Are intense thirst and boundless patience incompatible for union with the Lord?

Osho, the other day you said that for union with the Lord the thirst must be utmost intense and at the same time patience must be boundless; are these two states not incompatible?

Then too, that “thirst” is not thirst, it is lust. You are mistaken again. Then it is your greed. Just as you want to acquire other things of the world, you also want to acquire God. As you have seized other things and clenched your fist around them, you want to show the world: Look, not only is a big car in my fist, God is too. Not only a big house, not only wealth—God also has been tied to my post; he too is enlisted in my service. Then what you are calling thirst is not thirst; it is greed, it is lust. What is the difference between thirst and greed? In thirst, you burn and the ego melts. A moment comes when in the fire of thirst you become utterly empty. The ego melts away completely. In lust, the ego grows, becomes stronger. The more lust is gratified,…

Osho, you say the same thing in countless ways. But when I listen to you, it feels as if I am hearing it for the first time. And I feel so much joy that I don’t feel like going back home. What should I do—what can I do—so that I can just keep listening to you!

You will feel as if you have been made to rise out of season, before time—as if you were not yet to go and yet had to go. And if you go in that way, your home will become even more desolate than before. I do not want to make your home desolate; I want to make your home a temple. I want that when you go home, your home’s new form is revealed. I do not want to tear you away from home, from the world, from family life. That is the newness of my sannyas: I do not want to sever you from the world; I want to join you to the world in such a way that your connection with the world becomes a connection with the Divine. Let the world no longer be a barrier between you and the Divine; let it become a means. If…

Osho, two evenings ago during darshan you told a young woman, “Have faith.” And I too trusted your words—that where the thirst is intense, water has to come. Now the water has come, but should I at once cup my hands and drink, or should I wait patiently until the water rises to my lips?

Therefore, if your state is devotional and you wish to let the play go on a little longer, even if the spring rises before you and floods you up to the chest—stand there; no harm. He too is coming; He is seeking you. He will come to your lips. But if you have come by great endeavor, then do not be so patient—drink at once! What is gained by effort can be lost in a moment. In some state of mind the spring appears; the state changes, it is lost. If, by gaining mastery over the mind’s waves, becoming meditative, you glimpsed the spring, drink quickly—who knows when the waves return and you miss again! The seeker often misses after reaching—again and again—because his reaching depends on a particular state of mind: very narrow, very difficult to sustain. To hold it even for a moment is hard. Mahavira said: if…

Question: Second question: Osho, is abhipsa enough for the Lord? But if it is the kind of abhipsa Farid pointed to—if within you, truly without any greed, having seen the futility and meaninglessness of life, having looked through all its experiences, a clear sense has dawned that here there is nothing else worth attaining, nothing else worth knowing; that it is Truth one must know, that unseen which sustains all; because only by knowing That will we find the ultimate rest—otherwise this scramble will go on and on; we have gained all and, having gained, seen that nothing is really gained, the hands remain empty—if from such understanding a tongue of flaming fire rises within you; or in the satsang of a Buddha the contagion of his thirst infects you, provokes you, sets you ablaze, fills you with urgency, gives birth to a fire of longing—viraha—then abhipsa is sufficient.

Osho, you said that if the prana—the vital energy—becomes utterly, totally eager for the Lord, union can happen in a single instant. And you also say that for this union infinite patience is required. These are two extremes!

No; they are two forms of the same state—two stages of the same state. Understand! I continually say that to attain him one needs infinite patience. And I also continually say that he can be attained in a single moment. The two statements appear contradictory. For if he can be attained in a single moment, what need is there for infinite patience? Then there would be no need to be patient even for a moment—what can be attained in a moment, let us attain it now. And when I say that only by holding infinite patience will you attain, you feel that infinite patience must mean it cannot happen in a single moment; even if it happens in infinite lifetimes, that would still be early. They seem opposed, but they are not. The mathematics of life is like a riddle. They are complementary. Try to understand! He can be attained…