According to Osho, the essence of the Vedas is a courageous celebration of not‑knowing: existence and the Divine are ultimately indefinable, beyond the compulsions of doing and the ego’s hunger to know. True wisdom is humility—silence before mystery—where “he who knows he does not know” is the knower. From this exultant unknowing, peace, freedom, and reverence naturally arise.
The Vedas say the biggest truth can’t fit in words, so be humble, drop fixed ideas, and stay peacefully awake in not knowing.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
There is a very unique thing in the Vedas. “What is all this?”—the seer has asked.
“Perhaps the Divine who made it knows—or who knows, maybe even he does not!” This is something astonishing. God! The Vedic seer says: “What is all this?” “Perhaps—perhaps the One who made it knows; or who knows, maybe even He does not!” They must have been very courageous people. The gist is: even God may not know. In truth, whatever becomes known turns trivial. Once it is known, what remains? To know is to define. Existence has never been defined. Has anyone ever said what it is? That is why Buddha fell silent. Ask him, “Is there God?”—he is silent. “Is there a soul?”—he is silent. That, precisely, was Buddha’s answer! He says: Stop this prattle about soul and God. Who has known? Wake up! Drop the worry about knowing. So there is, first, the race of the doer—that is the race of ego. Then there is the race for…
I spoke a little about essence-knowledge. It does not mean scholarly information. Essence-knowledge means the direct, personal experience of truth—your own. Ouspensky, a great Russian thinker and mathematician, went to the mystic Gurdjieff. He said, “I have come to ask you something.” Gurdjieff handed him a paper: “First write down what you actually know. Then ask me what you don’t know. If you already know, what is the need to ask? Write first what you know—we will not discuss that at all.” Ouspensky was a prolific author. Before meeting Gurdjieff he had written a remarkable book—one of the three great books of the world. In the West it is hard to find its equal. He had written Tertium Organum. And sincerely, without ego, he had written there that two great books had been written before: Aristotle’s Organon—the first principle; Bacon’s Novum Organum—the new principle; and I write the third—Tertium Organum.
Question: The first question: Osho, this verse too is from the Mundaka Upanishad: “Vedānta-vijñāna sunishcitārthāḥ sannyāsa-yogād yatayaḥ śuddha-sattvāḥ te brahmalokeṣu parānta-kāle parāmṛtāḥ parimucyanti sarve.” Meaning: “Those who, through Vedanta and science (knowledge of nature), have well ascertained the meaning, and who through sannyas and yoga have become of pure sattva—these earnest seekers devoted to Brahman, upon dying, reach Brahma-loka and are liberated.” Please be compassionate and explain this sutra. And it had to be so, because what are the Vedas? Open them anywhere and you’ll be surprised these words are called religion. Ordinary desires: someone prays for a bigger harvest; someone begs Indra for more rain; someone wants wealth; someone wants his cows’ udders to overflow with milk—and, not only that, his enemy’s cows’ udders to dry up! “Let it rain on my field—and not on my neighbor’s.” And this you call spirituality?
And the sum of all that has been known and collected by that knowing is called Veda. What Brahman has known is Veda; and that by which Brahman is known is Vedanta. Now by what will this Brahman be known? Who will know it? In truth, the very language of ‘knowing’ has to be dropped, because knowing is always of the other. What would it mean to ‘know’ oneself? How will you know that which you are? Who will know it? From which angle? From what direction? Therefore, whatever we ‘know’ regarding the self becomes alien by the very act of knowing. In truth, the being of the self is beyond the grasp of knowledge.
I am the brahman known by the whole vedanta (that which is beyond all knowledge). And I am neither ether nor air, nor anything that I appear to be. I am neither form, nor name, nor action, but only brahman which is satchidananda existence, awareness, and bliss).
I AM NOT THE BODY, SO HOW CAN I BE SUBJECT TO BIRTH AND DEATH? I AM NOT THE VITAL BREATH, SO HOW CAN I BE SUBJECT TO HUNGER AND THIRST? I AM NOT THE MIND, SO HOW CAN I BE SUBJECT TO SORROW AND ATTACHMENT? I AM NOT THE DOER, SO HOW CAN I BE SUBJECT TO BONDAGE AND FREEDOM? SUCH IS THE MYSTERY. HERE ENDS THE SARVASAR UPANISHAD A master is one who has disappeared already, so there is no question of his domination. He is not. And the other has come to him, not to possess him, but to be dispossessed of himself. That's the reason that when the master says something it has to be obeyed. Not that it is the master's domination; on the contrary, because the master cannot dominate, he is not. So his order becomes just an order from the source of all…