We each look at God through our own little window, but once we step outside, we see it’s the same sky and the walls never really divided it.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, is the experience of the Divine different for each person?
Think of it like this: you go home from this garden, and your children say, “Tell us—what was the garden like?” A painter might tell you by making a painting: “It was like this.” A poet will write a poem—of the trees, of the winds passing through them, of the sun filtering between their leaves. Now a poem and a painting differ greatly. Or perhaps someone is a musician; he will not even write a poem—he will lift his vina. Why write? The winds passed through the trees and there was sound and resonance—he will reproduce that resonance on the vina. The colors in the trees he will translate into tones. The sun and shade he will pour into music. He will play the garden on his vina. Another will write a poem; another will render it on paper. The three expressions will differ. And if you look only at…Read the full discourse →
A friend has asked, Osho, the Gita says that whatever desire a person holds at the time of death, that is the birth he attains next. So if a person has spent his whole life in sin, and at the moment of death desires to become like Mahavira or Buddha in the next life, can that man become like Mahavira and Buddha in the next birth?
No one really wants to do religion; therefore we postpone it. We say, we’ll do it in old age—what’s the hurry now? There is great hurry to sin! That must be done now, it can only be done in youth. We’ll do religion in old age. And if some young person becomes religious or eager, the so‑called wise advise him, “It is not your age yet. For now, do irreligion.” Their meaning is: now is the age for sin. As long as strength is there, sin away; when strength is gone, then do religion. But is strength necessary for sin and not for religion? Is life necessary for sin, power necessary for sin—do you take religion to be some eunuch’s task that needs no strength! Remember, the very energy with which you sin becomes virtue. And when that energy is no longer in your hands, you can neither sin nor…Read the full discourse →
Osho, the witness, the seer, consciousness is always separate—virginal and unbound. And the whole play of life is nothing but the movement of the gunas within themselves. In such a situation, if a person’s qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas are calmed in a scientific or chemical way, or if a person is made sattvic, will he then attain that ever-free witness? If the witness is forever free and present, then by chemically altering the three gunas will it not be revealed? Would the person not then become religious? What is the fundamental difference between solving the problem arising from the
Sadhana means we are dissolving the current itself, not breaking the bulb. There is no point in breaking the bulb. In fact, the bulb is useful; it tells you whether the current is flowing or not, whether there is current or not. Your anger within tells you you are still sunk in ignorance. Lust tells you your life energies have not yet become aware. If we remove these elements, anger will stop manifesting and you will also stop knowing that you are in deep ignorance. It is as if a man is sick and we snatch away the symptoms of his disease so that he doesn’t even come to know he is ill. And keep in mind, anger is an opportunity. Only the unwise say anger is simply bad; I do not say so. Anger is an opportunity; you can use it badly or well. Anger is a chance. In…Read the full discourse →
Osho, but in that knowing, Maharaj-ji, can there not be sameness—that as another has known, I may know the same? And may that sameness become available to me.
If you look very closely, such sameness is possible only if I am exactly as the other was. Otherwise it can never be. See the full implications: when I am knowing, my whole personality, my total being, is knowing. Only if your whole personality is exactly as mine, could the event of our knowing be one and the same. And no two persons are ever the same. In fact, forget persons—that is a far-off matter. Pick up a stone from a Delhi street; search the whole earth and you will not find another exactly like it. Pluck a flower from a garden; comb all the forests and you will not find another just like it. Here, each and every thing has its own uniqueness. And that very uniqueness is its soul. In my view, this uniqueness is its soul. A machine has no soul, because a machine is not unique.…Read the full discourse →
The appearance of things has only been imposed upon oneself. By eliminating it, the self becomes absolute brahman, who is the whole, one without a second and without action. The appearance of the self in the form of the world of division is false, because one that is without change, form, and organs cannot have any divisions.
THE CONSCIOUS SELF IS FREE FROM THE FEELING OF THE OBSERVER, THE OBSERVATION, AND THE OBSERVED. IT IS INNOCENT AND FULL LIKE THE SEA OF THE ULTIMATE FLOOD, WHICH DESTROYS THE WHOLE EXISTENCE. AS DARKNESS DISSOLVES IN THE LIGHT, SO THE CAUSE OF ILLUSION DISSOLVES IN THE SUPREME WHO IS WITHOUT A SECOND. AND THAT SUPREME BEING WITHOUT ORGANS... HOW COULD THAT SUPREME HAVE DIVISIONS? THE SUPREME REALITY BEING ONE, HOW COULD THERE BE DIVISIONS IN IT? IN THE STATE OF DREAMLESS DEEP SLEEP, sushupti, THERE REMAINS ONLY BLISSFULNESS. SO HOW COULD THERE BE DIVISIONS IN IT? This UPANISHAD is basically against mind, and not only this UPANISHAD, upanishadic teaching as such is against mind. Really, religion is against mind, because mind creates all illusions, all dreams. Mind creates everything that we call the world. Mind IS the world; try to understand this. This is one of the basic truths.…Read the full discourse →