If you really trust one guide, stay with them; wanting another means you didn’t truly trust yet.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
I feel I have surrendered to sai baba, but still I feel the necessity of working with another teacher or guru. Is this possible?
I know you will have to come back, because you have been with Sai Baba, as you have said in this letter, and nothing has happened there. You are here, and I know that now you will move to some other teacher, and there you will say you have been with me and nothing has happened. And you are not here with me! Just physically being here doesn't mean anything. I know this must have been the case with Sai Baba also. You may have been there physically, as you are here, but it is not a question of physical presence, it is a question of inner opening. Then you may be on another planet and I can work. You are not needed to be here; space doesn't mean anything, nor does time mean anything. You may be on another planet, you may be in another time, but if you…Read the full discourse →
Osho, to whom should one surrender? How can one be sure whom to surrender to? And until then, what should one keep doing?
Assurance will never come. Because the very mind that asks for assurance is, by nature, never satisfied. It will always find a flaw. You have passed by Buddha, by Krishna, by Mahavira. You are not on the earth for the first time. No one has ever been able to give you assurance. Had anyone ever satisfied you, you would not be here. You found faults in all—not because faults were there, but because you are adept, skilled at finding them. You can see errors even where there are none. Then the interpretation is in your hands. Facts are seen only by those whose mind is gone; you interpret the facts. And you see only what you want to see, what you can see. A friend of mine was a drawing teacher in a high school. For some reason he landed in jail. When he returned and I went to the…Read the full discourse →
Osho, a master can always know the spiritual state of a seeker longing for liberation, but how can the seeker know whether the master has attained truth or not? And if the disciple ever feels he has lost the gamble in his choice, can he go to another master? Please clarify your view.
The scripture says: eat once a day—so they eat once. Two garments—so two garments. Don’t travel after sunset—so they don’t. Don’t drink water at night—so they refrain. Rise before dawn—so they rise. They rehearse what the scripture prescribes; through this, they match your idea and seem suitable. If your conception springs from the same scripture, the match is exact. Hence the odd spectacle: the guru of one sect does not seem like a guru at all to another sect. But to his sect he appears the supreme guru. Their conceptions match. Understand the trick. You study the same shastra… Consider an actress who came to see me: “What do you say about the Bhrigu Samhita?” I asked why. She said, “In Delhi they read my Bhrigu. I noted what they said of my past lives, and future too. Some things about this life were true. Others aren’t yet, but the…Read the full discourse →
Beloved Osho, need one be absolutely sure about a guru to become his disciple?
Alan Watts has written about Gurdjieff and has called him a rascal saint -- because sometimes he would behave like a rascal, but it was all acting and was done knowingly to avoid all those who would take unnecessary time and energy. It was done to send back those who could only work when they were certain. Only those would be allowed who could work even when they were not certain about the master, but who were certain about themselves. And to surrender to a Gurdjieff will transform you more than surrendering to Ramana Maharshi, because Ramana Maharshi is so saintly, so simple, that surrender doesn't mean anything. You cannot do otherwise. He is so open -- just like a small child -- so pure, that surrender will happen. But that surrender is happening because of Ramana Maharshi, not because of you. It is nothing as far as you are…Read the full discourse →
What is the difference between waiting for godot and waiting for god?
It is as if the sun has risen in the morning and you are sitting in your room with closed doors and windows, in darkness. Open the doors, you become available to the sun. The sun was already available -- just the meeting happens. You cannot wait for God. All waiting is for Godot. Godot means the one who never comes, who CANNOT come, whose arrival is impossible. And the only impossible thing is that which has already happened -- how can it happen again? You are alive, and you are waiting for life, Now, this is ridiculous. The real man of religion does not think in terms of God. He thinks in terms of life or, even better, of living -- because life can again become an abstract idea. Living, moment-to-moment living. In that very living, one knows what God is, because one knows who one is. Your idea…Read the full discourse →