How to reconcile spontaneity and regularity?

For zen it is: "eat when you are hungry and drink when you are thirsty." for patanjali it is: "regularity -- niyam." how to reconcile spontaneity and regularity?

There is no need to synthesize. If you are really spontaneous you will become regular. If you are really regular you will become spontaneous. There is no need to reconcile. If you try to reconcile you will become a mess, so choose one and forget about the other. If you choose Zen forget about Patanjali as if he never existed; then he is not for you. And one day you will suddenly see that the regularity has come following spontaneity. How it happens? If you are spontaneous, if you ea( when you feel hungry -- and if you only eat when you feel hungry and you never eat against your desire, you never eat more than your desire, you always follow your need -- by and by you will settle to a regularity, because the body is a mechanism, a very, very beautiful biomechanism. Then every day at the same…

You seem to emphasize different points every day: being ordinary, being aware, being meditative, and so on. If I try to practice them all I get confused trying to reach a harmony of all. Should I just forget, and be spontaneous?

You have got the point exactly, precisely. That is the whole point: be spontaneous. And whatsoever I am saying is not contradictory. You can get confused because you are already confused. And in your confusion, when my words enter they create even more confusion -- because a confused mind can only create more confusion, nothing else. What I am saying is not contradictory at all. It may appear so sometimes, but it is not. Let me tell you a Sufi story. An interchange between a Sufi and an enquirer:'Which statement should one choose if two Sufi sayings contradict each other?' 'They only contradict one another if viewed separately. If you clap your hands and observe only the movement of the hands, they appear to oppose one another. You have not seen what is happening. The purpose of the opposition of the palms was, of course, to produce the hand clap.…

Osho, you have earlier said, “Live moment to moment, live in the present.” Now you are saying, “Return to the past.” What should we do?

So it is with the mind—there are ruts. The past means endless grooves. However much you understand, your intellect agrees, you make decisions, you resolve—at the moment of resolve you feel something is going to change. But not even an hour passes before your decision breaks. Then only self-condemnation is produced, nothing else. Your saints, your fakirs, your priests and pundits—most of the time they only succeed in producing self-condemnation in you, nothing else. Their words are logically correct. You cannot even say they are wrong; you have to admit they are right. In that admission you take a decision. But against what are you deciding? Inside are grooves carved since who knows when, deep tracks. Walking in them has become a habit. It is easy to walk in them. They will pull you again and again. The meaning of returning into the past is: these grooves must be erased.…

Osho, are being a mere instrument (nimitta) and being spontaneous/free (swachchhand) only differences of expression? Please explain.

But if it doesn’t suit you, that doesn’t mean the Divine is narrow and reachable by only one road. If this doesn’t suit you, then what is its opposite—does that suit you? Does spontaneity suit you? Does rebellion suit you? Does it appeal to declare: Enough—I will live in my own way? Then live so. Shape yourself to your own cadence. Live in complete freedom. Do not become an instrument. Do not surrender. Live spontaneously. What Ashtavakra calls spontaneity, Mahavira calls asharan—without refuge. What Krishna calls becoming a mere instrument, Chaitanya and Mira call surrender. They are the same things. If I distill all this, I would say: one path is feminine, and one path is masculine. The masculine path means: he cannot surrender, cannot become an instrument; he will proclaim himself. The path of spontaneity, of being without refuge, will suit him. Feminine means: she will not proclaim herself—that’s…

Osho: would you please say something about the relationship between spontaneity and working on oneself? Shouldn't we be loving as much as we can? If there are certain things to do or ways to be to increase our capacity for joy, shouldn't we do them? Shouldn't we let our egos drop? Many good men have written that love can begin as an impulse of the will, and trying to be spontaneous seems to be a contradiction. Would you comment on this?

You have forgotten what real love is. You fall in love with the color of the hair -- now, what has that to do with love? After two days you will not look at the color of the hair at all. Or you fall in love with a certain shape of nose or a certain kind of eyes, but after the honeymoon these things are just boring! And then you have to go on managing somehow, pretending, cheating. Your spontaneity has been corrupted and poisoned, otherwise you would not fall in love with parts. But you only fall in love with parts. If somebody asks you, 'Why do you love this woman or this man?" your answer will be, "Because she looks so beautiful," or, "Because of her nose, eyes, proportion of the body, this and that" -- and all this is nonsense! Then this love cannot be very deep…