Is tradition necessary, and has it caused harm or provided benefits?

Another friend has asked: you say religion is not tradition; but isn’t tradition necessary? Has tradition only caused harm, or has there been some benefit too?

It is recorded of Albert Einstein that he went to a friend’s house. He was forgetful. They talked; dinner happened; they talked on. The friend kept looking at his watch, kept yawning. Einstein too looked at his watch, yawned—but didn’t get up. Finally the friend said, “It’s two o’clock—your wife must be waiting.” Einstein said, “What do you mean?” The friend said, “I mean your wife must be waiting. Otherwise no harm—do sit.” Einstein jumped up, shocked: “Extraordinary! I was wondering when you would leave so I could sleep. I thought I was in my own house!” Both were watching the clock and yawning. Time felt very long. When you cannot merge with an action—the same action, exactly the same... You dance—for someone else; you don’t want to dance—then time will be there. You dance for yourself, or for someone for whom you want to dance—time vanishes. Time is tension.…

A friend has asked: While I was explaining the attitude of bliss, I said that tradition’s outlook up to now has been one of sorrow. Is the whole of tradition wrong? That is what he asked.

Who knows whether that stone has been removed even now, or whether it still lies there. As far as I can see, it must still be there; people do not have enough intelligence to reconsider traditions. And if it were only a single stone on a single road, we could forgive it; but on every road of man there are many such stones, difficult to cross. Since traditions have placed them there, no one even thinks of removing them. Traditions cannot become eyes for a human being. Your eyes must be open. And if stones have been placed on the path, however revered the traditions that placed them, if they obstruct the flow of life, there is no need to hesitate to remove them. And if human beings do not remove the stones human beings have placed, who else will? There should be the strength and the understanding to remove…

Osho, the twenty-one-day ritual you have hinted at—was that practice or elemental realization in any way traditional? Because from your mode of expression it continually seems that you surely represent some teacher’s or Tirthankara’s method. Within this I also want to dare to ask: do you want to add a link to some established spiritual lineage, or, like Buddha, are you attempting to cut a new path through the mountains?

Nor is the issue one of tolerance. It is a matter of sky-like spaciousness, not tolerance. Not mere forbearance. Not that a Hindu “puts up with” a Muslim or a Christian “puts up with” a Jain. Forbearance already holds violence within it. I do not say the Quran and the Gita say the same thing. The Quran says something quite different; it has its own individual voice—that is its greatness. If it only repeated what the Gita says, it would be worth two pennies. The Bible says something else again, which neither the Gita nor the Quran says. Each has its own voice. Mahavira does not say what Buddha says; they say very different things. And yet from these differing statements one ultimately arrives at the same place. My emphasis is on the oneness of the destination, not on the oneness of the paths. My emphasis is that in the…

Osho, you are always immersed in bliss—what is the secret of it? When will I be able to attain this ecstasy?

Yogananda, I have given you the name Yogananda; the whole secret is in it. A human being can live in two ways: either cut off from existence, or in oneness with it. Whoever lives separate will live in sorrow—anxiety and anguish. That is natural, for to live apart from existence is like a tree pulling its roots out of the earth and trying to live. It will wither; the leaves will droop, flowers will cease to bloom. Spring will come and keep coming, but that tree will never become a bride, never a bridegroom. For it there will be no spring. If the roots have been torn from the soil, what remedy can even the honeyed month of spring offer? Then where is bliss, where is ecstasy! Then there is no dawn—only a dark new-moon night, a night with no morning. Such a life is called ego. And the tree…

Osho, in the classical tradition the sannyasin turns away from māyā and sensual enjoyment and orients himself toward God-realization; yoga and bhoga are known to be mutually opposed. But in your sannyas there is no emphasis on dispassion from enjoyment. Therefore, kindly clarify your conception of sannyas!

So first thing: religion is not tradition. Religion is ever ancient and ever new. It is a paradox. It has always been—and yet each time it must be discovered anew. When the sun of religion rises, it is private, personal, not collective. It does not become society’s property or legacy. If you do not trust Buddha, Buddha has no way to make you trust. Have you thought about this? If you say, “We doubt you: you claim God-experience, but how are we to believe it?” Buddha will shrug his shoulders: “What can be done? What happened is private, personal. There is no way to spread it out on the table before you. It happened within; there is no device to bring it out. It happened so deep that it cannot be exhibited for all to see.” That is why there have been so many perfectly awakened ones, yet atheism has…