The first question:

Question 1

OSHO, SOMETHING INSIDE ME CRINGES WITH DISTRUST WHEN I HEAR YOU SAY 'GOD', AND I NOTICE THAT I AM RELUCTANT TO EMBRACE THE WORD. LOVE, YES; DIVINE PRESENCE, YES; THE ULTIMATE, YES; BUT THIS WORD 'GOD' BRINGS A HESITATION TO MY LIPS AND A SHUDDER TO MY BEING. WILL YOU COMMENT ON THIS CONDITION?

Charles Harp,

THERE is a reason in it: in the name of God so much harm has been done that it is natural. This will happen to any intelligent person. The word 'god' has become very dirty; remaining in the wrong company of the priests it has lost all its beauty. It has become associated with wrong people, wrong meanings. Hence it is very natural that a shudder goes into your being, that a hesitation arises in you, that you cringe with distrust -- but it has nothing to do with the word 'god'.

The word 'god' in itself is beautiful, the word 'god' in itself is innocent.

The same has been done in the name of religion, the same has been done in the name of love. If you look at the history of the word 'love', millions of people have been killed. Christians have been killing in the name of love, Mohammedans have been killing in the name of religion, God, brotherhood. And the same has been the case all over the world.

Now the same is happening in the name of communism. The word is beautiful, it comes from 'commune'. The same is happening in the name of democracy; the word is beautiful.

So one thing has to be understood: words in themselves are innocent; it depends on what you do with them. And if you have used the word 'god' wrongly, who can prevent you from using the word 'love' in the same way? Brotherhood, democracy, communism, humanity, peace? In the name of peace only war happens, and preparation for war. Then one has to understand one thing: one need not become too conditioned for or against words; words are neutral.

The word 'god' itself has tremendous beauty. It comes from a Greek root in which g stands for 'that', o stands for 'which', d stands for 'is'. God is a code word; it means 'that which is'. Now it contains all -- the trees and the birds and the clouds and the sun, you and me -- all that has happened, all that is happening, all that will ever happen.

God does not mean a person. Yes, it has been used in that way, but what does that have to do with the poor word 'god'? The word cannot prevent people from wrongly using it. It has been used as if there is an old man, very ancient, sitting in heaven, dominating, controlling -- a great engineer who has created the world. The word itself does not have any meaning of that kind. It simply means the whole, the total.

And the whole IS; nobody can deny it, not even the atheist. The atheist can deny God as a person, but there is no God as a person so the atheist is fighting with a shadow -- just like the theist who is worshipping a shadow. The theist is stupid, so is the atheist. They are in the same boat. One is worshipping something which is not, the other is criticizing, fighting with something which is not. Both are engaged in an exercise in futility. God means the whole, the total, the all.

It will be good if you can free the word 'god' from the so-called religious people. The word in itself is beautiful and has to be saved. Hence I go on using it, knowing that it has been associated with the wrong people. But it is not the fault of the word 'god'; it is helpless. You can use any word wrongly, and almost all beautiful words have been used wrongly. Only beautiful ones can be wrongly used, remember, because they can become a camouflage. Hiding behind them, you can do wrong things more easily. 'God' becomes the screen and behind it you can be as violent as possible -- hiding behind a beautiful word: 'love' can serve, 'humanity' can serve...

If this is the way, Charles, and you become antagonistic towards words, then not a single beautiful word will be left for you; all have been used wrongly. And even if we invent new words, they will be used wrongly because the people, the great crowd on the earth, are the same. Its mind is the same.

Now in Russia nobody believes in God, but they believe in communism. They will do the same in the name of communism as Christians have done in the name of God. What is the difference? In Russia nobody believes in the Bible, but they will sacrifice as many people at the altar of DAS KAPITAL as have been sacrificed in the name of the Bible. So what is the difference? Kaaba or Kremlin, there seems to be no difference at all.

Now in China nobody believes in Buddha and nobody can commit any more crimes in the name of Buddha, but now the same crimes are being committed in the name of communism, Chairman Mao, because the people are the same. Unless the mind of humanity changes this is going to happen.

Hence I don't drop using the word 'god', knowing perfectly well that you are not alone -- there are many people who would like me to drop the word 'god' completely, but then I will have to drop 'love' too.

You say, "LOVE, YES...." That simply means that you are not aware that what has been done in the name of love is not less criminal than what has been done in the name of God. "DIVINE PRESENCE" -- you say, "YES" but the same can be done; "THE ULTIMATE, YES." These are just synonyms! Life, love, God, godliness, divine presence, the ultimate, the absolute, truth -- they are all synonyms.

Don't be too conditioned by the past. This is remaining in a kind of bondage, Charles. Somebody hearing the word 'god' simply falls on his knees and starts praying, and somebody else cringes. Both are conditioned, nobody is free. If you shudder, if you hesitate, then the word 'god' has immense power over you, negative of course -- but it has great power, as much power as it has on the people who go to the churches and the temples. You are conditioned in the negative way, they are conditioned in the positive way. But conditioning is conditioning; whether negative or positive it does not make you free.