Archive for the ‘Other collections’ Category


Posted: May 13, 2011 in Articles, Other collections
Tags: , , , ,

Somewhere in this world lies a country draped along the greatest heights of Himalayas; encircled by deep dark forests holding many wonders; bubbling and roaring, uninterrupted Waterfalls of immense strength and beauty; chosen by Almighty to render help from; a place so holy and tolerant enough to let Lord Buddha be born and inseminate the knowledge of life.clip_image002

This is what all people read and know about Nepal which they have read across many sites and magazines but let me, an inhabitant of Nepal, explain you what Nepal really is, from the experience of mine.

If we wanna experience or feel the nature in its purest ie wildest form, if you wanna witness how the mother of all, Nature looks like, then pay a visit to Nepal. The exotic scenes, the unexplored caves, never traversed forests all in their purest form dating back to the time when conventions like date system was never established.

Many of you have visited mountains and been thrilled to see: unwinding paths, extreme cold, depleting O2 level and the proudness of the mountain to stand tall and unmoved by any of the natures or human forces but let me tell you if you are a person thrilled by that never visit Nepal coz it may be an overdose.

The mountains here make those which you saw previously as plains. Oxygen in the summit of the tall avenger is as rare as a smile in the devils face. The paths winds in such a fashion that even the newest of your gadgets cant help you locate easily where you are. And the cold, damn even air is frozen here and everything looks snow white. Above all, the adventure you get, the thrill you feel, the satisfaction that will run through your blood, the happiness you will receive will be never ending. It feels, really, I want to do this again and again and if possible again.

A small country, yet one of the richest in water, does it feel like I should explain what it would be like. Oh, the heavenly waterfalls breezing cold air, rivers beneath the darkest forest hustling past the leaves creating symphony in the air, the serene and peace lakes smiling with you.

And the extreme sports and adventures that Nepal brings in collaboration with divine Nature: White water rafting across streams, Kayaking, taking off in micro-light aircrafts or paragliding for a good view of the mountains, Mountain biking, hiking to nearby destinations, bird watching, canoeing in the rivers, staying in rural homestays, Jungle safari, Trekking and mountain climbing, waiting for the Bengal tiger in Chitwan’s wild, sprouts awe stricken Gasp and silence in the admiration.

Have you heard of the apple of discord? That made Gods fight for it. I wondered why fight for it when we can get it anywhere till I visited Humla, a small hilly place in Nepal. The apple there can make you fight with anyone coz you will be never be satiated by it. It feels you are in paradise and they are offering you the best of their place.

Lord Buddha chose this ultra-holy utopian Nepal as his birth place to spread the message of peace, righteousness and compassion, yet Nepali are known for their bravery in battlefield as it was never captured let alone be ruled .

People here believe in love, care, respect and always adhere to it. They spare not a second to forgive their enemies.

Humble Nepali are always one of the most hospitable host of the guest.

Historical palaces, Serene stupas, divine temples, shrines and many other things enchants the sophisticated culture and tradition of here.clip_image004

And if you have heard of Yeti man and you are over achieving adventurer and want to search them, come here as it is still reported to be seen around here.

Who would show the negative aspects of their country and I am a patriot , but to see something so beautiful you must go through little difficulties. There are plights but the destination is a worth watching that would connect your dreams to reality and you would forget the hardship you went through.

via. Mikesh Khanal


Viruses may cause disease but some can fall ill themselves. For the first time, a group of scientists have discovered a virus that targets other viruses. This new virus-of-viruses was discovered by Bernard La Scola and Christelle Desnues at the University of the Mediterranean, who have playfully named it Sputnik, after the Russian for "fellow traveller". It is so unique that they have classified it in an entirely new family – the "virophages" – in honour of the similarities it shares with the bacteriophage viruses that use bacteria as hosts.


fig. mavirus                                                                                          fig. virocapsid

The story of Sputnik started in 1992 with some dirty English water. A group of scientists were studying an amoeba taken from a cooling tower in Bradford, England, when they discovered a microscopic giant – a virus so large that it was originally mistaken for bacterium. It was only in 2003 that La Scola and colleagues conclusively showed that the new find was indeed a virus. But what a virus – APMV, or ‘mimivirus’, measures a whopping 400 nanometres across.

The search for giant viruses continued. La Scola’s team identified another strain of APMV by inoculating the same species of amoeba with water taken from another cooling tower, this time from Paris. The new specimen seemed to eclipse even the original giant in size, and the researchers decided to call it ‘mamavirus’.

When this record-breaker infects amoebae, it forms gigantic viral factories that pump out new copies of itself. When the team looked at these under an electron microscope, they found the equivalent of microscopic Russian dolls – tiny viral particles, just 50 nanometes in size and distinct from mamavirus itself. It’s all very meta, and to the researchers, the fact that mamaviruses can "get sick" themselves is further evidence that viruses are indeed living things.


La Scola and Desnues found that Sputnik couldn’t multiply within the amoeba by itself; it could only sprSputnik.jpgead within cells that had also been infected with mamavirus. But Sputnik is no partner – by hijacking the mamavirus’s replication machinery, it spreads at the expense of its larger host and substantially hinders its reproduction. In the presence of the tiny intruder, mamavirus particles assemble abnormally and surround themselves with unusually thick outer coats. As a result, their ability to infect the amoeba fell by 70%.

The virophage name is perhaps a bit misleading. Bacteriophages reproduce within the cells of bacteria, whereas Sputnik is a satellite virus, in more than name only. Like hepatitis D, it depends on another virus coinfecting a host in order to spread. But it’s the fact that it does so at the expense of the mamavirus that makes it a true parasite.

In comparison to its sizeable host, Sputnik is tiny and sports a genome that is almost a hundred times smaller. Its 18,000 base-pairs of DNA contains just 21 genes and when La Scola and Desnues analysed these, they found that Sputnik is a genetic chimera – a mish-mash of different genes from different sources. Thirteen of these have no equivalent in any other known virus, while the remainder have similarities to genes from other viruses, bacteria and even more complex cells.

Three of these are closely related to mamavirus genes, suggesting that this tiniest of parasites has been raiding genetic material from its host and from other viruses. La Scola and Desnues even suggest that Sputnik could be acting as a genetic mule, shuffling genes between giant viruses. It could even explain why mimivirus has mysteriously and recently picked up bacterial genes of unknown origin.

Reference: Nature doi:10.1038/nature07218

Images: courtesy of Nature

other links-




Osho – Yesterday I called Gandhi a bania, a businessman, and some friends felt hurt about it. Gandhi was a businessman; he was a businessman in the same sense in which I referred to four types of men a little while ago. Somebody has said that I used a derogatory term to describe him. Some people think that “businessman” is a derogatory term. Even the businessman feels so. But no word is derogatory. Businessman is a fact; he is a type of man. And I say that Gandhi is not a brahmin, not a warrior, nor a worker; his basic personality is that of a businessman. But it is just a statement of fact; there is no condemnation implied in it.

We have become so feeble in our thinking that we understand only the language of praise or condemnation; we do not accept a fact, that there is something like “fact”. If I say that so and so is suffering from T.B. he may say that I slandered him. But it is simply a fact that he is suffering from TB. — there is no condemnation involved in it. I called Gandhi a businessman just because he is a businessman. I did not mean to condemn him in the slightest. His whole personality was such. But the friend wants me to give a few more illustrations.

Osho on Mahatma Gandhi

A thousand illustrations can be given, but I will mention only a few. Mahavir Tyagi has mentioned an incident in his book of memoirs. One day Gandhi visited his town and addressed a largely attended public meeting in the evening. At the end of the meeting he asked for donations from the audience. Many people gave money; women gave away their ornaments, like earrings, bracelets and anklets. Gandhi accepted them and piled them on the podium. Before he left the meeting he asked Mahavir Tyagi to carry the donations to his residence.

Tyagi arrived at Gandhi’s place at about midnight. He thought that Gandhi had gone to bed; he also thought that he himself could have waited until the next morning before he saw him. But he had no idea of the mind of a businessman — he never goes to bed before finalizing his accounts. And so he was surprised to see that the old man was wide awake at that hour of the night.

As soon as Tyagi arrived Gandhi enquired if he had brought everything from the meeting place, and immediately he opened the bag and examined it. He found one earring missing. “No woman will give only one earring; she will donate the pair. So go back to the meeting place and find the other,” he said to Tyagi. A tired Mahavir Tyagi returned to the meeting place at one in the morning and found the missing earring with the help of a gaslight. When he returned to Gandhi’s place he again thought that he had gone to bed, but no, he again found the old man awake. When he received the earring he was satisfied and said to Tyagi, “Now you can go; the account is okay.”

I did not say anything derogatory about Gandhi. This is also a kind of mind; there is nothing of condemnation about it. And if we had rightly understood the personality of Gandhi, it would have made a great difference in the life of India. Because if the leadership of this country was in the hands of a businessman, the danger was inevitable. It was really the job of a warrior which Gandhi, a businessman, undertook to do.

Bhagat Singh would have done it well; Subhas Bose would have done it still better. But it could not happen that way. And Gandhi did what his type was capable of doing. The country was partitioned and it was a mutilated and lifeless independence that we had, because the businessman is always for compromise; he cannot afford to be an extremist. He says, “Let us settle on the basis of fifty-fifty.” India’s partition was the result of Gandhi’s leadership. Because the mind of a businessman does not like fight, he chooses compromise instead. He believes in settlement on the basis of give-and-take. He avoids conflict and confrontation. Whether Gandhi said so in explicit terms is not the question. It was the mind of a businessman that the country acquired from the leadership of Gandhi.

This is precisely the reason why Gandhi found accord with the British, because they also are a community of businessmen. The British could not have found this accord with anyone else. It was impossible to have accord with Bhagat Singh or Subhas Bose. They had accord with Gandhi because their mental type was the same. The British were essentially businessmen, who by mistake became rulers of a country and wielded power. And the person who confronted them was, to their good luck, also a businessman. It is surprising to see that the British government provided every security to Gandhi, something no government on earth had ever done to their enemy. We could not save Gandhi’s life after the British left India, but he was alive as long as they were here. It is such an interesting episode of history.

The British gave full protection to Gandhi because it became clear to them that sooner or later he would prove useful to them, and so they should be on good terms with him. others in his place would have been difficult to deal with. There was a sort of inner communion between him and the British rulers of India. This relationship was bound to happen, because it was so natural — they belonged to the same category as far as their mental makeup was concerned. They could understand each other, and so a rapport was established between them.

That is why India could not win her independence; it was given as a gift, and such an independence is worse than slavery. Independence is wrested, it is achieved, it is not had by begging. Independence is not had through negotiations and compromises; it is always wrested from unwilling hands. And the freedom that is wrested is alive and dynamic; it has a verve and vitality of its own. And one that is granted and received as a gift is as good as a corpse. It was a lackluster independence that came to India in 1947; it missed the glory and grandeur that comes with it. And it came with all the ugly consequences that independence coming as a gift brings with it.

Gandhi never tired of preaching non-violence, because a businessman cannot afford violence. Have you cared to note that the Jain teerthankara Mahavira is a kshatriya, a warrior, but the community that gathered around him is entirely a trading community. Mahavira is a warrior, and the twenty-four teerthankaras of the Jains are warriors, but not one Jain is a warrior — all the Jains are businessmen. What is the matter? There is no other reason than the fact that non-violence made a deep appeal to the merchant community. Mahavira’s non-violence made a great impact on the minds of the shopkeepers. Similarly, the businessman’s mind in India found itself in accord with Gandhi’s non-violence. It said that Gandhi was right: if we are not going to be violent with others, others will not be violent with us. It was because of Gandhi’s leadership that non-violence became the basis of a movement for independence. India had to go through tremendous misfortunes because of the non-violent character of its movement for independence.

It was a great misfortune that Gandhi did not allow the hatred and violence that naturally surged in India’s mind against the British to express itself. He suppressed it. Whenever a little violence showed itself, the businessman in Gandhi panicked and retreated, as if he thought aloud that shopkeepers could not afford violence, they were all for compromise. He always retraced his steps.

I remember a story; it is perhaps one of the folk tales of Rajasthan. The story says that there was a warrior, a kshatriya in a village, who was very proud of his mustache; it symbolized his brawn. He sat all through the day in front of his house twisting the ends of his mustache upwards. He had it announced in the village that nobody could pass his house twisting the ends of his mustache upwards.

One day a businessman, who had newly settled in the village and who sported a mustache, happened to pass the house of the warrior while twisting the ends of his mustache upwards. The warrior stopped him and said, “Listen, businessman, stop twisting the ends of your mustache upwards.” The businessman said, “Who are you to order me about?” The warrior stood up and handed the businessman a sword saying, “Then take this sword and let us settle the matter once and for all.”

The businessman was flabbergasted, he had not imagined that things would come to such a head. He said, “Okay. But before we fight a duel let us do one thing that is necessary. In case I die, my wife and children will suffer. And if you die your wife will be widowed and your children will have to beg. It will be better if both of us go back to our houses and finish with our dependents. And then we will settle our score.”

The warrior readily agreed. If he had been intelligent, he would not have made an issue of his mustache. The businessman went home, and so did the warrior. The warrior killed his wife and children and returned to his seat, twisting his mustache. When the businessman came back, he had no mustache at all; he had shaved it. And he said, “I thought there was no point in fighting to death for nothing, and I shaved my mustache!”

This is a type of mind; there is nothing derogatory about it. This is just to say that the warrior is like this and the businessman is like that. It is not a condemnation. Whenever Gandhi was in difficulties, whether it was the Chaurichaura incident or something else that turned violent, he at once beat a retreat. He thought it was better that he shaved his mustache. Why fight?

The result was that the hatred and violence of the Indian people against the British, which was simply natural, was repressed. And because of this repression, the two major communities of India — the Hindus and the Mohammedans — fought with each other, and bloody riots took place throughout the country. If India had fought the British openly — with swords — the Hindus and Mohammedans would not have fought among themselves. As we could not fight the British, the repressed hatred, the unspent violence, had to find an outlet somewhere. Where could it go? And it found an outlet in the Hindu-Mohammedan riots, in violent infighting.

It is generally believed that Gandhi tried his best to prevent the infighting between Hindus and Mohammedans. But I say that he was responsible for the whole tragedy. You can understand this easily if you are familiar with the findings of modern psychology. The feeling of hatred and violence against the alien rulers was so powerful — and very natural at that — that it could have set fire to the British regime and thrown it out of India. Such a tremendous energy was suppressed, and it had to find other ways to express itself. It could not have done otherwise.

For example, there is a petty clerk working in some office. One day his boss berates him He is so hurt that he feels like strangling his boss, but he simply cannot do it; it is unthinkable. So he suppresses his anger and puts a false smile on his face and goes about wagging his tail before the boss as usual.

Then the clerk leaves for home in the evening. Watch his bicycle; he is pedaling it with great force. Why? He is just giving vent to his repressed anger against the boss. He would have beaten him with his shoes, but he could not. Now it is as if he is beating the pedal with the same shoes. And he drives fast. Now his wife should know that the lord and husband is coming home after he had some trouble with his boss. But she does not know a thing. She is fondly expecting her husband home. The husband too is not aware of what he is going to do after reaching home. But you can know that he is now going to strangle his wife in the place of his boss. He will find a thousand and one excuses to punish her — the bread for his dinner was burned, the bed was not made, and so on and so forth. And he takes her to task, he thrashes her. In reality he had to thrash the boss, but he dared not. So the anger deviates and makes the wife its target.

Hatred is stored in his mind; it is bursting. If you close the drainage of your house, then filth will be all over the place. As a house needs a drainage, so also our violence needs a let-go. And if it is not allowed a right outlet, it will find a wrong one. And the violence expressed the wrong way will do you more harm than one expressed the right way. It proved to be so.

But the wife is also helpless; she cannot beat the husband in retaliation. Up to now the wife has not gathered that much courage… but she should. Husbands themselves have taught the wives that husbands are their gods. Now it is dangerous to beat a god, although the wife has her doubts too. What kind of a god is he that beats his wife without reason? But she has to believe what she had been taught to believe.

So the wife of the clerk, in her turn, waits for her son to return from the school. These are all unconscious deviations. The son is returning from school; he is not aware of what has happened between his father and mother. He comes home singing a film song. The mother immediately grabs him by the neck saying, “What a dirty song it is!” It was this very song he sang while returning home the previous evening and the evening before that. And the mother herself sang it, his father too. Their forefathers had done the same — there is nothing new about this song — but today the mother is about to strangle him on the grounds that he sang an indecent song.

Now what should the son do? Should he hit his mother back? But the world has not become that civilized yet. So he goes inside his room, picks up his doll and tears it to pieces.

The mind has its own energy. Gandhi caused deviations in the way of India’s natural energy by thwarting it, suppressing it. If India’s violence had been directed against the British — which was its natural course — a splendored country could have emerged out of that clean fight. Then India would not have been divided into two parts; it would have remained one and whole. A direct fight with the British power would have disciplined us as a people, given an edge and sharpness to our energy and a dignity and grandeur of our own. A straight and clean fight with the alien rulers would have filled us with hope and confidence, verve and vitality; it would have made our life lively, juicy and beautiful. But that could not happen.

But we had to use the sword nonetheless, and we used it against our own people. This is how the Hindus and Mohammedans clashed, and clashed like savages. And who is responsible for the massive violence that blasted this country after it became independent on August 15, 1947?

People are dishonest who say that the British government engineered the communal riots and infighting. Some people say that Mr. Jinnah was responsible for it. Others say other things. No, this is wrong. None of them, neither Jinnah nor the British were behind the holocaust. The real reason was that a volcano of hate and violence was smoldering in India’s mind, but it had no outlet. So when India was partitioned, the suppressed volcano found an opportunity and it erupted. The pain of hundreds of years of slavery found an outlet. The country was partitioned and a million people were killed. At the price of a million lives we would have wrested our freedom from the British a long time before. If one fine morning a million people had only shown readiness to die for their country’s freedom, the British government would have left the very next morning. But it could not be.

When I say that Gandhi was a businessman, I say it after due consideration. And I do not mean to slander him in the least. And it will stand you in good stead if you take him to be what he is — a businessman. Then you will be careful in relating with him in the future. If this country has anything to do with the shopkeeper’s mind, then it will never have that dynamism, that elan vital, without which we would be as good as a dead people.

The tradesman has his usefulness. He has a place in the society, and he is valuable. Similarly the warrior has a place in the society, and he is useful and valuable. The priest is equally useful and valuable. And the laborer also. They all have their distinctive usefulness and value. And in the humanist sense no one is more or less valuable than the other.
But it should be clearly understood that socialism is going to wipe out these distinctive types altogether, because it does not accept them. It says that all men are the same — but all men are not the same.

A friend has a question, and a few other friends have put the same question with some variations. They want to know on what authority I say that Gandhi was opposed to railways, telegraphs and airplanes. They also say that I am wrong to say so.
I wonder if you read anything at all.

If you only read Gandhi’s hind swaraj you will see that Gandhi denounced modern machines and technology a thousand times more than what I have mentioned here. But the book hind swaraj was written way back in 1905, and someone may say that it is not right to judge a person who died in 1948 from his writings of 1905. I will agree with him. But in this context there is a letter of Gandhi’s which he wrote to Jawaharlal Nehru in 1945. Nehru had asked Gandhi by letter if he still stood by his opposition to railways and telegraphs as he had written in his book hind swaraj.

Gandhi wrote back to Nehru — and this in 1945 — that he stood by every word he had written in hind swaraj. It appears that the questioners don’t read a thing. They have said that I am not aware of facts. But the truth is that Gandhi himself was not a well-read man, and his followers are still less so. In my understanding, Gandhi is the least-read man among the great men of this century. He was unaware of all the great findings of the present times. He knew nothing about Freud and Jung. And what he talked about celibacy was three thousand years old and now out-of-date. He had no knowledge of the studies done on birth control. He read Marx in jail in 1942, and I doubt if he read him fully. His grasp of Marxism, however, was never deep. He, of course, read the GITA and the RAMAYANA, but the GITA and the RAMAYANA are the textbooks for the ignorant villagers, not for the knowledgeable. Gandhi read poorly and thought poorly, and his followers, it seems, do not even read their leader’s writings.

A last word. Another friend has said that I did not illustrate my point when I said that there was contradiction in Gandhi’s professions and his practice.

I would like to give a few examples.
Gandhi preached non-violence throughout his life, but his own personality was violent, utterly violent. He never tired of talking of non-violence. You may ask how I say it. We need to understand this thing carefully.

If I point a knife at your chest and say that I w ill kill you if you don’t accept what I say, then you will say that I am a violent person. Now just reverse the process. Instead of pointing the knife at you, I point it at myself and say that I will kill myself if you don’t accept what I say. Do I now become a non-violent person? Does one become non-violent by just turning the direction of the knife, or changing its target?

All his life Gandhi used this threat, this coercion that he would kill himself if his point of view was not accepted. This is coercion, this is violence. Gandhi coerced Dr. Ambedkar through fasting. He could not bring about one change of heart, though he resorted to any number of fasts and fasts-unto-death. Not one heart was changed, although he always talked of”change of heart” as the object of his fasts. Ambedkar just gave in under duress and accepted Gandhi’s demands.

Later on Ambedkar said that Gandhi should not be under the illusion that he changed his heart. He still believed that he was right and Gandhi was wrong, but he submitted because he realized that it would be too much if Gandhi lost his life for his demand. His heart was not at all changed; he relented because of Gandhi’s coercion. Gandhi used this kind of coercion all along.

Whether you threaten to kill yourself or kill others, it is all the same and it is violence. Both kinds of threats are violent. But we fail to observe it, and we think that the threat to kill oneself is non-violent. Truth is otherwise; it is subtle violence. It is not non-violence. Non-violence is very different. Non-violence means that there should be no threat, no coercion whatsoever, to kill oneself or others. Ask the people who were associated with Gandhi. Ask his own sons. Ask Haridas Gandhi if his father was non-violent. If so, then why did he become a Mohammedan? If Gandhi was non-violent, why did his son take to drinking and meat-eating? If Gandhi was non-violent, why did he have to fight his father all his life?

It was because Gandhi’s non-violence was so sadistic, so torturous that he tortured his own sons. Haridas left home and ran away for fear of his father, that he would destroy him. Haridas did not know that the person who could not be a right father to his own son was going to become the father of a whole nation.

Really, it is easy to become the father of a nation; it is much more difficult to be a right father of a single son. Being the nation’s father you are really nobody’s father. Ask Haridas and you will know whether Gandhi’s personality was violent or non-violent. Ask Kasturba, his wife, about it. A lot is being written about the married life of Gandhi and Kasturba and it is trumpeted that they made a very ideal couple. It is sheer tall-talk; but in talking tall we are a matchless people.

In reality the married life of Gandhi was ridden with constant conflict and strife, but we claim that it was the ideal of ideals. Ask Kasturba; look at their whole life.But we don’t see at all; we are so skilled in shouting and slogan-mongering that we don’t need seeing.
Whenever they had a guest in their house in South Africa, Gandhi always asked Kasturba to clean the guest’s latrine. Once Gandhi saw that Kasturba was weeping while coming down the stairs with the guest’s chamber pot in her hands. He took her to task saying, “Don’t cry. Service should be rendered with a smile on your lips.” The poor woman is being forced to clean the latrine of others; she is not doing it for service. She is just in the trap of her husband who, in his turn, is in the trap of a set of principles. So he coerces his wife to clean latrines with a smile. Many times he took Kasturba by her wrist and threw her out of the house at midnight, on the grounds that she did not follow his principles.

This man is not non-violent; he is utterly violent. But he swears by non-violence; it is his ideal. And it is on account of his ideal of non-violence that it becomes so difficult to understand his personality.

Life is a very complex affair; it is not that simple. So when I say something don’t jump to a conclusion about it. Whatever I say is well-considered; I have given thought to it.
But Gandhi’s devotees think that they are protecting him by questioning me. They are mistaken to think so. The more questions they ask, the more vulnerable they make him to beatings. There is no place in my mind for Gandhi. I consider him to be an utterly diseased personality, so don’t get him beaten unnecessarily. It is not necessary to drag him in the midst of our present discussions. Right now I am speaking on the question of socialism and capitalism, and you bring him in for a beating. It is absolutely uncalled for.

In Mahatma Gandhi’s ashram tea was prohibited. You could not drink tea. You could not smoke, you could not play cards, you could not do this, you could not do that — small things. And he forced people to do these things.

Because somebody just likes a cup of tea in the morning, he would have to hide — close the doors and prepare a cup of tea. And others would be watching and trying to find out why he closes the doors in the morning, why he is keeping a stove in his room. And when he is out somebody may search and find some tea leaves. And he is exposed and brought before Gandhi as a criminal — that he has been hiding tea leaves. Every morning he has been closing his doors, and one knows not what he was doing with the tea. What can you do with tea? At the most you can drink tea! What else can you do?

And slowly there were factions — somebody else was also doing it — and those who were in favor of tea would become a party: "Alone we cannot exist, we have to fight." Those who were smokers would become a party. And what would Gandhi do? He was a masochistic person. He would not punish those people, he would go on a fast unto death. Why? — because those people are drinking tea!

But why are you going on a fast unto death? His logic was, "There must be something still incomplete in my being a master; otherwise, how can it happen that my disciples disobey me? So to purify myself, I am going on a fast unto death till I am purified. I am not going to stop my fast."

And naturally, the poor people who are drinking tea or smoking cigarettes would think, "Now his death will be on our heads," so they would go and they would say, "We bow down to you and we promise that we will never look at tea; we will never touch a cigarette — smoking is far away — but please stop this fast unto death."

And he would harass the whole ashram for three or four days. And from all over India wires and telegrams would come — "This is stupid that disciples should do such a thing; they should give an apology." And they were giving apologies the whole day. From morning to evening they were sitting there saying, "Forgive us! This is the last time — never again I will see tea! But stop this fast." And finally, after three or four days he would stop the fast. But he had tortured them, he had condemned them all over the whole country.

Love was prohibited. His own secretary, a very talented man… Many people have written on Gandhi, but the two books that Pyarelal has written are just the best. They are big volumes; perhaps each volume is twelve hundred pages. Pyarelal fell in love. Now, love is not something that you can prevent. One comes to know only when one has fallen. It is not that it comes with a signal ahead that, "Beware! I am coming! If you are a Gandhian, escape!" It comes so slowly that you never know you are falling in love. One day, suddenly you become aware, "My God, I have fallen in love." Now that was the greatest crime.

Pyarelal was his secretary… but he was turned out of the ashram in a very disgraceful way, and condemned all over India — for nothing, because he had fallen in love with a young woman. They both were young, and there was nothing wrong in it.

Then his own son, Devadas, fell in love, and that was even more of a problem for Gandhi. Certainly he is impure: his own son falling in love! Devadas fell in love with the daughter of another great Indian leader, Rajagopalachari. And the daughter was pregnant, so throwing them out was not the right thing; they had to be married, and they were not of the same caste. And Gandhi, who was saying his whole life that castes should disappear, there should be no castes — now he was disturbed that his son is going to be married to someone of a different caste.

Rajagopalachari was of the same age as Mahatma Gandhi, and he became the first governor-general of India after Mountbatten left. But Gandhi was the most cunning politician.
Rajagopalachari was not a follower of Gandhi — although he was in the party of Gandhi — but he was of the same age and had his own standing. In South India he was supreme, so Gandhi could not make rules for him. Rajagopalachari would come to visit his daughter and he would drink tea and he would smoke in the ashram — and then Gandhi would not go on a fast.
Somebody asked, "Why don’t you fast unto death now?"
He said, "He is not my disciple. I am not concerned with him. And when he leaves we will clean the room" — and cleaning the room meant whitewashing the wall, putting cow dung on the floor. Cow dung is the purest thing: it purifies every sin! And what sins? — just drinking tea and smoking a cigar.

But Gandhi could not prevent Rajagopalachari because he was now a relative, of the same standing, and politically he was also very powerful. But he took revenge with that man by making him the first governor-general. Everybody thought that Gandhi was being partial, making his own relative, his son’s father-in-law, the first governor-general, while there were more important, intelligent people more devoted to the freedom of the country. They thought that Gandhi was being partial, but politics is such an affair that you never know the whole story unless it comes to its end.

Gandhi made Rajagopalachari the first governor-general knowingly so that he could not become the first prime minister, because that would be the real power. This was simply a transfer period of fifteen days. What could he do in fifteen days? It was just a transitory period. Britain was leaving, Mountbatten had to turn over his duties to somebody, and the Congress Party had not decided yet who was going to be the prime minister, who was going to be the deputy prime minister.

The post of governor-general was going to be finished! — because the governor-general was the representative of the British government. Mountbatten was in a hurry and Gandhi managed Rajagopalachari… Rajagopalachari was happy that he is the first — and the last — governor-general of the British empire, but he was befooled because now he could not be the prime minister. Gandhi wanted to avoid him.

Now he was the governor-general and he had to give the oath to the prime minister, to other cabinet people. He was out of the running — he was finished! Once he had given the oath to these people, to the president of India and everybody, after fifteen days he was back in South India.

But politicians can fall so low in dignity. Seeing that he had been cheated, badly cheated — otherwise he would have been the president or the prime minister… Just to be the first and last governor-general for fifteen days means nothing. He was ready to become the chief minister of a province in the south, Madras. He became the chief minister of Madras, and he agreed to it after being the governor-general of all of India. Such is the lust for power. Now that there was no chance of being the president or the prime minister — and he was very old — he was ready to become the chief minister of a small province.

In Gandhi’s ashram there was a continuous fight going on amongst the people. I know it intimately because I knew one of Gandhi’s sons, Ramdas, very closely. So once in a while when I was passing near his ashram I would meet him, or if I was nearby he would come to meet me. Gandhi was dead then. Ramdas said that it was not a joy to live in the ashram because Gandhi had been too strict about trivia. He wanted to control everybody in every possible way. He was talking of freedom and creating slavery in his own ashram.

But this has been the way of all the religions, of all the religious saints. They create slavery for themselves, and then they have the right to create slavery in their disciples — and on such small matters that one wonders about these people. Were they concerned with human growth, with consciousness, or were they just concerned about how many sets of clothes you have? If you have more than three, it is a sin. And at what time do you get up? If you don’t get up at four o’clock in the morning, it is a sin. What time you go to sleep? If you don’t go to sleep before nine, you are committing a sin. What are you eating? In every possible way…

And then naturally cliques will develop. People will find ways to manage. A few people want to play cards. There is nothing harmful in it. They are not gambling, there is no money at stake — just playing cards. But they have to hide to play cards, and if they are caught, then they will be condemned by the whole country. Gandhi managed in such a way that what was done did not remain only in the ashram, the whole country condemned them.

I am a totally different person. I want you to be absolutely free. I want you to do everything according to your own conscience, your own consciousness. There is nothing to be kept hidden. You can expose yourself without at all feeling that you will be condemned for it — because condemnation means that people will remain closed, they will not open up.

So this is a totally new experiment in the whole history of man, where freedom really means freedom — freedom to be yourself — because I cannot see how, unless you are yourself, you can trust me. If I am preventing you from being yourself I am creating a wall between me and you. I want you to be yourself, to do whatever feels right to your consciousness. Except for your consciousness, nobody is going to decide about it.
I have never thought in terms of punishment; the very idea does not exist in my vocabulary. I have always thought of how I can reward you for being so silent, so alert. And I have nothing to reward you with except my blessings. So with my blessings — under the whole sky, wherever you are — just feel that you are close to me. Get into the same space in which you get when you are close to me.

It is a question of a knack. It is not something that you have to force. Just watch carefully what happens when you are close to me. Then try it in different situations, and it will start happening away from me. And in this way — and this is the only way possible now, because if all the ugly political forces want me to be isolated from my people… and all these great powers have proved cowards, criminals. So the only way left is that whenever it is possible and you can manage, you be with me; otherwise I will be with you. Just allow me. Just have a little space in your heart for me.

And one never knows that blessings come in disguise. There were many sannyasins who were useless. There were a few who were harmful. And I am not a person to say no to anybody. It hurts me, however wrong the person may be. I have never rejected anybody, and I will never reject anybody. Whatever he has done — even against me — I will not mention it. But this has been a good opportunity to see the real faces behind the masks. So those who were harmful are exposed; those who were useless will be lost. And only the chosen few — for whom I am living, and for whom I will die — will be left with me.

Source – Osho Book "The Path of The Mystic"


Osho – You cannot fail me for the simple reason that I have never expected anything from you. All these messiahs have been expecting things from you: you have to do this, and you have not to do that. Once you go against their idea of how you should be, you have failed. And you are going to fail them out of sheer necessity, because you cannot fulfill somebody else’s idea.

You have a being of your own which needs fulfillment. You have no responsibility towards me, to fulfill my idea. My idea I have fulfilled. Now it is your idea, your being, your essence that has to be fulfilled. Nobody else can give you the discipline. But down the ages people have ruled people in a thousand and one ways. They will rule you through money, they will rule you through power politics, they will rule you through knowledgeability. They will rule you by becoming a certain image that the society respects.

Osho on Gandhi Mahatma

For example, I would like to say something about Mahatma Gandhi
. It was an everyday affair in his ashram that some disciple failed him, because what he was asking of those poor people was so unnatural, so devoid of any reason and sense, that unless they were absolute idiots they were going to fail him. That was the only way to save themselves, otherwise they would be destroyed by him. In Mahatma Gandhi’s ashram you could not drink tea. That was enough to fail him. Now, tea is such an innocent thing. Buddhist monks have used it for thousands of years as a help to meditation because it keeps you alert, awake. When you are feeling sleepy, just a cup of tea brings you a little awareness.

The story is that Bodhidharma was determined to remain awake for twenty-four hours. But the body is the body, the eyelids get tired, and when they get tired the eyes close. He became so angry that he cut off his eyelids and threw them in the grass. Then his eyes could not be closed. It is a symbolic story. It did not happen, it cannot happen — because I know Bodhidharma perfectly well…. He is the last person to do such a thing. But the story is significant, although it is just a story: those eyelids grew into a plant that became the tea plant. And because those were the eyelids of a man like Bodhidharma, the tea still carries the quality of awareness. That is the significance of the story.

In every Buddhist monastery, the first thing is the tea. But in Gandhi’s ashram, if somebody was caught drinking tea it was a great sin: he has failed the master. And the master was a sado-masochist. All disciplinarians, whether they are mahatmas, sages, rabbis, saints, principals, teachers, headmasters — all disciplinarians are, deep down, dictatorial.

Discipline is a beautiful name for an ugly thing: dictatorship. But you cannot revolt against a disciplinarian. You can revolt against a dictator. You can revolt against Stalin, you can revolt against Mussolini, but you cannot revolt against Mahatma Gandhi, and there is the danger.

Why can’t you revolt against Mahatma Gandhi? — because before he disciplines you, he tortures himself. He is a sado-masochist. Before he tortures you, he tortures himself more than he is asking you to. You cannot revolt. This man is not simply torturing you like Joseph Stalin. He has tortured himself, he has disciplined himself, far deeper than he is asking you. How can you revolt against him? You cannot find any excuse.

Gandhi had one ashram in South Africa, in the beginning of his career of mahatmahood. The ashram was called the Phoenix Ashram. There, he tortured his wife and his children so immensely that I wonder why nobody bothers and nobody thinks about it. And people like Richard Attenborough make films on Gandhi, and all that is essential, all that should be brought to the eyes of the people, is completely left out. Perhaps these people like Attenborough are blind completely — blinded by his mahatmahood.

What was he doing to his wife? First, she had to clean the toilet… and you don’t know the Indian toilet. Don’t compare it with the Western toilet. The Western toilet can be cleaned, there is no problem. There is nothing to clean, it is already clean. But the Indian toilet is really dirty. And Kasturba, Gandhi’s wife, could not say no either, because Gandhi himself was cleaning. When the husband is cleaning… she knew that he was a mahatma. She knew that it was a dirty job and she did not feel like cleaning other people’s dirt and carrying it out from the outhouse, way back, and throwing all the shit into a ditch — because Gandhi had this idea that the shit should not be misused. Everything had to be used.

He was really a miser. There is no question about why he suffered from constipation — his whole life he was carrying the enema with him everywhere — it was his psychology. The shit had to be collected and thrown into a ditch behind the house, and then mud had to be thrown over it, so it becomes manure for the next year’s crops.

Now, for Kasturba it was so difficult. And the way it has to be carried in India, you cannot believe. But in India, they have reduced one fourth of the country to such a state that they are not allowed to do any other work. So only this work is available, they have to do it. They are born to do it; that is their destiny. So they collect the shit in buckets, and carry it on their heads for miles. In India, Kasturba had never thought that she would have to do this, because she belonged to a higher caste; she was not a sudra, an untouchable.

But Gandhi was carrying it himself, and he was the mahatma. And when he carries it he gets a subtle right over you. You have to understand the subtle power politics in such small things. Because he gets up at three o’clock in the morning, everybody has to get up at three o’clock in the morning. And when the old man is getting up at three o’clock: you are young, you will feel guilty if you don’t get up. And if you are caught, then you have failed the master. And what is the master going to do? He will not punish you, he will punish himself — because he had this egoistic idea that if he is truly pure then nothing can go wrong around him, then everything is going to be right. If anything goes wrong, that simply means something is impure in him, so he has to purify himself by fasting.

So if you fail him, he will torture himself. That will create even more of a burden on you. First: guilt that you failed him. Second: guilt that now he is suffering because of your stupidity — you could have awakened at three o’clock, it was not such a big deal. And now for a few days, nobody knows… because he would always start a "fast unto death." Although he never fasted unto death he would always start a fast unto death.

Then Gandhi had to be persuaded; then all the leaders of the country had to run to his ashram and say to him, "Just for one man’s failure you cannot punish the whole country." Then after two or three days he would be ready to take food, and that one man would be condemned by the whole country. He had been punished more than you could have imagined. Wherever he went, people would talk about him: "This is the man for whom Gandhi is fasting unto death." And if Gandhi died, they would have killed this man, they would not have left this man alive.

One night Gandhi threw Kasturba, who was pregnant, out of the house because she was reluctant to clean the latrine. A pregnant woman, a woman who does not know any other language, in a foreign country, absolutely dependent on him — he closed the door, threw her out, and said, "If you don’t clean the latrine, then this is not your house, then you don’t belong to me. If you cannot follow my discipline, if my own wife fails me, then who else is going to listen to me? In the cold winter Kasturba wept outside and finally decided that she should agree to clean the latrine. Only when she agreed to clean the latrine was she allowed in. Now, you can fail such a man very easily by anything, just by smoking a cigarette, drinking a cup of tea… anything.

He did not allow his children to be educated. He didn’t send them to school. They wanted to go, their mother wanted it also. Naturally she wanted them to be educated, "otherwise who is going to feed them? And their whole life is ahead of them. You are educated, you are a barrister, you earn. And you are a mahatma — even if you don’t earn, you have thousands of worshippers. But your children — don’t you send them even to the primary school?"

He was against the education that is available in the schools, colleges and the universities. Why? — because it creates doubt, it destroys people’s faith; because it teaches people science and technology, which he was against: against things so simple and so essential that you will not be able to believe it — that in the twentieth century a man can be against the telephone!

Now, the telephone does not do any harm to anybody. One can be against nuclear weapons, I can understand — but the telephone?… railway lines?… trains?… airplanes? He was against anything except the spinning wheel — that was the only technology that he accepted. Beyond that, all technology was evil, all science was evil; so why send your children to learn the devilish ways of science, technology, logic, philosophy, and destroy their faith, their belief in God? No. He would not send them.

His eldest son, Haridas, escaped. Seeing the situation — "This man is going to destroy our lives completely" — he escaped, reached a relative’s family and told the whole story, what was happening, and that "I want to go to school." Just see the situation: the boy has to escape from the home to get into school. Boys escape from school, not to go there… and Haridas had to leave his home and ask some uncle, some faraway relative, "Please help me. At least I would like to be a matriculate; then I will see later on. But up to matriculation, that much education is absolutely necessary."

Gandhi was very angry. The prophet of nonviolence was angry, violently angry. What he said was, "Now this home is closed for Haridas. He should not be allowed in and nobody from my family should meet with him. Even his mother, his brothers, his sisters — nobody should see him and meet him. If anybody meets with him, he also goes with him. He has failed me." You impose such stupid ideas…. Now, what Haridas was doing was perfectly right. This man had to be disobeyed. The other children did not escape; they were weaklings. Haridas had some guts. And he showed later on that he did have some guts.

Gandhi used to say, "All religions are one." That was also a political gimmick: "All religions are one — Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian, Jaina, Buddhist, Sikh… all religions are one." But the basic politics was to capture all these people and their votes, and to keep the whole of India undivided, so that Gandhi’s party ruled over the whole of India, not only a part of India.

In his prayer meetings every morning the Koran was recited, The Bible was read, and other holy books were also included. Just a few pieces read from The Bible, a few pieces read from the Torah, a few pieces read from the Koran…. And there too was great cunningness, because I have looked into those pieces that were read: they were the pieces which were synonymous with the Gita. Only those pieces were chosen from The Bible that were synonymous with Krishna, because Gandhi used to call the Gita his mother. He never called the Koran "my father" or The Bible "my uncle" at least… only the Gita his mother. And all these fragments that he had chosen were deceptive. They were simply translations, as if they were the same message so there was no problem. All that was against the Gita — or different from the Gita, not even against it — was not chosen.

So he was deceiving Mohammedans, he was deceiving Christians, he was deceiving Jainas, he was deceiving Buddhists, he was deceiving Sikhs, everybody. And they all thought that this man is a super-sage — that is the meaning of mahatma: the great soul. As if souls are also small or great! Souls are simply souls, neither small nor great. But the great soul, mahatma, because he was so liberal, unprejudiced… and he was full of prejudice.

Haridas knew it. So what he did was, he converted himself to Mohammedanism. He did well. I appreciate him. The doors of the home were closed. Gandhi had abandoned him, declared, "He is no longer my son. I am no longer his father. He has utterly failed me. If he had died it would have been better." And what sin had he committed? He had gone to school! But he was really an intelligent boy. As he left the school, he turned to Mohammedanism. And Mohammedans rejoiced. They enjoyed the idea that Gandhi’s eldest son found shelter in Mohammedanism. They started calling him "Mahatma Abdullah Gandhi."

They kept ‘Mahatma’ and ‘Gandhi’ so people remembered who he was, and changed ‘Haridas’ into ‘Abdullah’ — which means literally ‘Haridas’. abd’allah — servant of God, and that is exactly the meaning of haridas: servant of God. It is the Arabic translation of Haridas, so it was exactly the same.

But Gandhi was so shocked! You can imagine, if just his son’s going to school was enough for Gandhi to abandon him as a son, now he has become a Mohammedan! Gandhi wept. Now, this is the man who says all the religions are the same. So what is the difference? Whether he is Hindu or Mohammedan — what difference does it make? And even his name was nothing but an Arabic translation of the Sanskrit name — an exact translation.

Just by coincidence, there was a meeting in Bombay. Just by coincidence, Gandhi was going into the same train from which Haridas was getting out. Kasturba, after all, was a mother; she wanted at least to have a look at her son. She knew that her husband wouldn’t allow them to talk, but Gandhi didn’t allow her even to see him. He said, "Remember, don’t look at him. He is dead for us. He has slapped me on my face by becoming a Mohammedan." He forgot all that synthesis of all the religions… and still the prayer continued the same way every day.

You can fail this type of people very easily. You cannot fail me, it is impossible. There is no way to fail me; because I don’t impose any discipline on you, how can you fail me? I don’t give you any doctrine against which you can go. How can you go against me? All that I go on saying to you is: be authentically yourself. Now, the only way to fail me is not to be yourself.


I wonder why people failed to understand Rajnish, He has influenced me in so many different ways that I cant imagine. He was probably the greatest thinker of the world after Marx.


Source – Osho Book "From Unconsciousness to Consciousness"