Should I forget the different practices and just be spontaneous?

You seem to emphasize different points every day: being ordinary, being aware, being meditative, and so on. If I try to practice them all I get confused trying to reach a harmony of all. Should I just forget, and be spontaneous?

You have got the point exactly, precisely. That is the whole point: be spontaneous. And whatsoever I am saying is not contradictory. You can get confused because you are already confused. And in your confusion, when my words enter they create even more confusion -- because a confused mind can only create more confusion, nothing else. What I am saying is not contradictory at all. It may appear so sometimes, but it is not. Let me tell you a Sufi story. An interchange between a Sufi and an enquirer:'Which statement should one choose if two Sufi sayings contradict each other?' 'They only contradict one another if viewed separately. If you clap your hands and observe only the movement of the hands, they appear to oppose one another. You have not seen what is happening. The purpose of the opposition of the palms was, of course, to produce the hand clap.…

Osho, are being a mere instrument (nimitta) and being spontaneous/free (swachchhand) only differences of expression? Please explain.

But if it doesn’t suit you, that doesn’t mean the Divine is narrow and reachable by only one road. If this doesn’t suit you, then what is its opposite—does that suit you? Does spontaneity suit you? Does rebellion suit you? Does it appeal to declare: Enough—I will live in my own way? Then live so. Shape yourself to your own cadence. Live in complete freedom. Do not become an instrument. Do not surrender. Live spontaneously. What Ashtavakra calls spontaneity, Mahavira calls asharan—without refuge. What Krishna calls becoming a mere instrument, Chaitanya and Mira call surrender. They are the same things. If I distill all this, I would say: one path is feminine, and one path is masculine. The masculine path means: he cannot surrender, cannot become an instrument; he will proclaim himself. The path of spontaneity, of being without refuge, will suit him. Feminine means: she will not proclaim herself—that’s…

Osho, you have earlier said, “Live moment to moment, live in the present.” Now you are saying, “Return to the past.” What should we do?

So it is with the mind—there are ruts. The past means endless grooves. However much you understand, your intellect agrees, you make decisions, you resolve—at the moment of resolve you feel something is going to change. But not even an hour passes before your decision breaks. Then only self-condemnation is produced, nothing else. Your saints, your fakirs, your priests and pundits—most of the time they only succeed in producing self-condemnation in you, nothing else. Their words are logically correct. You cannot even say they are wrong; you have to admit they are right. In that admission you take a decision. But against what are you deciding? Inside are grooves carved since who knows when, deep tracks. Walking in them has become a habit. It is easy to walk in them. They will pull you again and again. The meaning of returning into the past is: these grooves must be erased.…

You say, Osho, don’t try to be something, to become, to attempt “becoming”—just be, just being. Please explain in detail how this is to be attained.

The very moment you ask how to practice it, you miss the understanding. Because “to practice” already means the effort to become something has begun. When I say, remain as you are, just as you are, the question of practice does not arise. Practice means you have started trying to be what you are not. So you have not understood. Any practice implies discontent; there is no fulfillment in being as you are. The mind says, let something more happen. A little money—let’s gather more. A little knowledge—accumulate more. A little renunciation—become a great renunciate. A slight taste of meditation—let’s manufacture the taste of samadhi. It is all the same; there is no difference. The issue is neither money nor meditation; the issue is the demand for “more.” So whether you ask for wealth you remain worldly, and even if you ask for meditation you remain worldly. Wherever there is…

Osho, you always emphasize experience. I have done everything—worship and rituals, yoga and meditation, vows and fasting! And for some years I even lived like an old-style sadhu. Yet nothing came of all that. What should I do now?

You have done nothing. Do you even know what fasting is? Fasting—upavas—means to dwell near, to sit close to the Divine. It does not mean starving. Yes, it often happens that sitting close to Him you forget food; you forget to eat. In real fasting, food is not in the focus—God is; and God is so much in focus that you forget the body. Then food does not come to mind: that is fasting. When you fast, the exact opposite happens. What you do should not be called upavas; that is why we have another word—anashan, a hunger strike. You go on a hunger strike: “Today I will not eat.” But have you seen what a man does when he decides to fast? “Tomorrow I mustn’t eat”—so tonight he stuffs himself. He makes up for tomorrow today. Is that fasting? And what will you do tomorrow all day? You will…