Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy - Osho - Oshorajneesh.com

CHAPTER 6. NUDITY AND CLOTHING SHOULD GO TOGETHER
Question 5
QUESTIONER: YOU SAID WE NEED A SOCIETY IN WHICH A MAN CAN FREELY TAKE THE
HAND OF A WOMAN HE LIKES IN HIS, WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING OSTRACIZED. SINCE
IT RAISES THE QUESTION OF IMMORALITY, WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW YOUR VIEW ON
IMMORALITY. WHAT IF SOMEONE, BY WAY OF TAKING A WOMAN’S HAND IN HIS, ASKS FOR
MORE, ASKS TO GO TO BED WITH HER? WOULD IT NOT CREATE A CONFLICT IN THE LIVES
OF MANY MEN AND WOMEN? WOULD IT NOT PUT MANY HUSBANDS IN TROUBLE?
Then there is another question similar to it:
Question 6
KRISHNA REPRESENTS TWO EXTREMES OF LIFE. ON THE ONE HAND HE STEALS THE
CLOTHES OF THE GOPIS AND ON THE OTHER HE BRINGS CLOTHES TO DRAUPADI WHEN
SHE IS BEING PUBLICLY DISROBED BY THE KAURAVAS. THIS ASPECT OF HIS LIFE IS
REALLY UNIQUE, UNEARTHLY AND DIVINE. OR IS IT JUST AN EXCEPTIONAL INSTANCE?
THEN THERE ARE CONFLICTING REPORTS ABOUT HIS BODILY COLOR. WHILE THE COLOR
OF KRISHNA, WHO PROVIDED DRAUPADI WITH ABUNDANT CLOTHES, IS SAID TO BE DARK,
THE BHAGWAD DESCRIBES HIM IN THREE SHADES: WHITE, YELLOW AND BLUE. AND
POETS HAVE EULOGIZED HIS BLUE COLOR IN A FANTASTIC MANNER. PLEASE COMMENT.
As far as naturalness is concerned there is no difference between one limb of the body and another
– and if there is a difference it is manmade. The difference we see is our own creation; it is not
real. All the limbs of the body are the same; there is no difference between a hand and a leg. But
we have divided even the parts of our body and categorized them. There are parts that are like
living rooms in a house to be shown to everybody, and some other parts of the same house, like
lockers, to be kept hidden and secret. Even our physical body is fragmented, and a fragmented
body is an unhealthy body. But in itself the body is an organic whole; it is indivisible. There is no
division whatsoever between one limb and another. And the day man achieves his natural health
these manmade divisions will disappear.
But you are right when you ask how far one can take liberties with the body of another in relating
with him or her. It is okay to take someone’s hand lovingly in yours, but in doing so you have also
to take the other person’s feelings into full consideration. In a natural society, with the possibilities
of the natural life I am talking about, one will always take the other person into full consideration.
Taking another’s hand, you have to see that he or she is not unnecessarily hurt or inconvenienced.
This consideration will be basic to that naturalness. Maybe holding hands is pleasurable to me, but
it may be hurtful to the person whose hands I hold. He is as free to seek his happiness as I am to
seek mine. He has as much right to his happiness as I have to mine. So in taking someone’s hand
I have not only to see that it is pleasurable to me, I also have to know how the other person is going
to take it.
I am free. My freedom is complete, but it is confined to me. My freedom cannot impinge on the
freedom of another person, because his freedom is as complete as mine. Where the other person
begins, my freedom will be responsible for his freedom too. Otherwise freedom becomes a license,
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 111 Osho