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

Sannyas has to be a real break away. A loving surrender to the new....

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

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.

My own approach is natural and simple. I want no marriages in the world of the new man. Marriage is such an ugly and rotten phenomenon — so destructive, so inhuman. On the one hand it makes one woman a slave, and on the other hand, it creates the ugliest institution of prostitutes. The prostitutes are needed to save the marriage.

Man has arranged for himself, but he has prohibited the woman…. First, his ego is hurt if his woman falls in love with somebody else. That means he is rejected, that means he is not man enough, that means something is missing in him.

And more than that, there is another problem: private property. He has to keep a perfect guard on his woman because he wants his own blood to inherit his property. And if the women are free to have love affairs, then it is very difficult — almost impossible — to be certain that your son is really your son. It may be somebody else's son, and he will inherit your property. To protect private property, the woman has to be conditioned that she is monogamous. But it is not true, it is not natural.

Whether one is man or woman, everybody needs a change, at least once in a while — for the weekend. Five days you can both be monogamous; for two days, on the weekend, you can both be polygamous. And what is the worry about the property — who owns it when you are dead — whether it is your blood or somebody else's blood? It seems to be an unnecessary worry — somebody will inherit it.

And if you become interested in other women, you should understand that your woman is also human, has the same heart, the same consciousness — she also likes sometimes to meet a new man. She also gets tired and bored.

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.