An awake person and a sleeping person can’t really talk; only two awake people can—and even then they mostly share a playful silence because nothing needs explaining.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Your second question: "I recall hearing you say recently that dialogue between an enlightened and an unenlightened person is not possible, and between two enlightened people, not necessary. Zen seems to be an existential dialogue -- the ultimate form of communication, whether those on either end of the exchange are enlightened or not. Would you comment?"
Your question is again mixed. Half of it is right: Zen is an existential dialogue, but not between the enlightened and the unenlightened -- that is an impossibility. One who knows and one who does not know cannot have any kind of communication. It is just like you are fast asleep and somebody else is talking to you. Now, between the asleep and the awakened, what kind of dialogue...? But between two awakened, two enlightened persons, dialogue -- although unnecessary -- is possible. Unnecessary, because they have nothing to convey to each other; they both know it. But Zen is a very youthful, joyous approach to reality; they go on playing with each other. Their play is a joy for those who can understand even the playfulness. They may not understand the meaning of it.... Your idea that it happens whether those on either end of the exchange are enlightened…
Beloved Osho, are we moving into the socratic dialogue form of discourses now? But I detect an essential difference. Socrates said: "know thyself." you have said: "let go thyself!"
I have been dragged into a court because I used to live outside a city where there was a Mohammedan cemetery, and people used to come there to meditate. The Mohammedans came to me again and again, saying that "This is not good; your disciples are disturbing our sleeping ones." I said, "Why? How can they disturb?" They said, "They go on saying, `Hoo, hoo.' Even a dead person feels like getting out of the grave to find out, `Who is this fellow?' " I said, "We cannot change it. And moreover it is really the last part of ALLAH-HOO. It is a Mohammedan mantra!" They said, "You are very clever, but we have never heard of ALLAH-HOO. ALLAH is okay, but HOO?" I said, "You can do anything you want to do. If your ghosts come out of their graves, it is our problem, we live here. We will…
Can you tell us why, as an admirer of socrates, you don't practice the socratic method of dialogue?
Dialogue is possible between two blind men; they can discuss ad infinitum about light without coming to any conclusion. Dialogue is impossible between two persons who can see light: the dialogue is unnecessary; light is the experience of both. The third possibility is that one man may be able to see light, and the other may be blind. What kind of dialogue do you think is possible between these two? Socrates was not an enlightened person -- a great philosopher, a great logician, but not an enlightened person, not a man with eyes. Gautam Buddha has no dialogue; he knows, there is no question of discussing it. You can sit silently with him. Even in his silence there will be a communication. Or you can ask him a question and he will respond spontaneously. No enlightened person in the whole world has ever used Socrates' method of dialogue. That's the…
How is it that people who are not enlightened can talk with such apparent inside knowledge and so convincingly about the whole business?
Precisely because of that. Not knowing, they don't hesitate; not knowing, they have nothing to say really, so they can go on spinning; not knowing, they can use language more perfectly. If you know, language is always a barrier; rather than a help it is a hindrance. When you know, you have to be constantly aware because whatsoever you are saying is not that which you know -- there is great distance between the two. Sometimes that which you say goes directly opposite to that which you know. A blind man can talk very easily about light, there is no problem. He has no experience to put into words. Words are empty, so he can go on throwing them out. Of course, he can talk only to another blind man -- no man with eyes will be deceived. People who are not enlightened can go on talking to people who…
Osho, forgive me; I want to ask something that has been on my mind for a long time. Why is it that all the great masters who are alive—including you—never come together?
Kabir’s disciples asked, “Why were you silent? Your speech has such power—give a little taste of it to Farid too! You shower it on us every day.” Kabir said, “Farid has already received it. What I shower on you, Farid has already received. Where I am, there is Farid. We both stand in the same place. Seeing each other, we were amazed. We are not two; we are one. So what is there to say? To whom to say it? If a man sits alone and talks, would you not call him mad? Someone sitting alone, talking to himself—raising the questions and giving the answers—that is what you call madness. So,” said Kabir, “did you want to make me mad? We were not two.” Therefore there is no need for saints to meet. Saints are not separate that they should have to meet. A Janata Party is formed by non-saints,…