What is the guiding principle behind the tradition of enlightened ones offering teachings after meals?

Osho, in this country it has long been the tradition that when enlightened ones visit the homes of their devotees, after the meal they always offer some teaching. Is there a guiding principle behind this tradition? Please explain.

Buddha said, “It is precisely for that reason that I spoke so—otherwise after I died you would have gone mad and killed him. Worship him, because the one from whom a Buddha accepts his last meal is as blessed as the one from whom he accepts his first. These two meals—the first and the last. Worship him, Ananda. He gave out of love. Poison given with love is nectar; and nectar given without love is poison. Even if death comes through love, the doors to the great Life open; and if life goes on without love, only ashes come into your hands. See his love; what happened is secondary.” “And anyway, who has come here to live forever? One day one dies. Death was certain, it was bound to happen. This man has no fault; he is merely an instrument. And look—I am old as well,” Buddha said. “It is…

Osho, if one has accepted existence, then why words? Why teaching? If there is surrender, why an explanation of opposition? Isn’t it an escape, even cowardice, to enter sannyas after leaving life’s search incomplete?

But truly, you mean something else. You do not want to receive. Teaching tastes like poison to your ego. The very idea of taking something from someone hurts your pride. Do not take it—your choice. I am not eager to give. I have said it; my responsibility is fulfilled. God cannot say to me, “What you received, you did not share.” That responsibility I have fulfilled. If you did not take it, that is a matter between you and your God. I have nothing to do with it. If you do not wish to receive, do not. There is no command that you must. But please do not say, “Why do you teach?” Leave me be! I am leaving you be—I do not command you; grant me that grace too. You ask, “If there is surrender, why an explanation of opposition?” Without understanding opposition, how will you understand surrender? If…

Osho, I have undoubtedly set out on the path, and the path itself is becoming the destination. But when I sit in discourse, my mind keeps collecting what you say so I can tell it to others. Why is there such eagerness in me to expound it before others—especially before my loved ones?

It is natural. Those whom we love—we want to give them what we have received, that in which we have known joy, in which we have caught a hint of truth. The taste we have savored, we want our loved ones to taste. We want to make them partners in it. Completely natural. Share! Whatever seems right to you, say it. Who knows—someone else may also find it right. Just keep one thing in mind. The eagerness to share is fine; insistence is not. Don’t sit on anyone’s chest saying, “I have accepted it, you must accept it too—because you are my wife; if you don’t agree with me, that’s not okay; or you are my husband.” Do not be insistent—non-insistence! Give full freedom to accept or not. But if a feeling rises in your heart, don’t suppress it either. If you feel joy, if you taste the essence, share…

Osho, what is the proof of God’s existence?

And you still ask for proof? There have been people who offered proofs, and all their proofs are futile. No proof works. All the proofs for God so far are not worth a penny. Someone says: everything that is made must have a maker; such a vast world—surely it must have a maker. But that proof commits suicide; the moment it meets an atheist, it goes lame. The atheist says: If every made thing must have a maker, if God is needed to make the world, then who made God? With that he tightens the noose around your neck. Who made God? You protest: No, no one made God. Then the atheist says: If God can be without being made, why can’t the world be without being made? The argument collapses; it falls flat. You say: just as the potter makes the pot, so that Great Potter made this world.…

Osho, Dongre Maharaj distributes lassi, boondi, etc. as prasad after his discourses. Please explain what relationship there is between discourse on Brahman and lassi–boondi.

Subhash Saraswati! There certainly is a connection. Every day when I return from the discourse site, Subhash is seen standing along the way—utterly forlorn! Then I think, lassi and boondi are needed. He stands there as if the very life has flown out of him! Bearing the weight of the whole world! So burdened that even his neck tilts. Then I too start thinking that after the discourse lassi and boondi should be distributed. Just look at poor Subhash! Prasad has great value. In my village there was a Kabirpanthi mahant, Sahibdasji—an arch-fool. Meaning, compared to him Dongre Maharaj and the rest were nothing! But he was a mahant, headed a big akhara, had plenty of land and property; so people respected him. And I took advantage of that. The advantage was: whatever gathering was held in the village, I would invite him. I used to enjoy his talks immensely.…