

It is perfectly right, whatsoever you are. It is NOBODY else's business. If two men feel good being together, it is nobody else's business to interfere. No law, no government, no religion, no church, should come in. If they BOTH are happy, it is perfectly their own decision. And we want the world to be happy -- and these two persons are contributing their happiness to the world by being happy together.

If two women feel good being with each other, the world is happier for that, better for that. Don't make them feel guilty unnecessarily. But guilt persists -- because down the ages you have been taught homosexuality is a sin; down the ages you have been taught that this is one of the greatest sins.

You may be surprised to know: there have been states in America, just a hundred years ago, where the punishment for homosexuality was sentence for life. And there have been countries where one was beheaded if one was caught in any homosexual relationship.

Humanity has been so stupid in the past. And we ALL carry those conditioning's deep down in the collective unconscious.

A ventriloquist -- maybe it was Sarvesh -- was driving in the country when he was attracted to a large farm. He asked for and was given a tour.
As he was shown through the barn, the ventriloquist thought he would have some fun. He proceeded to make one of the horses talk.

The hired hand, wide-eyed with fear, rushed from the barn to the farmer. "Sam," he shouted, "those animals are talking! If that little sheep says anything about me, it is a damned lie!"
That's how guilt comes up. You cannot hide it -- it has its way of manifesting.

You condemn your homosexuality -- that's how your question has arisen. Otherwise, you would have laughed, you would have enjoyed it! And unless a man is capable of laughing at himself, he does not know what laughter is and the beauty of laughter. To laugh at others is very simple; it is violent, it is cruel. To laugh at oneself has something spiritual about it. But we go on hiding behind rationalizations.

Now you think the homosexual minority is being offended. One thing you should know: I am neither a heterosexual, nor a homosexual, nor a bisexual -- so I cannot be against this and for that. I belong no more to the world of sex. Sex has no more meaning -- that's why I can accept you all.

Your so-called saints will not be capable of accepting you all, because they belong to the world of sex; they themselves are sexual beings still -- repressed, obsessed, maybe against, but to be against means you are still obsessed. I am neither for nor against, neither for this nor for that. It simply does not matter! It is simply games that people enjoy playing -- it is fun, that's all. It has nothing serious about it. It is childish.

Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, all is childish.

One day I hope you will grow beyond all these. And then a totally different phenomenon happens: in the East we have called it BRAHMACHARYA. The West has no equivalent word for it -- because in the West consciousness has never penetrated to that height. The word 'celibacy' is a poor translation, and with ugly connotations.

'Celibacy' simply means not getting involved in sex; it is a negative word. The celibate may not be beyond sex; he may be simply withholding. BRAHMACHARYA actually means: living like a God. The literal meaning is: living like God. What does it mean? -- living like God. It means sex has simply disappeared: that smoke no more surrounds the flame of your being; your flame of being is smokeless. And when sex has utterly disappeared, the whole energy that is contained in sexuality is released in love, in compassion.

But by feeling offended, you exposed yourself. In a way this is good. Don't feel guilty any more. And it is always good to expose yourself in utter nudity. Don't be afraid, because that is the only way to, know oneself -- to expose oneself.

According to legend, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung once travelled together on a train, and during the journey Jung began to analyse Freud, probing deeper and deeper into the man's psyche in an attempt to pinpoint the origin of his neurosis. Freud was being his evasive self, so when Jung came to within a hairbreadth of Freud's essence, he asked impatiently for Freud to reveal his innermost being, his true, real self.
"I cannot," Freud refused. "To do so would be to give up my authority."
At that, Jung sat back and sighed, "Then you have already lost it."

The real man is always ready to expose himself to the very core, because he is not afraid. Freud saying this, "I cannot expose my real self because to do so would be to give up my authority," is simply saying that he is carrying a pseudo self around himself. He carried it his whole life -- although he was the originator of psychoanalysis he was never psychoanalysed. Many times his disciples approached him and said, "We can psychoanalyse you," but he always refused. He was afraid.

This legend is very symbolic -- he was afraid to expose himself as he was. And the fear was of losing authority. But a REAL man of authority is never afraid of losing it. He CANNOT lose it. There is NO way of losing it. And this is the difference between a man of authority and an authoritative man. The authoritative man has NO real authority; he is a pretender. The man of authority can expose himself absolutely, because his authority is not something imposed from the outside -- it is his very core, his experience, his authenticity.

Jung did well when he sat back and said, Then you have already lost it."
It is said, from that day the rift started between Jung and Freud; then it could not be bridged again. And I cannot say that only Jung was responsible for the rift; in fact, basically Freud himself was responsible. Freud was suffering from many kinds of things which can be called neurotic. Still he would not allow himself to be analysed.

My whole work here is to help you to expose yourself in your utter nudity. Whatsoever you are, wherever you are, I am going to seek and search you out and bring you into the light. Sometimes it hurts, it shocks; sometimes you feel angry, offended, but please be patient. This is surgery -- it is bound to be painful.
Philosophia Perennis
Vol 1
Chapter 4
Question 3