Should I practice two different techniques alternatively if I am a mixed type?

I feel that neither am I the feeling type altogether, nor am I the intellectual type. I am a mixed type. Should I do two different kinds of techniques alternatively? Please guide.

But religion has become organizational, politically organizational. That is why the moment a child is born we force religion upon him, we condition him into a religion. The parents are afraid that he may move into another organization. Before he becomes conscious he must be destroyed, crippled, forced. Before he becomes conscious and can think about things, his mind must be conditioned so that he cannot think freely. You cannot think freely because whatsoever you think has been preconditioned. I was reading Bertrand Russell. He says, "Intellectually, I conceive of Buddha as being greater than Jesus. But deep down in my heart, that is impossible: Jesus is greater than Buddha. At the most, if I force myself, then I will put them parallel, equal. Intellectually, I feel Buddha is a giant. Jesus is nothing before him." Why this feeling? Because Bertrand Russell is himself the intellectual type, so Buddha has…

Osho, as one usually fluctuates between both types -- emotional and intellectual -- how can one come to a final decision as to which type one belongs?

These are the three types. If action comes to you first and then feeling and then thinking, then you can determine your predominant factor. And to determine that predominant factor is very helpful, because then you can proceed straight; otherwise your progress will always be zigzag. When you don't know what type you are, you go on unnecessarily in dimensions, directions. where you should not go. When you know your type, you know what is to be done with yourself, how to do it, from where to begin. The first point: remember what comes first and what second. And the second will look very strange. For example, the active type can do the opposite very easily; that is, he can relax very easily. The active type can relax very easily! Gandhi's relaxation was miraculous. He could relax anywhere. So it seems very paradoxical. An active type must be so tense…

Osho, before beginning practice we read in books that a seeker has such-and-such experiences, that this or that will happen, may happen. So when I prepare to practice on my own and I try to see where these colors show up—white, green, blue—and I sit right at the start to imagine them, even before a thought-free state arrives, don’t all these imaginations that we are taught become an obstacle to entering meditation?

In truth, for me there is no wrong and right. There are two paths and two kinds of people. And in each person both kinds of aspects exist. The complexity is great. Therefore for the masculine mind—not man, the masculine psyche—the positive path becomes easier, immediately easier, because there is aggression, a drive to conquer, to achieve, to grasp. The feminine mind is negativity, receptivity—let it come. It is not an attack but a waiting. So in those centuries where the masculine predominated—as in the past centuries, where woman had no influence—those were centuries of means, of methods. In the coming days woman is slowly becoming influential, and in the West, where woman has become very influential, a Krishnamurti-like view can have influence, because negativity has increased. But this is such a wavering matter—it wavers daily. Whatever of the two seems right to you, each person should decide within. If…

In all my years of catharsis in therapy and in meditation, I never 'lose control'. I always have a sense of being into the feeling and also of watching it. Is this being 'split' and not-whole? Please explain what is happening. I have this idea that one should totally lose oneself, let-go, lose control....

There are two ways to come out of the situation: to lose control completely or to have control completely. There are two paths. One is of deep involvement, so deep that nothing is left behind. For example, Sufis in their Dervish dances involve themselves completely; they are lost, merged. Then there is another dimension which is of awareness. Zen people remain alert and aware: carrying water from the well, cutting wood in the forest, eating, sitting, walking, going to sleep, preparing their beds -- whatsoever they are doing, they remain completely alert. These are the two ways. Either become completely aware so that whatsoever is happening just becomes objective, you are totally cut off from it, you become a witness. Or, get involved completely so that there is no witness at all, you have become whatsoever is happening -- if you are dancing you have become the dance, there is…

Osho, you have described two kinds of methods. Earlier, in the practice you spoke about, you asked the seeker to be calm, relaxed, silent, alert, and a witness. Now, under intense breathing and the inquiry “Who am I?”, you ask the seeker to make every effort with total energy. When a seeker trained in the first kind of practice moves into the second type of experiment, after a short while the effort drops, the control slips. So which is the right approach—the former or the latter?

It is not a matter of good or bad here.