What is the essential difference between art and science?

Beloved Osho, when you talk about the "art" of something, and the "science" of something else, what is the essential difference? Is it that an art can only be approached and appreciated intuitively, subjectively, while a science is approached and appreciated with the help of the mind and objectively?

The scientific approach and the approach of art certainly have that difference. Art is intuitive, more of the heart, more subjective, more intimate. Science is objective, not intimate at all; it has nothing to do with your intuition or your feeling, nothing to do with your heart. In fact, it has nothing to do with you at all. If you heat water, it will evaporate at one hundred degrees. Who heats the water does not matter -- whether it is a man or a woman, whether it is a boy or an old man, a Tibetan lama or a Catholic monk. Water simply follows an objective rule; it is not concerned with the person who is boiling it. There may not be any person at all; it can be boiled just by pressing a button, a machine can do it. So that is certainly one of the differences. Art is…

Beloved Osho, what is the difference between the emptiness of the child before the formation of the ego and the awakened childlikeness of a buddha?

Whether you are for it or against it doesn't matter -- your concern shows where your ego is hanging. And I will include the capitalist in it also: his whole concern is how to gather money, hoard money -- because money has power over matter. You can purchase any material thing through money. You cannot purchase anything spiritual, you cannot purchase anything that has any intrinsic value; you can purchase only things. If you want to purchase love, you cannot purchase; but you can purchase sex. Sex is the material part of love. Through money, matter can be purchased, possessed. Now you will be surprised: I include the communist and the capitalist both in the same category, and they are enemies, just as I include Charvaka and Mahatma Gandhi in the same category, and they are enemies. They are enemies, but their concern is the same. The capitalist is trying…

Osho, meditativeness and science are difficult to reconcile. Yet painting a picture, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem all bring the same joy. The same joy! Why is it so difficult to be meditative and a scientist? Why has there never been a society in which the inner and the outer sciences, the science of gentleness and love and the science of aggression and death, live in harmony?

Mahavira, twenty-five centuries ago, used to make each of his statements with a 'perhaps'. If you asked him, "Is there a God?" he would say, "Perhaps." In those days it was not understood at all -- because how can you say, "Perhaps"? Either God is or is not. It seems so simple and so logical: "If God is, God is; if he is not, he is not. What do you mean by 'perhaps'?" Now it can be understood. Mahavira was using the same language in religion that is being used by Albert Einstein in physics. Albert Einstein calls it the theory of relativity. Mahavira has called his philosophy exactly the same: SAPEKSHAWAD -- the theory of relativity. Nothing is certain, everything is flexible, fluid. The moment you have said something, it is no longer the same. Things don't exist, Mahavira says, but only events. That's what modern science is saying,…

Beloved Osho, why has it happened that in the east, religion came to its highest flowering, and in the west the same has happened to science? Is there some difference of consciousness between the eastern man and the western man?

There is no difference of consciousness in the East and the West. The difference was in the climate, in the geography, in the situation; the difference was outside, not inside. Hence, religion became the only challenge in the East, and science became the only challenge in the West. But now the situation is totally different. The East has fallen into bankruptcy, which is natural ... that too is a law to be understood. When you are affluent, luxurious, religion is born. Once religion is born, immediately religion starts teaching you to be poor. That is a very strange thing, but there is some inner consistency in it. When you are luxurious, and the whole country is enjoying, and eating, and drinking, and being merry -- this is their only religion. Naturally, those who attain to samadhi and superconsciousness -- start condemning, "What are you doing, wasting your life eating, drinking,…

What is a poet? What is poetry?

The scientist is approaching reality as a male mind. It is the masculine approach: conquer nature. And the poet approaches reality with the feminine mind: surrender, be receptive, open up to reality, be in a letgo, relax. Religion is neither male nor female; it is just a witnessing of both. But the scientist is very far away from religion; the poet is a little closer. That's why I sometimes talk about poetry and the poet, because before you can become transcendental you will have to learn how to be poetic. Science is taught by the society, by the school, the college and the university. Poetry is missing. Because it has no market value, nobody cares about it. If you have a poetic approach, your approach is so private it can't be used by the society. And in fact you may be a little problematic to the society, because you will…