According to Osho, no. 'Constitution' means the made framework or structure—how something is put together—whereas 'prakriti' (often rendered 'nature') is utterly different: the uncreated, beginningless reality that exists prior to any making. European languages lack a true equivalent due to creationist influence. Like a house: its constitution is the design; the clay, air, and fire are prakriti.
Constitution is how the parts are arranged; prakriti is the timeless raw stuff that was there before anything was arranged.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, you said that in English there is no word for prakriti (nature). Isn’t “constitution” a word like nature? As when one says “he is constitutionally like that,” doesn’t it mean “he is born with…”?
No, not that meaning. “Constitutionally” means his constitution is like that. “Constitution” means a statute, a framework. Yes, as with a person: “constitutionally” means that person’s structure is such, that person’s constitution is such. The word prakriti is something very different. We use it in the sense of “so-and-so’s nature is like this.” That is not a correct usage. Prakriti means before the making (kriti). Pralaya means after the making. Prakriti means that which was there even when nothing had been made; that which does not need to be made at all, that which is beginningless, that which simply is. Srishti means that which is made. In the European languages there is no word for prakriti, because they are influenced by Christianity. So in Europe there is creation and creator. In the languages of this land there is the word prakriti—and even then, not in all. In Sankhya, Vaisheshika, Jain—their…
You mentioned that there is no comparable word for prakriti in the english language. Isn't the word constitution similar in meaning to prakriti?
No, it's not the same meaning. Constitution in that sense means an individual's makeup, his psycho-physical structure. Constitution in this sense means one's system, one's physical and psychological makeup as such. Prakriti is something very different. Normally we use prakriti in the sense that "That man's constitution is such...." But this kind of usage is not correct. Prakriti means that which was before creation -- precreated. And pralaya means: post-creation -- that which follows the creation, the end of creation. So prakriti means that which was even before the creation came to be, that which didn't need to be created -- which has always been, beginningless. That which already is. Srishti means the created -- that which came to be. There is no word in European languages which stands for prakriti, because these languages are influenced by Christianity. In Europe there are words such as the 'creation', and the 'creator'.…
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…
Osho, “Ritasya yatha preta”—which is taken to mean “Live according to the natural law.” This aphorism is from the Rig Veda. Osho, please be gracious and explain its intended meaning.
Look within yourself. Science has not yet discovered how bread becomes blood. If it had, we would feed bread and water into a machine and draw blood out the other side—there would be no need for blood banks. Though science has advanced, it still cannot grasp how bread becomes blood, how it becomes flesh and marrow, how it turns into the energy of the brain, into semen, into the flow of life. Not only your life, but your children’s life is fashioned by that bread. An astounding alchemy is at work within you. That alchemy is called rit. Why and how do you breathe? We think we breathe—this is a fundamental error. If we breathed, no one could ever die: when death came we would simply keep breathing. But when the breath goes out and does not return, we have no power to recall it. We do not breathe; rather,…
Beloved Osho, what is the difference between the emptiness of the child before the formation of the ego and the awakened childlikeness of a buddha?
Whether you are for it or against it doesn't matter -- your concern shows where your ego is hanging. And I will include the capitalist in it also: his whole concern is how to gather money, hoard money -- because money has power over matter. You can purchase any material thing through money. You cannot purchase anything spiritual, you cannot purchase anything that has any intrinsic value; you can purchase only things. If you want to purchase love, you cannot purchase; but you can purchase sex. Sex is the material part of love. Through money, matter can be purchased, possessed. Now you will be surprised: I include the communist and the capitalist both in the same category, and they are enemies, just as I include Charvaka and Mahatma Gandhi in the same category, and they are enemies. They are enemies, but their concern is the same. The capitalist is trying…