Opposites aren't enemies—they work together to make life move, so our job is to balance them into a helpful rhythm.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, today I shall ask about contradiction. To me, sir, this issue has been very confusing. Socrates cleansed the system by advocating democracy; over time Aristotle’s attitude shifted toward changing the system. I agree with your view that our future organizations will be organizations of love, not of domination. But I must admit, sir, that to run a government—whether of small units or of work organizations—we will have to frame a code of conduct which checks the malpractices of bad elements and keeps the system sound. May I have, sir, the details?
Large nations are antagonistic to this; they obstruct. They too call for international government, but what they mean is to dominate—to become the international government themselves. The call for internationalism is very old, and it has come in two kinds: Alexander and Genghis Khan too wanted an international government—one world under their rule. But that could not be; the very feeling was wrong. In that way, an international government can never be formed. It will arise on the basis that the units are small—so small as to be negligible in terms of power—and thus able to unite and come together. Therefore the nation must go. In the future, there can be no place for nation-states. There will be small towns, small districts, small clusters that wish to associate. Those small clusters will organize themselves; they can manage within their small bounds. They will have no great power. Their administrative thread…
Beloved Osho, by now, millions of people are confused by your contradictory actions and statements. But also we, your friends, tend to diminish or simplify your words. Osho, what is at the heart of your contradictions? How can we enter your wild dance of consciousness?
There are no contradictions -- only apparently so. Logically you can find hundreds of contradictions; but I am not speaking logically. Once that is understood you can see that all contradictions disappear. They are created by a certain system of logic, and if you have the glasses of that logic on your eyes, you will see contradictions. I am not speaking logically. I have no respect for logic. I have respect for life. And life is vast enough to have contradictions as complementaries. Life cannot exist without contradictions. Logic is dead. It can exist very clinically, without contradictions. But it is a dead system -- it is just a man-made system; it does not breathe. So there is a way to speak logically, which the philosophers have been doing down the ages. Their whole effort was not to get into any contradiction, into any inconsistency. Avoiding contradictions, avoiding inconsistencies, they…
I, alone, am the theme taught in the various vedas. I am the revealer of the
UPANISHADS, THE VEDANTA, AND OF THE VEDAS. I ALONE AM THE REAL KNOWER. FOR ME THERE IS NEITHER VIRTUE, PUNYAM, NOR SIN, PAPA. I SUFFER NOT DESTRUCTION, NEITHER HAVE I BIRTH, NOR BODY, NOR SENSES AND MIND. I, ALONE, AM THE THEME TAUGHT IN THE VARIOUS VEDAS. I AM THE REVEALER OF THE UPANISHADS, THE VEDANTA AND OF THE VEDAS. I ALONE AM THE REAL KNOWER. But the basic problem arises because of this concept of non-contradictoriness in existence. Existence is dual but not contradictory! And the duality is only in the expression, not in the ultimate source. The ultimate source remains the same. These contradictions are there, because without contradictions, without a dual nature, things cannot exist, the world cannot be. The world is there through duality. Can you conceive of silence without noise? Can you conceive of birth without death? Can you conceive of beauty without ugliness? They…
Usually I an "this way" or "that way'.' but for some time I have experienced all kinds of contradictions, simultaneously. I see women as objects of worship, and at the same time I lust after them. I am content to let life flow, and I am afraid of the future. I crave to be alone, and I crave to be always with people. I feel bizarre because these contradictions all seem equally real and true. Is there anything to be understood or done about this?
The false man cannot jump to the enlightened state; hence I teach the real man, but the real man is not the goal. That's why my work goes beyond the Encounter ideology, Gestalt ideology. The Gestalt ideology or the Encounter ideology stops at the real man. Good. Better than the unreal. But not enough. Something has yet to happen. I use Encounter groups, Gestalt groups, and all the therapies that have become available in the West. They are perfectly beautiful; they bring you from the first, false state to the authentic, real state. But my work goes beyond them. But I can go beyond only if you have gone through the second stage. From the first there is no way, from the false there is no way, to enlightenment; only from the real is there a way. You will have to go through the ecstasy of the real and the…
And it has gone so beautiful, and it is going so beautifully. And I don't see that I can ever be disappointed, because in the first place I don't bother whether the river is going to the north or to the south. Wherever it goes, wherever it lands, that's my home. That's where I always wanted to go, but I was not aware. Q:* THE MODERN AGE, THE SO-CALLED AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT, IS AN AGE OF LIBERALIZATION FROM OLD BELIEF SYSTEMS AND RELIGIONS. YOU CLAIM YOUR RELIGION A MODERN RELIGION. ISN'T THIS A CONTRADICTION IN ITSELF? A:* It is. It is a contradiction to call it a modern religion, or better, a religionless religion, which will make the contradiction more clear. But to me, existence allows contradictions. it is not logical; it is very illogical. In fact, existence depends on contradictions. What is life and death? Are not they contradictory?