According to Osho, tathata isn’t the same as “just awareness.” Witnessing retains ‘I am’ and ‘you are.’ “Just awareness” leaves only ‘I‑am‑ness,’ still bounded by an outside world. Tathata transcends this, realizing my am‑ness and your you‑ness as one limitless is‑ness—simple, boundless being. Thus 'just awareness' is a transitional link; tathata is total being beyond omission and separation.
Not quite: first you watch (I and you), then you feel only “I am,” and finally, in tathata, everything—me, you, and the world—is one big “is,” simple being.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Is tathata the same as being just aware?
Actually, there is a slight difference between tathata and what you call "just awareness." Witnessing is also slightly different from it. You can say that being "just aware" makes up the link between witnessing and tathata. As you move from witnessing to tathata, you pass through the state of "just awareness." In the state of witnessing, there exists a firm feeling of "I am" and "you are." In the state where there is just awareness, only the feeling of "I am-ness" remains, the feeling of 'you' disappears. There is just the feeling of am-ness. In tathata, besides the feeling of am-ness, there is the feeling that my am-ness, my existence and your you-ness, your existence, constitute only one is-ness, one existence; that they are one and the same. As long as there exists just the awareness, just the feeling of am-ness, there will remain a world outside my state of…
Osho, are “just awareness,” mere alertness, and tathata the same?
In fact, when we say “just awareness,” mere alertness, there is a slight difference between that and tathata. And there is also a slight difference between that and the witness. Think of “just awareness” as the link between the witness and tathata—when you pass from witnessing to tathata, this will be the link in between: just awareness. In witnessing, the sense that “I am and you are” is firm. In just awareness there is only “am”; the sense of “you” has been forgotten—only the sense of being. In tathata, it is not only the sense of being; my being and your being are one being. Because as long as there is just awareness, as long as there is only the sense of being, there will be a boundary outside that sense of being—something I am not, from which I am separate. In tathata there is no boundary. There is only…
Osho, in the context of the practice of heedfulness (apramad), please explain the similarities and differences among the practices of witnessing, awareness, and tathata.
One more thought on tathata. A Zen fakir wrote a small song: “The geese fly across the sky. They have no desire that their reflections be formed in the still lake below. Yet the reflections form. The blue lake has no desire to catch the reflections of the geese. Yet the reflections are caught. Then the geese fly on and the reflections also fly away. The geese do not know they were caught in the lake; the lake does not know that the reflections aroused any curiosity, any stir, any disturbance in its bosom.” Tathata means such a being. Things happen. He is ready for all—wants to do nothing and has no complaint. That is why one of Buddha’s names is Tathagata. He loved that name. Even speaking of himself he would say, “The Tathagata passed through a certain village.” Tathagata means one who has attained tathata—thus come, thus gone.…
When both the situations -- whether an empty boat bumps or a boat with a sailor bumps against your boat -- are one and the same to you. That is total acceptability. Even if there is the least amount of difference in your attitude you miss total acceptability. If one person throws flowers at you and another person throws stones at you, and if you accept both the situations, you make no distinction between the two, then there is total acceptability. Then you have no desire of having a different thing than that which is happening in this world. You are pleased with this entire, huge, endless universe where waves are moving in the ocean, tempests of wind are rising, flowers are growing on trees, stars are moving in the sky, someone is abusing and someone is singing songs. You accept the whole as it is.
Osho, what is the definition of God?
Words are very small. If you say God is light, then what of darkness? The scriptures have said that God is light. Suppose we accept this as a definition—then what about darkness? Where will darkness go? Darkness is too; in fact it is far more than light. Light sometimes is and sometimes is not; darkness is always, eternal. Where will you place darkness? If you say God is light, darkness is left out. If you say God is darkness, then light is left out. If you say God is both darkness and light, a contradiction arises: they cannot be together. Try to have both darkness and light in the same room. If you bring in light, darkness disappears; if you preserve darkness, you cannot have light. Then how can both be together? That becomes an impossibility. So you cannot say “both” either. Then the fourth device is to say: it…