Is self-knowledge possible without preconceptions?

A friend has asked: Osho, if one enters oneself with preconceived notions, the revelation of the simple Self is not possible. Tell us, is a movement toward self-knowing possible without preconceptions? Is not the very root of curiosity a prior knowledge of the object’s essence?

This is precisely what is called a preconception. The question itself is full of preconception. As you say, “Entering oneself with a preconception is not possible.” That has already been assumed. Have you entered and seen? You have formed the notion, without entering, that it is not possible. Now possibility will become very difficult. This very notion will be the obstacle: “It is not possible.” Why would you even attempt what you believe to be impossible? If it is impossible, you have shut the door. Now it will be hard. To be free of notions means: keep the mind open without knowing in advance; do not bind it. Do not decide whether it is possible or impossible. Experiment—do not decide. Experience—do not decide. Let decision arise from experience; do not manufacture experience out of decision. Because if you have decided beforehand, the scientific quality of the experiment is finished. You…

One friend asks: the revelation of the self is not possible by starting the inward journey with preconceptions. Please explain whether the tendency towards self-knowledge is possible without preconceptions. Is not the basic cause of inquiry the pre-knowledge of the objective world?

The question is filled with preconceptions. Our friend says it is not possible to go within oneself without some previous conceptions. Now this is taken for granted. Has our friend gone within and found out? If we start with this idea, the idea itself will become the hindrance and it will be impossible to go within; for then the thought arises: "Why labour for that which cannot be?" To be conceptless is to keep the mind open, without knowing anything. Make no decisions that it is possible or not possible. Experience, and let the decision follow the experience. If you decide beforehand, the scientificness of the method is lost. Then the mind will strive to prove only that which you have taken for granted. We always tend to prove what we believe, for that alone satisfies the mind. One friend came and told me: "When you speak on the Gita,…

Osho, say something more about self-knowledge. That's my whole interest and inquiry.

But both are being half true. And remember: a half-truth is far worse than a total lie. At least the total lie has one quality about it: it is total -- the quality of totality. And one thing is beautiful about a total lie: it cannot deceive you long -- because it is such a lie, even the stupid person will be able to see sooner or later that it is a lie. But the half-truth is dangerous -- even an intelligent person can get lost into it. And then there is the third way: the way of the mystic. He accepts both, and rejects both. That is my way. He accepts both because he says, "On one plane both exist -- the knower and the known, the subject and the object, the inner and the outer. But on another plane, both disappear and only one remains -- which is…

So, you ask, how can the self be known? Since only the object can be known, how can the knower be known? Where there is knowledge there is both subject and object, there is both the knower and the object that is known. And isn't trying to know the knower like trying to see your eye with your eye? Have you ever noticed a dog trying unsuccessfully to catch its own tail? The tail moves away from him as quickly as he tries to grab it. He can never catch it; it is impossible. In the same way, you cannot make the self the object of knowledge. I cannot know myself in the way I can know everything else. Self-knowledge is so simple, and yet it is so complicated, so difficult. Self-knowledge is not the same kind of knowledge with which we are familiar. Not at all.

Osho, you said that you don't know who you are. Don't you really? Do we never know who we are?

But it has been a great problem for the scholars: "Why did Eknath treat his own god in this way?" They don't have any answer. At least he could have looked at him, at least he could have said, "Please sit down on the brick." I have talked with many Maharashtrian scholars who are followers of Eknath; they don't have any answer. I said, "It is so simple. The story may be bogus, and I know that it is bogus. There is no Vithoba; nobody ever comes, whether you keep your door open or locked. But one thing is certain: Eknath was really an authentic man. When he was doing one thing, he was doing it totally. When God comes he says, "Stand there, don't bother me till I am finished with my work." To me this is the implication in my saying that if death comes to my sannyasins…