What is the difference between the consciousness described by quantum physicists and the consciousness you describe?

Beloved master, quantum physicists are using the term "consciousness." are they using this word in the same sense that you do? If not, what is the difference between the consciousness they are talking about, and the consciousness you are talking about?

There is a great difference. The physicists are talking about a consciousness which they have not experienced within themselves; it is only a hypothesis. It is their objective observation that consciousness exists: people are conscious -- you cannot deny it. Because it is an objective observation, they are bound to be defining it in a wrong way, because basically consciousness is your subjectivity. It is irreducible into an object. You cannot study it from outside. From outside you can study only behavior, you cannot study consciousness; hence, there is a school of psychology called behaviorism. People are behaving as if they are conscious. The physicist's consciousness is "as if" -- a hypothesis, because people are not behaving consciously. So the first, basic mistake is, they are simply taking an objective view of something which can never become an object, which is always the subject. There is no way to make…

Osho, is consciousness not matter?

No—no. In fact, if you understand what I mean: as I just said, there is something—when it is aroused it is called mind; when unaroused it is called soul. There is such a something; something is—there is no need for a name. Call it Brahman if you like, or call it something else—it makes no difference, because the trouble begins the moment you give it a name. There is something that appears to us in two forms—conscious and unconscious. There is a state where it is absolutely vibrationless; there it seems unconscious, it seems material. And there is another of its modes where it is filled with perfect vibration; there it appears conscious, it appears as consciousness. These are two different aspects of the same thing, two functions of the same reality. The conscious and the unconscious are not matter; rather, they are two functions of one and the same…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, MODERN SCIENTISTS LIKE KARL PRIBRAM, DAVID BOHM AND OTHERS, HAVE BEEN STUMBLING ON RELIGION. THEY HAVE BEEN STATING THAT OUR BRAINS MAY BE HOLOGRAMS, INTERPRETING A HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE; THAT CERTAIN CIRCUITS IN THE BRAIN ARE THE TRIGGER OF CONSCIOUSNESS WITHOUT A CONTENT, THAT IT IS THE ANALYTICAL, THE THINKING PART OF THE MIND, THAT CREATES SEPARATION AND FRAGMENTATION WHILE THE INTUITIVE PART EXPERIENCES REALITY IN A HOLISTIC WAY; THAT ENERGY IS A LIMITED TERM NEEDING TO BE REPLACED BY A WAVE CONCEPT. THEY ARE PROPOSING `RESONANCE' AND `SYNCHRONCITY' AS MORE APPROPRIATE TERMS. BELOVED OSHO, WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MIND DO YOU MOSTLY MEAN THE THINKING PART -- THE ONE WHICH CREATES OUR BELIEF SYSTEMS AND PERSONALITIES? IS IT ENOUGH TO TOTALLY DISIDENTIFY WITH THE THINKING, OR DOES THE MIND ALTOGETHER -- INCLUDING THE CONSCIOUS AND THE SUPERCONSCIOUS -- NEED TO BE TRANSCENDED?

Osho, are the insentient and the conscious two separate things, or two forms of one and the same reality?

There is a mention in the life of Bhoj: an astrologer came, looked at Bhoj’s hand, and said, “You are most unfortunate. You will carry even your wife to the cremation ground, your sons too. You will have to take each member of your household to the cremation ground; after all of them, you will die.” Bhoj was furious. He had the astrologer handcuffed and said, “Lock him up. What a man—speaking such ill-omened words!” Kalidasa was sitting quietly, laughing. He said, “The astrologer speaks no ill omen; he simply lacks the art of saying it—his emphasis is wrong.” When Kalidasa said this, Bhoj asked, “What do you mean?” Kalidasa said, “Let me see your hand.” After looking, he said, “You are greatly blessed! Your life span is very long. Blessed—in the sense that neither your wife nor your sons will ever be saddened by your death. No one will…

Question: if consciousness can be determined fully, then what is the difference between it and the elements of matter? When nothing is to be done and only 'to be' is the sole aim what will not be the difference between such a state and abstruse tranquillity? What is the motive behind the existence of consciousness for our ego. What is the difference between the existence of a wooden chair and that of the existence of a no-thought mind?

When Aldous Huxley took L.S.D. for the first time, his experiences fortunately, turned out to be similar to your question. There was a chair in front of him. A little while after taking L.S.D., he noticed strange rays emitting from this chair. This chair that seemed ordinary, dead, was alive and scintillating with strange and uncommon colours! He was amazed. Never in his wildest imagination, he could have endowed this chair with such beauty and grandeur! He writes in his book about this experience. He was wonder-struck. That was the first time, he writes, he realised that a chair could be like this. It was not the ordinary chair that stood before him. It seemed as if diamonds flew out of it on all sides -- it seemed too precious to sit upon! It was more beautiful that all the stars and the suns put together! Huxley says he suspected…