According to Osho, the mind is built from whatever we feed our senses; so choose a pure 'diet'—including what you read. Uplifting, truthful literature supports peace and meditation, while sensational clutter breeds restlessness. Conserve energy by engaging only what’s needed and letting the rest relax; combined with right sensory intake, this creates the inner reservoir that lets you enter meditation swiftly.
What you read fills your mind, so pick good, calming books and let your body rest to stay peaceful inside.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
You have asked in passing: what if one reads good literature? You ask—if one reads good literature, will that be right nourishment or not? Because to watch films is bad nourishment; to read trashy literature is bad nourishment. But if one reads good literature?
If someone concludes, “The soul exists, therefore what is there to gain?” he will ruin his life. This is mere talk—borrowed logic. You have heard others say the soul is within; then you have concluded, “If it is within, what is there to gain?” This is your trick to avoid awakening. In that sentence are two people’s conclusions, not one. “The soul is”—this belongs to Mahavira, to Buddha, to Krishna. “Then what is there to gain?”—this belongs to you. If the first is also yours, then there is no problem. If the first is another’s, you cannot draw your conclusion from someone else’s experience. Your experience will give your conclusion; another’s cannot give it to you. So you are using a device. You are tacking on your half to someone else’s half—only to show that you do not wish to wake up from your sleep. You want life to go…
Question: BELOVED OSHO, YOU SAY THAT MIND'S SUBSTANCE IS MEMORY AND INFORMATION. DOES READING THEREFORE INFLATE AND INVIGORATE THE MIND? Prose is logical, poetry is illogical. Prose is linear, it moves in a straight line. Poetry is not linear, it is circular, it moves in circles. Prose is for ordinary things and ordinary experiences. There are experiences which cannot be expressed in prose. Those experiences need poetry. Poetry means a more liquid form. Poetry means a more singing, dancing, celebrating form. All great scriptures are poetry; even if they are written in prose they are poetry. Poetry can be written in prose and prose can be written in poetry. So it is not a question only of linguistic form -- it is a question of its very essence. So when you read the Koran, don't read it -- sing it!
Beloved Osho, you have told us that the mind becomes more and more quiet if we meditate regularly. Last year, when I was living in europe outside of a commune, thoughts became stronger and stronger during my meditations until I began to dread sitting. Now that I am with you again, this problem has gone away. But I wondered: how can one be a sannyasin for ten years, meditating every day, and have a mind which becomes more and more noisy?
Scientists say there is no reason for the body to die for at least three hundred years. It is just an old hypnosis, autohypnosis, which has made the idea prevalent that you have only seventy years to live. It goes so deep in your consciousness that by the seventieth year you start thinking you are sinking, you are gone. And anyway by the time you are retired at the age of sixty there is nothing to do. Death seems to be a relief, not a danger. We have not been capable enough and human enough to provide a situation where our old people can have some dignity, some self-respect, some pride. We have not been able to find dimensions where they can contribute to the world. And they are experienced and certainly capable of contributing enough -- enough for their self-respect, enough for them to live and not to feel…
Osho, I am not saying we shouldn’t read the Upanishads or the Gita, am I?
Why would I say that the Gita and the Upanishads should not be read! I would not even say that so‑called forbidden books should not be read. I would say: read those too. How could I be opposed to reading? How could I be opposed to learning? My point is only this: read them as books, not as scripture. Do not read them as sacred, holy texts; read them as books. They are people’s experiences—understand them. But remember, their experience does not become your experience by reading. Their realization, their knowing does not become your knowing by reading. If this is kept in mind, what harm is there in reading? By all means, read. It is beneficial. These are the memories of humankind; certainly look into them—but with utter impartiality. A Hindu can hardly read the Quran properly. A Muslim can hardly read the Gita properly. He cannot. As long…
Question: ABANDON POISONED FOOD. DON'T BE CONSISTENT. DON'T MAKE WICKED JOKES. DON'T WAIT FOR AN OPPORTUNITY. DON'T STRIKE AT THE HEART. DON'T TRANSFER THE COW'S LOAD TO THE BULL. DON'T BACK THE FAVORITE. DON'T HAVE WRONG VIEWS. DON'T FALL FOR THE CELESTIAL DEMON. The first sutra: According to the mystic traditions of the East, all that you think you are is nothing but food. Your body is food, your mind is food, your soul is food. Beyond the soul there is certainly something which is not food. That something is known as anatta, no-self. It is utter emptiness. Buddha calls it shunya, the void. It is pure space. It contains nothing but itself; it is contentless consciousness. While the content persists, the food persists. By "food" is meant that which is ingested from the outside. The body needs physical food; without it, it will start withering away.