Is eating meat auspicious or inauspicious?

Someone has asked: Is eating meat auspicious or inauspicious?

The touchstone is within. If meat-eating deepens your meditation, then it is auspicious. If meat-eating hinders your meditation, then it is inauspicious.

Osho, the Gita certainly emphasizes sattvic food for seekers, but nowhere does it explicitly forbid meat. And you have said meat is easy to digest—and that’s what doctors say, too. Then what obstacle does meat-eating create? For spiritual practice you have strongly stressed the usefulness of a vegetarian diet. But books indicate that many saints who attained through Sufi, Zen, and Tantra paths did not remain vegetarian. And in our own country, Paramhansa Ramakrishna always ate non-vegetarian food. What is the reason for this contradiction?

Then my vision is this: Ramakrishna is an exceedingly pure man. Therefore such a small impurity could not obstruct him. You may not be able to conceive this. Exceedingly pure. If you permit me, I would say: purer than Mahavira. Had Mahavira eaten meat or fish, he could not have attained the supreme. But Ramakrishna did. This means only this: the man is so pure that such a small impurity could not hinder him. Despite that impurity he crossed beyond. Understand it like this: you climb a mountain. The rule for mountain-climbing is that the less the load, the better. If you climb with loads of weight on your head, climbing becomes hard. You may abandon the idea or stop at some midway camp. But then a very powerful man, a Hercules, climbs the mountain with a heavy weight—and reaches the top. This man is not the rule. This Hercules…

A friend has asked: Osho, are you a samyavadi—are you a communist?

If I were opposed to the great ones, it would be hard to find anyone who loves the great ones more than I do. I am not even an opponent of Godse—so how could I be an opponent of Gandhi? But when I criticize some great person, I am not opposing the person; I am trying to shake the peg to which you are tied, so that you may be free. You praise the peg so much that your praise becomes the reason for your bondage. Therefore I try to break even your praises. Do not mistakenly think I have any enmity. But our understanding is so small—so very small. And the understanding of the prejudiced is always small. One who has a doctrine has no understanding, because he is already bound and looks at the world only through that fixed lens. Difficulties arise. He cannot grasp what is being…

Beloved Osho, when you were testing your enlightenment by smoking, drinking alcohol, and having sex, did you try eating fish and meat? Does a vegetarian diet have a real value for our consciousness, or is it optional, like smoking?

Of course, there is some existential difference which I cannot destroy. But this is not the existential difference -- that you smoke and I don't smoke, that you drink and I don't drink. This is not existential. The existential difference is very small, and that is: I am awake and you are asleep. It is not much, because I am just sitting on the same bed where you are asleep. Just a little effort will make you awake. Your sleep gives a guarantee: anybody who is capable of sleeping is capable of awakening, they come together. So what is the fuss about? Take your time. Whenever you want to wake up, wake. There is no hurry, you have the whole eternity available to you. Yes, I may not be there to wake you up, that is the only unfortunate thing about it. But somebody else.... One day you are going…

If Mahavira also preferred vegetarian food — not meat — it was not only for ahimsa. Ahimsa was one reason. But more important was this: meat demands more power to digest; it makes the body heavier; it makes the stomach more important; it depletes the brain’s energy and deepens stupor. If ahimsa alone were the reason, Mahavira could have said: there is no harm in eating the flesh of animals who have died naturally — Buddha even allowed this. If only nonviolence were the cause, then do not kill; the violence lies in killing, not in eating. An animal has died — we did not kill; we eat — where is violence? In eating the flesh of the dead there is no violence. Buddha permitted it. But Mahavira did not permit even that. Because his purpose was not only ahimsa.