fbpx

First, you have a misunderstanding about man’s nature. You think, as many people think, that man is polygamous, and the woman is monogamous (OSHO)

First, you have a misunderstanding about man’s nature. You think, as many people think, that man is polygamous, and the woman is monogamous (OSHO)

Question: OSHO, WHENEVER, I AM IN LOVE WITH A MAN, FOR THOSE YEARS NO OTHER MAN ATTRACTS ME. BUT FOR THE MAN, IT’S NOT THE SAME. THOUGH HE IS HAPPY AND SATISFIED WITH ME, AND WANTS TO KEEP THE RELATIONSHIP WITH ME, HE HAS HIS SHORT LOVE AFFAIRS EVERY FEW MONTHS. I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT NATURE OF MAN AND WOMAN. I ALSO UNDERSTAND EVERY LOVE RELATIONSHIP HAS ITS PEAKS AND VALLEYS. STILL, SADNESS IN ME KEEPS ON COMING FOR A SHORT WHILE, AND LEAVING. I GIVE A LONG ROPE TO THE MAN. MY FRIENDS SAY I MAKE MYSELF SO AVAILABLE THAT I LET THE MAN TAKE ME FOR GRANTED AND I LOSE MY SELF-RESPECT. OSHO, IS IT SO? I’M NOT CLEAR. I DON’T EXPECT ANYTHING FROM HIM. YOU KNOW ME BETTER. WOULD YOU PLEASE LIKE TO COMMENT?

 

Answer:

Neelam, there are many things in your question. First, you have a misunderstanding about man’s nature.

You think, as many people in the world think, that man is polygamous, and the woman is monogamous… that the woman wants to live with one man, to love one man, to devote and dedicate herself totally to one man, but man is different in nature — he wants to love other women too, at least, once in a while.

 

The reality is: both are polygamous. The woman has been conditioned by man for thousands of years into thinking that she is monogamous. And man is very cunning; he has exploited the woman in many ways. One of the ways is: he has been telling her that man is, by nature, polygamous. All the psychologists, all the sociologists are agreed upon the fact that man is polygamous; and none of them says the same thing about woman.

My own understanding is that both are polygamous. If a woman does not behave in a polygamous way, it is nurture, not nature. She has been utterly conditioned so long that the conditioning has gone into her very blood, into her bones, into her very marrow. Why do I say so? — because in the whole of existence, all the animals are polygamous.

 

It would be really surprising that if the whole existence is polygamous, only woman has an exceptional nature. In existence there are no exceptions. But because a woman had to depend financially on man, man has cut the woman in so many ways: he has cut her wings, he has cut her freedom, he has cut her dependence upon herself. He has taken her responsibilities on his shoulders, showing great love, saying: you need not be worried about yourself, I will take care. But in the name of love, he has taken the freedom of the woman. For centuries he has not allowed a woman to be educated, to be qualified in any way, in any craft, in any skill — she has to be financially dependent on the man. He has taken away even her freedom of movement — she cannot move freely the way man moves; she is confined to the house. The house is almost her imprisonment.

 

And in the past particularly, she was continuously pregnant because out of ten children, nine children used to die. To have two, three children, a woman had to be continually pregnant the whole time she was capable of reproducing. A pregnant woman becomes even more dependent financially — the man becomes her caretaker. The man is knowledgeable, the woman knows nothing. She has been kept ignorant because knowledge is power — that’s why woman has been deprived of knowledge.

And because it is a man’s world, they all agree as far as keeping the woman enslaved is concerned.

But everything has been done with very articulate intelligence. She has been told that it is her nature to be monogamous. Now there is not a single psychoanalyst, not a single woman sociologist to refute this: if man is polygamous, then why should woman be monogamous? Man has made the way for his polygamy: he has created prostitutes. It was an accepted fact in the past that no wife would have objected if her husband, once in a while, visited a prostitute. It was thought that it is just natural for man.

 

I say unto you that both are polygamous. The whole existence is polygamous. It has to be — monogamy is boredom. However beautiful a woman may be, however beautiful a man may be, you become tired — the same geography, the same topography. How long do you have to see the same face? So it happens that years pass, and the husband has not looked attentively at his wife for a single moment.

 

In the new world, to which I have dedicated my whole life, there should be no marriage — only lovers. And as long as they are pleased to be together, they can be together; and the moment they feel that they have been together too long, a little change will be good. There is no question of sadness, no question of anger — just a deep acceptance of nature. And if you have loved a man or a woman, you will love to give the other person as much freedom as possible.

 

If love cannot give freedom, then it is not love.

 

Neelam, you say that, “Sadness in me keeps on coming for a short while and leaving. I give a long rope to the man.” Now, the very idea is wrong. Is your man a dog that you give him a long rope?

You cannot give freedom — freedom is everybody’s birthright. The very idea, “I’m giving a long rope”… still the rope is in your hand. You are the giver of freedom. You cannot give freedom; you can only accept the freedom of the other person. You cannot keep one end of the rope in your hand, watching the dog pissing on this tree, pissing on that tree…. You think that is freedom? No, the very idea is wrong.

 

The other person has his freedom; you have your freedom. Neither he needs to have one end of the rope in his hand, nor do you have to have it; otherwise, both are chained. His rope is going to be your chains, your rope is going to be his chains. And you think you give enough rope — you think you are being very generous.

 

Freedom is not something that has to be given to another person. Freedom is something that has to be recognized as the property of the other person.

 

And the freedom of the person you love will not hurt you. It hurts because you don’t use your own freedom. It is not his freedom that hurts; what hurts is that you have been incapacitated by centuries of wrong conditioning — you cannot use your own freedom. Man has taken your whole freedom. That is the real problem. Your freedom has to be returned to you, and it will not hurt; in fact you will enjoy it.

 

Freedom is such a joyful experience. Your lover is enjoying freedom, you are enjoying freedom. In freedom, you meet; in freedom, you depart. And perhaps life may bring you together again.

 

 

 

 

 

OSHO



Facebook

Instagram

Follow Me on Instagram