One of the security men who was here with us for a while said to me, “You’re a wonderful group of people,” and he was so surprised that we never fight with each other.
This harmony here is truly a miracle, and yet feels so natural.
Osho, could you say more about this magic. And are there any ways your disciples can help one another on our adventure to consciousness?
People fight not without reason. Each fight, deep down, is a clash between ambitions, a struggle to achieve the same thing the other is also trying to achieve. Ambition is the source of all fight, all wars.
My people have no ambition. They are not struggling to get anywhere on the ladder of ambition. They are not competitors with each other for anything. So this is a totally different kind of group, where people are not together to fight either amongst themselves or to fight with some other group.
In India it happened…when India became free I was very young, but I used to talk with my father continuously about all kinds of things. And my whole family was involved in the freedom struggle; they all have been to jail, they all have suffered. My uncles could not complete their education because just in the middle of the year they were caught and put in jail. After three years they came out, and then it was too late to join again.
I told my father, “To me it seems to be a fallacy that if Mohammedans get a separate land and Hindus a separate, and the country is divided…the principle being proposed is that then there will be no fight; otherwise, they are continuously fighting, killing each other.”
And he said, “The proposal seems to be sane. If they have their own countries, what is the need to fight?”
I said, “The need to fight is far deeper. If Hindus and Mohammedans are separated, then you will see that Mohammedans are fighting amongst themselves.”
There were three problems: Mohammedanism has two sects, Shias and Sunnis, and they are as deadly against each other as they are against any other religion. They kill each other and for fourteen centuries they have been killing each other over a small difference – whether Mohammed appointed his son as his successor or his son-in-law. One party believes that the son-in-law was appointed – now no records exist. The other party thinks the son was appointed as the successor – they don’t have any record either. My feeling is that Mohammed died without making anybody a successor. And these two persons, the son-in-law and the son, became ambitious to have the same power, and Mohammedanism got split into two. And they are still fighting over who was the real authentic successor.
But what is the matter? Are you mad? You believe in the same philosophy, right or wrong; you believe in the same morality. And now it does not matter. The son is dead long ago; the son-in-law is also dead.
But those two factions continued growing more and more distant from each other, because now the son-in-law appointed his successor, the son appointed his successor. So now there are two successions going on side by side.