Does the science of the inner soul have laws that apply to consciousness and being?

Beloved Osho, modern science has discovered a number of laws such as the law of gravity, which describe the behavior of the material world. Does the science of the inner soul also have laws which apply to consciousness and being?

It is one of the most fundamental differences between the outer and the inner. The outer is ruled by laws: The inner is just freedom. Consciousness knows no laws. It is matter that needs laws. Without laws, the material existence is impossible. And in the same way, with laws, the world of consciousness is impossible. Consciousness can exist only in absolute freedom, with no limits, with no conditions, with no laws. Matter will immediately fall apart without laws, for the simple reason that it has no individuality. It has no center of being which can hold it together if there are no laws. Matter is without a center, or in other words, without a self. Just because there is no center in it, it cannot remain together unless it is surrounded by all kinds of laws, conditions, rules. Science goes on discovering laws because it deals only with dead matter.…

Question: Osho, can spirituality and materialism be reconciled? Science says the soul is not a thing at all: in fact, “soul” is just another name for thought. There is no such entity as a soul—only an empty word. No one has seen the soul; it is only “experienced,” and you can’t transfer an experience to someone else. It’s just a theory. Whoever claims to have experiences ends up with a private, different notion of the soul; everyone who believes themselves to be a soul has their own idea. That’s what these scientists say, and the mind gets confused about who is telling the truth. We talk about the soul though no one has seen it to this day. And Marxism says there are two united elements. We take there to be only one; nothing else exists. But Marxism posits two: energy and matter—conjoined, inseparable.

Osho, is consciousness not matter?

No—no. In fact, if you understand what I mean: as I just said, there is something—when it is aroused it is called mind; when unaroused it is called soul. There is such a something; something is—there is no need for a name. Call it Brahman if you like, or call it something else—it makes no difference, because the trouble begins the moment you give it a name. There is something that appears to us in two forms—conscious and unconscious. There is a state where it is absolutely vibrationless; there it seems unconscious, it seems material. And there is another of its modes where it is filled with perfect vibration; there it appears conscious, it appears as consciousness. These are two different aspects of the same thing, two functions of the same reality. The conscious and the unconscious are not matter; rather, they are two functions of one and the same…

If there is no soul, then go and ask the same question to a rock. Ask the rock, "Is there a soul or not?" and the rock is not going to say, "I don't believe in any soul." The rock will not say anything; there is nobody to deny or affirm. In fact, you cannot deny yourself. It is not possible. You cannot say "I am not." It is self-contradictory. He says, "I will not be anywhere." It is impossible not to be anywhere. You will be somewhere. You ARE somewhere, Dr. Kovoor. Your body may dissolve into matter, your mind may dissolve into atmosphere -- but everything that is in you will be there. Nothing will be lost. And this concept of soul is just a symbol. It simply shows that you are a unity -- body, mind, and something beyond it because you can watch your own thoughts.

Question: what is it that you call atman, soul? Is this soul consciousness itself or is it something individual?

You ask whether the soul is individual. It is a meaningless question, but it is pertinent because of you. It is like a question that a blind man would ask. A blind man moves with his staff. He cannot move without it: he searches and gropes in the dark with it. If we talk to him about operating on his eyes to heal them so he can see, the blind man can ask, very pertinently, "When I have my eyes will I still be able to grope in the dark with my staff?" If we say, "You will not need your staff," he cannot believe it. He will say, "Without my staff I cannot exist, I cannot live. What you are saying is not acceptable. I cannot conceive of it. Without my staff, I am not. So what will become of my staff? First you tell me!" Really, this individuality…