He says nobody else has given this explanation; trust your own understanding instead of waiting for others to confirm it.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
The eyes cannot approach it, neither can speech nor mind. We do not, therefore, know it, nor do we know how to teach it. It is different from what is known and it is different from what is unknown. Thus we have heard from our predecessors who instructed us about it. What speech cannot reveal but what reveals speech -- know thou that alone as brahman and not this -- anything objective -- that people worship here. What mind does not comprehend but what comprehends the mind -- know thou that alone as brahman and not this that people worship here.
God is not indubitable. Remember this: God is not indubitable. He can be doubted -- not only doubted, he can be disproved. And really, when someone doubts God you cannot prove his existence. You can only convince those who are already convinced, but you cannot convert a new man; that is impossible. Not a single atheist can be converted because he needs proof and you cannot prove God. God is not indubitable. He can be doubted, rejected. The whole hypothesis can be said to be false. There is no proof that can help. So Descartes goes on discussing, inquiring, and he says that unless he comes to a point, to something in existence that is indubitable.... Not that it can be proved -- no. Rather, it cannot be doubted. And ultimately he comes to the self and says that the self is a greater reality than God. It is, because…
Osho, between Sage Kapila’s Sankhya philosophy, Ashtavakra’s Mahageeta, and Krishnamurti’s teaching, is the only difference one of expression according to time and place? Kindly explain!
Now syadvada is the complete truth! And if someone says it is also partial, a quarrel will begin. “All are partial truths, but what I am saying is the complete truth”—this was the very quarrel. Syadvada was devised to settle that quarrel. Now syadvada too has become one more party, another controversy, another sect. Had syadvada truly been understood, there should be no Jain sect at all—because on the basis of syadvada a sect cannot stand. Syadvada means that truth is in all, and complete truth is in none; therefore there is no place for erecting sects. A sect necessarily claims: truth is here, not there. Syadvada cut the very root of sectarianism. Yet a Jain sect stands, now defending syadvada. Between these three—Kapila, Ashtavakra, and Krishnamurti—I am not asking you to seek a synthesis. I am saying: if you go into the depths of meditation, if you attain to…
Osho, there is a difference between word and style. Has any man in the world ever been able to say something original, something new?
All they had was stale—memorized words; there was no experience. For those who have words, experience is always original, forever original. For those who have only scriptures, living experience is always original. But for those who have experience, the gap between old and new collapses. Understand this last point. As I said of all dualities—happiness and misery, peace and restlessness, freedom and bondage—so also this duality of new and old. Truth is neither new nor old. A thing is called new only if someday it can become old; and old means it must once have been new. What is new today will be old tomorrow; what is old today was new yesterday. Truth is neither new nor old, because it can become neither old nor new. Therefore we call truth eternal, we call it timeless, that which always is. So in relation to truth, nothing can be “original.” But in…
Satya Vedant, the kind of letter you ask about keeps coming to me continually. A follower of J. Krishnamurti wrote just a few days ago that there is a glimpse of J. Krishnamurti in my ideas.
Whoever listens to J. Krishnamurti will naturally find a hint of J. Krishnamurti in my ideas. But it did not occur to this questioner to ask whether there is a hint of Buddha in J. Krishnamurti’s ideas—or of Lao Tzu? Whether there is a shadow of the Upanishads in J. Krishnamurti’s thought? No, that question never arose. He has his own bias. For him, J. Krishnamurti is original. But in me he starts seeing reflections of J. Krishnamurti. The urge to impose one’s own bias is very deep. I do not claim that my ideas are original. J. Krishnamurti claims his ideas are original. And that claim is wrong; because there is not a single thought of J. Krishnamurti that is not present in the Upanishads, not present in the words of Buddha, and which Lao Tzu has not said with even greater profundity. In J. Krishnamurti’s ideas there is…
Question: Fourth question: Osho, I am very impressed by your original ideas. This is not a question; it is praise. And there is no need for praise. If you have questions, ask them; if you have praise, keep it in your heart. What is the essence of it anyway? What will come of talking about it? So first, ask something that is of benefit to you, that is wholesome, auspicious for your life. Second, where are original ideas to be found! How could they be! How can anything in this world be original! Countless people have been; from endless time human beings have thought and reflected. Do you think a single idea remains that no human being has thought before? Impossible. But thoughts that have been thought get lost again and again. When you think them again, it seems they are original. We forget; memories are lost.