Is being a poet enough to attain truth?

Question: Third question: Osho, I am a poet; isn’t that enough to attain truth? Dinesh! Being a poet is beautiful, even necessary—but not sufficient. One must also be a rishi, a seer. Above the poet is the seer. In language the two words may seem to overlap, but existentially there is a great difference. The poet sees as if in a dream; the seer sees with eyes open, awake. The seer is a witness; the poet is imaginative. In the poet’s imagination, sometimes reflections of truth appear, as when the full moon is in the sky and its reflection forms in the lake. The poet is like the moon’s reflection in the lake, while the seer has lifted his eyes and seen the moon in the sky. The poet keeps singing of the reflection and gets entangled in it.

Osho, is being attracted to Krishna not the same as being free of life’s other attractions?

One has to think a little. Here lies Krishna’s distinction. If you are attracted to Mahavira, you will have to be free of all the world’s attractions. If you go toward Mahavira, you will have to go against the world. That is Mahavira’s path. But with Krishna the matter is a little delicate and deep. Krishna says, if you want to come to me, you must seek me right within the attractions of the world; for I am present there too. There is no need to run away from there. Understand it like this. You relish food. If you listen to Mahavira, there will be a vow of non-taste (aswad-vrat). Then you must drop taste. Eat as a function, a necessity; do not savor. Put food into the body so that the body’s work may continue, but take no relish in it. Drop taste, continue eating. Let food become tasteless,…

I am a poet. Is it now necessary to become a sannyasin as well in order to attain truth?

If truth had been found, why are you asking? And does being a poet bring truth? A poet is an extension of imagination. Yes, sometimes those who have attained truth are also poets. But don’t take that to mean that all poets have attained truth. That is why, in this land, we have given two names—rishi and kavi. Etymologically they may mean the same, but the difference is profound. A rishi is one who has found truth and has sung it; who has seen truth and turned it into richa, into hymn and song. Those who composed the Upanishads, who gave voice to the mantras of the Vedas—Kabir, Nanak, Dadu, Meera, Sahajo, Daya—these are rishis. Do not fall into the confusion of calling them merely poets. There are thousands of poets, but they are not Nanak, nor Kabir. It may even be that some are better poets than Nanak and…

Osho! You say the poet is close to the seer. Yet it is surprising that even poets and artists with such sensitive hearts—who have set out in life seeking satyam, shivam, sundaram—hesitate to come here. You say meditation deepens sensitivity. Then what are these poets and artists afraid of? Are meditation and creation not possible together?

Arun Satyarthi! The poet is certainly close to the rishi. Poet means: one who has begun to receive glimpses of the Divine. Rishi means: one who has become one with it. Poet means: one who has seen, from afar, the snow-white peaks of the Himalayas. Rishi means: one who has made his home upon those peaks. Between the poet and Truth there is a slight distance; the rishi is one with Truth. But without being a poet no one becomes a rishi. Though not all poets become seers, all seers are bound to be poets. One can choose to cling to the glimpses, to revel in them. The poet is showered by a drizzle; the rishi is drenched in a cloudburst. The poet, you can say, lives by ponds and pools; the rishi is merged into the ocean—he becomes the ocean. Yet a poet may mistake his pond for the…

Osho, yesterday you said that when anger is watched consciously, it dissolves. But why is it that when sexual desire arises, even in awareness its intensity persists? Why is it so?

There is no entanglement in the breath. If you try to practice on anger… Anger is not happening every moment; it happens sometimes. And when it happens, it happens with such intensity that you are already going deep into it; so much is at stake in those moments that you may think, “We will look into awareness later; first let’s settle this now.” Lust is very deep, because existence has made it so deep; life depends on it. If lust were so easy that you decided and were freed, perhaps you would not even have been born—because many before you would have become free, and the possibility of your being would have been almost nil. But your parents, and their parents, did not become free; therefore you are. You too will not get free so easily, because your children are also to be—they are waiting: “Do not run away midway.”…