How can we know whether we are in tune with nature or against it?

Another friend has asked, Osho, if the soul leaves the body, can it also enter another dead body?

It can. But there is no meaning or purpose in entering another dead body. Because that body died precisely because the soul living in it had become incapable of remaining there. That body had become useless; that’s why it was left. There is no purpose in entering such a body. Still, the possibility of entering another body does exist. But it is not a valuable question to ask how to enter someone else’s body when we don’t even know how we are sitting in our own. What benefit can we gain by pondering the futile idea of entering another’s body? We do not know how we ourselves entered this very body. We don’t know how we live in our own body. We have no experience of separating from our own body and seeing ourselves. There is no purpose in entering another’s body. Yet, scientifically one can say it is possible…

Beloved Osho, you have said that when the self surrenders, the whole existence then protects. Then why was the fakir who could see the formless everywhere, or who could feel the presence of godliness everywhere, murdered by the english soldiers?

It appears like murder to you, but not to him. You see it as murder because you are under illusion. He saw only the divine in that spear; he saw that the death was a meeting with the divine. Existence protected him in the sense that even death did not seem like death to him. Death became the door of the ultimate bliss. To you it seems that he died, he was finished. When the Ganges flows into the sea, to you it seems that it is finished. But ask the Ganges: it will say, "I have disappeared and thus become the sea." The Ganges will say, "The fear of annihilation was there before but now it has disappeared. Before this I was very narrow, bounded by the two banks. I could have been finished. I was limited so I could have died. But now I have become unlimited, now…

Osho, you yourself have said there is no way to go against nature in any direction. Then whether, in the ocean of nature, we float or swim—whether we live in friendship with it or in enmity—where does any violation of nature occur? Yet you also explain: move in harmony with nature; in its river don’t swim, float. Osho, in this context, what is the alchemy of “nahin Ram bin thav”—there is no resting place without Ram? Please help us understand.

There is no way to be against nature, because there is nothing that is not nature. Whatever is, is nature. There is no path to fight with nature—who would fight? There is none other than nature. But the feeling, the idea, the vision that “I am fighting nature” can be adopted, it can be cultivated. When you swim in the river, you still are not going against nature, because swimming too is natural. Even when you “fight” the river, the river is not fighting you. So there is no way to be an enemy of nature. But in your mind the notion can arise that you are fighting, that you must win, must not lose—and you can fall into the madness of winning and losing. You will suffer from that. Nature suffers nothing. Nor will nature obstruct you or demand you change. Nature will go on as it is, endlessly.…

Osho, is sadhana a natural development, or is it a leap beyond nature’s evolutionary process and its transcendence? If sadhana is not an overstepping leap beyond natural growth, then will the whole of humanity, within the cosmic process, arrive on its own at spiritual heights? And if evolution always moves forward, why did the great ancient spiritual cultures recede from the evolutionary current?

There are many strands here. First: the moment we separate man from existence and look at him as apart, these questions begin to arise. For example, heat water to one hundred degrees and, at that point, it “leaps” and becomes steam. Water becoming steam is a natural event. Its heating is also natural, not unnatural. Heating is natural; the leap into steam is natural. If nature did not contain the law that at one hundred degrees water can jump into steam, water would have no way to become steam. If nature did not contain the potential to heat to one hundred degrees, water would have no power to reach that heat. Even so, if water had consciousness, it could save itself from fire—or it could put itself on the fire. That too would be a natural happening: to save itself or to offer itself—both. My point is: in this universe…

A friend has asked: Osho, whether I move in deepest attunement with nature, in the outermost attunement, or even against it—in all three situations nature is equally pleased; I am completely free to choose any one of them. Then why should my happiness differ among the three choices?

There will be a difference, because each leads to a different experience. Consider: the earth has gravity. You walk along the road; if you walk upright, you don’t fall. You are free—you can also walk crookedly and fall. Gravity will not say, “Don’t walk crookedly.” Walk askew, fall, your leg breaks—there is pain and trouble. When you fall sideways on the ground, the same gravity is at work; it was at work when you were walking, too. No difference. The same law functions—impartially. If you err in walking, or choose wrongly, you will be hurt. Choose rightly, and you will not be hurt. What does happiness mean? Happiness means: in accord with the law. Unhappiness means: against the law. The law is neutral. You drink poison—nature will kill you. You are ill; you take a dose of poison—the illness dies and you become healthy. Even water, if you drink too…