How to conduct a scriptural debate?

Beloved Osho, you have said many times that a dialogue is not possible through debate. But shankara announced his universal victory and defeated innumerable intellectuals in a debate on the meaning of the scriptures. After the defeat they had to become shankara's disciples. Please explain what kind of debate on the scriptures this was.

Shankara agreed to debate with Bharati. But he found he could not reply to the questions asked by her, because she did not ask any question regarding Brahma or knowledge of Brahma. As he had already defeated Mandan on that topic. She had understood from the debate with Mandan that it was useless to talk to this young man about Brahma. She thought "This young-looking person is actually a very ancient being." And Mandan certainly knew more than Bharati. That is why Bharati had fallen in love with him, married him, and was looking after him. She had seen him defeated by Shankara on the subject of Brahma, so she asked Shankara questions regarding sex. Shankara was young. He was thirty years old and was unmarried. He found himself in a difficult situation. He said, "I want six months' time to reply to these questions because I am unmarried and…

Osho, you have titled this series of talks “Sahaj Yoga.” Do “sahaj” and “yoga” not seem mutually opposed?

Anand Maitreya! They don’t just seem opposed, they are opposed. But no ultimate truth of life can manifest without contradiction. Life is made of opposites—darkness and light, day and night, woman and man, negative electricity and positive electricity, birth and death. The very structure of life is woven of opposites. Hence the opposites are not only opposed; they are complementary to each other. If you have labored hard all day, you will be able to sleep deeply. Labor and rest are opposites, yet only the one who has worked can rest deeply—and the one who has not worked cannot. So the opposites are not only opposed, they complete each other. And only the one who has rested deeply at night can rise in the morning and engage in work again. One who has not rested through the night will not be able to work in the morning. Look closely at…

There is an old tradition in some japanese zen temples that if a wandering monk can win an argument about buddhism with one of the resident monks, he can stay the night. If not, he has to move on.

THERE WAS SUCH A TEMPLE IN NORTHERN JAPAN RUN BY TWO BROTHERS. THE ELDER BROTHER WAS VERY LEARNED AND THE YOUNGER BROTHER WAS RATHER STUPID, AND HE HAD ONLY ONE EYE. ONE EVENING A WANDERING MONK CAME TO ASK FOR LODGING. THE ELDER BROTHER WAS VERY TIRED AS HE HAD BEEN STUDYING FOR MANY HOURS, SO HE TOLD THE YOUNGER BROTHER TO GO AND TAKE THE DEBATE. "REQUEST THAT THE DIALOGUE BE IN SILENCE," SAID THE ELDER BROTHER. A LITTLE LATER THE TRAVELER CAME TO THE ELDER BROTHER AND SAID, "WHAT A WONDERFUL FELLOW YOUR BROTHER IS. HE HAS WON THE DEBATE VERY CLEVERLY, SO I MUST MOVE ON. GOOD NIGHT." "BEFORE YOU GO," SAID THE ELDER BROTHER, "PLEASE RELATE THE DIALOGUE TO ME." "WELL," SAID THE TRAVELER, "FIRST I HELD UP ONE FINGER TO REPRESENT BUDDHA. THEN YOUR BROTHER HELD UP TWO FINGERS TO REPRESENT BUDDHA AND HIS TEACHING.…

Osho, a question arises in my mind. Last night you said some things about the scriptures. It seemed to me that whatever you say could also be found in the scriptures. And what you are saying is itself gradually becoming a scripture. And what you say about the scriptures will apply verbatim to what you yourself have said as well. One who can see will see it here too; one who cannot see will not see it here either. And one who can see will also see it in the ancient scriptures, while the one who cannot see will not see it there either. Then there remains no purpose in criticizing them.

If this much becomes clear to us, then you will see I am not condemning scripture; I am stating the factual situation of scripture. And what you say is right: much of what I say will be found in the scriptures—not because it is there, but because you will have understood me. If my words have been understood by you, you will find them in the scriptures, because in scripture you will find only what your understanding is. Whatever your understanding is, that is what you will find—because we project our own understanding into scripture. Ordinarily we think that understanding comes out of scripture. It does not. We put our understanding into the scripture. That is why a thousand commentaries on the Gita are possible. If understanding came out of the Gita, how could there be a thousand commentaries? And if Krishna had a thousand meanings, then Krishna’s mind must…

That is why daily I speak even in opposition to myself—so you cannot make a scripture out of me. If you attempt, you will be in great trouble. I have said almost everything that could be said. Krishna said one aspect—his words can become scripture. Lao Tzu another—his too can become scripture. Krishnamurti, who is utterly anti-scriptural—his scripture is certain to be made, for a more consistent man is hard to find. In forty years he has said nothing but one thing, repeating it. You cannot make a scripture out of me, because I have said all that could be said. I have not worried at all about contradicting myself—today this, tomorrow that. If you try to make a scripture, you will go mad. You will not be able to extract any doctrine from me. I have arranged this deliberately.