| 
Part VIII : Osho is interviewed by INS (Immigration and Naturalization
Service)
A petition is made to the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) for Osho to remain in the States as a religious leader.
The INS delays with excuses that Osho committed fraud by entering
the country as a tourist with the intention of immigrating; that
Osho cannot be a religious leader if he is in silence; that he
is responsible for sannyasins marrying in order to obtain residency
(issued with a 'green card').
I had not gone to stay in America forever. They had given me
visa for few months as a tourist. Then I applied more, again for
a tourist visa, because I was not thinking to stay there. But
side by side, the commune was growing, my health was getting better,
and then my people started forcing me that, "If your health
is better here, why bother going anywhere else?" And there
was no problem, because I fulfilled almost all their categories
that are needed for a permanent residence. So I applied for a
permanent residence.
There is no question of any fraud, as they proposed before the
court, that I had a pre-intention to stay in America and applied
for a tourist visa. If I had a pre-intention, I could have applied
for direct residency. There is no problem in it. As a man of religion,
as a man who is known all over the world, these are their categories,
as a philosopher, I had every possibility. There was no need to
ask for a tourist visa but I had never thought of staying there.
And I applied again for a tourist visa second time, when the first
tourist visa was finished. That time also there was no question
of remaining there. Otherwise I would have applied for permanent
residence. It was in the middle of the second time that was given
to me for tourist visa that I applied for change of intention.
Now nobody can say that it is a crime to change your intention.
After… one and a half years living in good health, I have
every right to change my intention. You have every right to reject
it, but it is not a crime. last429
In October 1982, Osho is interviewed by the INS in Portland.
The interviewer asks: Okay, now I think this is an exact quote
that occurred in July of 1979 from you "Book of the Books":
"This ashram is only a launching pad on a small scale. I
am experimenting. The new commune will be on a big scale—10,000
sannyasins living together as one body, one being. Nobody will
possess anything, everybody will use, everybody will enjoy. Everybody
is going to live as comfortably, as richly, as we can manage,
but nobody will possess anything." Did you say that?
We have already started those communes in the world. Now we have
communes: two communes in Italy and one in Sicily, one in England,
two in Holland, two in Germany, one in France, one in Japan, one
in India, one in Nepal and in many other countries.
Do you consider these one commune?
They are separate communes.
Is Rajneeshpuram the commune that you spoke of at that time?
It is the commune for America. silent02
Are you even consulted then in so far as the business matters
of the Foundation go?
No, nothing.
Not so far as the purchase of any property?
No, I know also nothing.
You had nothing to say about the development or the construction
of Rajneeshpuram?
No. silent02
Okay, do you consider yourself a teacher of religion?
I will have to explain it.
In India we have five categories of teachers. The first category
is called the Arihanta; he's a teacher and also a master. Being
a master means that he has realized what he says. For example,
Jesus will be called an Arihanta because whatsoever he says is
his own realization. He says, "It is on my own authority."
The second category is called the "Siddha." The Siddha
is only a master. He has realized but he's incapable of communicating
it. He cannot say what he has realized; in a way he is dumb. And
there have been many saints in the world who have not spoken because
they cannot manage to bring the beyond within the words. That
too is called a Buddha, a teacher.
The third category is called an Acharya—who is only a teacher
but not a master. He knows exactly what he's teaching, but not
on his own authority. The Pope is an Acharya. If Jesus is an Arihanta,
then the Pope is an Acharya. He is speaking on the authority of
the Bible, not on his own authority.
The fourth category is called Ubadhyay—one who is not even
certain of what he says. Perhaps fragments are true. P.D. Ouspensky
has written a book on Gurdjieff: In Search of the Miraculous.
Its subtitle is "Fragments of an Unknown Teaching",
and he's very true in writing the subtitle—only fragments,
because he could understand only parts of it; parts were beyond
him. He's also called a teacher.
And the fifth is called a Sadhu. A Sadhu is one who has not achieved
but is trying sincerely to achieve. He may be just one foot ahead
of you, but he can teach that much. He cannot claim the achievement;
he cannot say with certainty that this is so.
English is poor in that way, it has only two words. English is
poor in many ways, particularly as far as religion is concerned,
but is bound to be so. Eastern languages are poor in scientific
terms. So you have only one word, teacher, for everything. You
can call me a teacher but to us it means a very lower category.
Where would you put yourself on this list of five categories?
I am an Arihanta. You can call me a super teacher, because I speak
on my own authority. I don't have to rely on Jesus, or Buddha,
or Krishna. What I say, I know. If I don't know, I don't say it.
silent02
Okay, how long will this silent stage continue?
It will continue.
Until when?
Until I feel again to speak. I have spoken so much that I felt
I was speaking to the walls. It is almost futile.
Then you would not be able to give me a specific date in the future
that you would resume speaking?
I cannot even say anything about tomorrow.
Was the silent phase of your work, so to speak, in any way connected
with your medical condition?
No, not at all. I had been telling it for years, that one day
I'm going to stop speaking and just communicate through silence.
When did you deliver your last discourse?
That date you mentioned.
Okay, all I know is that it was announced that you would stop
speaking on May 1.
That must have been the last.
Who do you communicate with then during this silent stage, aside
from the present company?
It is something difficult…less of the intellect and more
of the heart.
I would like to know, who do you engage in conversation with?
I don't engage in anything, I simply sit there silently in a prayerful
mood.
Okay, but do you talk with anybody during the silent mood?
No, but that prayerful mood is infectious.
Do you not talk with Sheela?
No, with Sheela I talk every day. That is a different matter.
Okay, that's what I'm interested in, who you verbally communicate
with then during this silent stage.
Only with Sheela because she has to bring the work to me, and
what she cannot decide I will seek an answer to. She has to ask
me.
Then she is the only one that has conversation with you?
Yes. silent02
Are you aware that many sannyasins have recently married here
in Oregon?
I have heard.
Did you approve of these marriages?
Nothing—I neither approve nor do I disapprove. That is their
business if they want to marry here; it is perfectly for them…
In your opinion, should they go into this marriage with the idea
that it be a life-long relationship?
No, nothing can be lifelong in this life. Only bogus and hypocritical
things can be lifelong.
Well, I realize that things change in everybody's life…
Everybody changes, everything changes. Today maybe…it
may look like we will be together for the whole life, tomorrow
it may not look…
But should there not be that commitment at the time they enter
into this marriage?
No, any commitment for the future is a bondage, and is a destructive
bondage. You can commit only for the moment. I can say about this
moment, I cannot say about tomorrow. What that tomorrow will bring,
who knows?
So to me, marriage is only a working partnership. If it works,
good; if it works your whole life, good. If it does not work,
then say good-bye. I don't think it's anything sacred. It is just
an institution and a working partnership like any working partnership
of the business world; nothing to be bothered about so much.
And every marriage carried the divorce behind it. Either you
have to become one day a hypocrite—you go on smiling and
saying "dear" and "darling" and you don't
mean it—or the society condemns you if you divorce. Marriage
brings divorce in. If you want no divorce in the world, then the
marriage has to go. And it should be a working partnership: two
person who want to live together, perfectly good. silent02
In December the INS denies the petition for Osho to stay as religious
teacher. Applications are made under four other categories.
|
