Can someone born at the North Pole eat meat?

Osho, if someone were born at the North Pole today, could they also eat meat?

It is possible. Please understand what I am saying. It is possible, but if you heard what I said last night, then even at the North Pole they would not eat meat. If they wish to establish communion with the world of the voiceless, they cannot eat meat; and if they do not wish to establish such a communion, then they can eat meat.

It is also asked: Muhammad ate meat, Christ ate meat, and yet they attained samadhi!

You have seen: herbivorous animals eat all day long; the carnivorous lion eats once in twenty-four hours. Why? Meat is so heavy it takes twenty-four hours to digest. The monkey sits in the tree—he’s vegetarian—and keeps nibbling whatever he finds. Why? Vegetarian food is light; it doesn’t land like a stone. And whenever the body is heavy, it is difficult to fly into the sky. Whenever the body is heavy, touching the heights of meditation is difficult—not impossible, but difficult. Haven’t you noticed? When you eat a lot, sleep comes. Understand a little from that. Why sleep after heavy food? Because staying awake becomes difficult. The body is so heavy it wants to sleep. After a heavy meal you won’t be able to sit for meditation; if you try, you’ll doze, sleep will come. That is why people discovered fasting. Meditation on a light or empty stomach can settle in…

A friend has asked: Osho, are you a samyavadi—are you a communist?

If I were opposed to the great ones, it would be hard to find anyone who loves the great ones more than I do. I am not even an opponent of Godse—so how could I be an opponent of Gandhi? But when I criticize some great person, I am not opposing the person; I am trying to shake the peg to which you are tied, so that you may be free. You praise the peg so much that your praise becomes the reason for your bondage. Therefore I try to break even your praises. Do not mistakenly think I have any enmity. But our understanding is so small—so very small. And the understanding of the prejudiced is always small. One who has a doctrine has no understanding, because he is already bound and looks at the world only through that fixed lens. Difficulties arise. He cannot grasp what is being…

Beloved Osho, in existence only the animal kingdom is capable of eating itself for food. A cabbage cannot eat a carrot for lunch, but man has even been known to eat his fellow man for dinner. The man of zen has dissolved into the vast existence and chooses not to eat meat. Please explain.

First, you are not aware that even animals don't eat from their own species. A lion will not eat another lion, nor will a snake bite another snake. Yes, animals eat animals from other species. Vegetables cannot ordinarily eat, but there are trees, rare trees in Africa, still existent, which eat animals, birds or even man. They use their big leaves and a beautiful perfume to attract the birds. Because of the perfume, the bird comes to the tree, thinking that this is an ordinary tree, and as he sits on the tree the leaves close and suck the blood of the bird. A few trees are capable of catching animals through their branches and eating them, and a few trees have movement also. They move from one place to another place. They need a very soft earth in which they can manage to use their roots as legs. And…

Osho, the Gita certainly emphasizes sattvic food for seekers, but nowhere does it explicitly forbid meat. And you have said meat is easy to digest—and that’s what doctors say, too. Then what obstacle does meat-eating create? For spiritual practice you have strongly stressed the usefulness of a vegetarian diet. But books indicate that many saints who attained through Sufi, Zen, and Tantra paths did not remain vegetarian. And in our own country, Paramhansa Ramakrishna always ate non-vegetarian food. What is the reason for this contradiction?

Then my vision is this: Ramakrishna is an exceedingly pure man. Therefore such a small impurity could not obstruct him. You may not be able to conceive this. Exceedingly pure. If you permit me, I would say: purer than Mahavira. Had Mahavira eaten meat or fish, he could not have attained the supreme. But Ramakrishna did. This means only this: the man is so pure that such a small impurity could not hinder him. Despite that impurity he crossed beyond. Understand it like this: you climb a mountain. The rule for mountain-climbing is that the less the load, the better. If you climb with loads of weight on your head, climbing becomes hard. You may abandon the idea or stop at some midway camp. But then a very powerful man, a Hercules, climbs the mountain with a heavy weight—and reaches the top. This man is not the rule. This Hercules…