Is truth simple?

Osho, I don't enjoy these buddha sutras. They are dry, difficult and complicated. Is not truth simple?

Truth is simple and truth is difficult. In fact it is difficult because it is simple. It is so simple and your minds are so complicated that you cannot understand it, you go on missing it. It is so simple that it gives no challenge to you. It is so simple that you pass by the side of it remaining completely unaware that you have passed truth. Truth is simple because truth is obvious. But simple does not mean easy. The simplicity is very complex. If you enter in it you will be lost, you may never be able to get out of it. That simplicity has depth in it, it is not shallow. And to attain to that simplicity you will have to lose many things -- and to lose those things is difficult. For example, why do these Buddha sutras look difficult to you? -- because they are…

Osho, the path of simplicity is the second one. What is it?

The first path is to try to be simple, to make an effort, to practice it. Cultivated simplicity is always false. Because to practice, by its very meaning, is to practice against your own mind; otherwise, what is the practice against? If being naked is blissful for me, I will not call it practice. If wearing clothes is blissful for me and then I start practicing being naked, will nakedness be a “practice”? And if being naked is simply blissful—if wearing clothes never gave me the joy that comes from being naked—then no one would call it a practice. It is my joy. We practice only that which is contrary to us; practice means repression. Practice is inevitably repression. And wherever effort is required, against whom is that effort made—against oneself? No effort made against oneself can ever win. How could it win? Who would win? How can I win…

Beloved master, stronger and stronger the feeling arises in me that there is an absolute connection between ego and no, and between love and yes, and that love cannot say no; only pseudo love which is from the ego can say no; and that ego cannot say yes -- ego can only say a pseudo yes which is hypocrisy. Yet my mind doubts, objects to the simplicity of this understanding.

G.E. Moore, a great philosopher and logician of this age, concedes that it cannot be answered. Why? -- because it is so simple! A simple question cannot be answered. The simpler it is, the more impossible it is to answer it. Hence, Chitten, the first thing to be remembered is: truth is simple. That's why nobody has yet been able to say anything about it, and all that has been said about it is superficial. Lao Tzu insisted his whole life that he would not write anything about truth. When finally he was forced to write -- he was really forced to write... that is the only great scripture which has been written at the point of a bayonet! Lao Tzu was leaving China in his very old age... and you can think of his old age, because when he was born the story is he was eighty-two -- when…

Beloved Osho, for years you have talked to us of simplicity: simplicity in love, the simplicity of enlightenment, and now the simple solution to the power game between the united states and russia. Why has man developed such complexity, and why does he show such mistrust and disbelief in the simple?

The yogis have not produced anything, have not created anything, have made no contribution to the world. What have your ascetics given to the world? What have your so-called saints been doing all along, except being parasites sucking your blood? And these are the people you have been worshipping. And why have you been worshipping them? For the simple reason that you cannot stand for twelve hours on your head. Try it -- even for twelve minutes it is difficult. In fact, when you first try you will fall many times; you may have a broken rib. The yogi is doing something difficult. A man is standing naked in the snow in the Himalayas, and people come from thousands of miles to touch his feet. All that he is doing is getting frozen and dead. What is his contribution? Nobody goes to touch the feet of Albert Einstein, or Bertrand…

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…