According to Osho, discussion is not to nail reality down with definite conclusions; definiteness belongs only to the trivial. True dialogue serves to open space, to point rather than define, keeping inquiry alive before what is vast, boundless, and great—realms where certainty fails and only openness, silence, and direct experience can meet the truth.
We talk to explore and stay open, not to force big mysteries into neat answers.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, you have titled this series of talks “Sahaj Yoga.” Do “sahaj” and “yoga” not seem mutually opposed?
Anand Maitreya! They don’t just seem opposed, they are opposed. But no ultimate truth of life can manifest without contradiction. Life is made of opposites—darkness and light, day and night, woman and man, negative electricity and positive electricity, birth and death. The very structure of life is woven of opposites. Hence the opposites are not only opposed; they are complementary to each other. If you have labored hard all day, you will be able to sleep deeply. Labor and rest are opposites, yet only the one who has worked can rest deeply—and the one who has not worked cannot. So the opposites are not only opposed, they complete each other. And only the one who has rested deeply at night can rise in the morning and engage in work again. One who has not rested through the night will not be able to work in the morning. Look closely at…
Osho, but the mantra-experts would say there is some other reason for its use?
Ask the mantra-scholars about that. What I am saying here is that the new arts are making uses that are absurd. Sculptures are being made of a kind you cannot call anyone’s statue. If you want to make a statue of “man,” it has to be made so that no one’s face appears in it—because if any face appears, it becomes someone’s; it is no longer of “man.” So if you want to make a statue of man, it must not have my face, not your face, not anyone’s face. The moment there is any particular face, it becomes some person’s and ceases to be “manhood.” So we make a statue in which there is no one’s face—such a statue can be made; we imagined it would be a statue of humanity, but it won’t remain even of a single human. What I am saying is: it will not become…
There is an old tradition in some japanese zen temples that if a wandering monk can win an argument about buddhism with one of the resident monks, he can stay the night. If not, he has to move on.
THERE WAS SUCH A TEMPLE IN NORTHERN JAPAN RUN BY TWO BROTHERS. THE ELDER BROTHER WAS VERY LEARNED AND THE YOUNGER BROTHER WAS RATHER STUPID, AND HE HAD ONLY ONE EYE. ONE EVENING A WANDERING MONK CAME TO ASK FOR LODGING. THE ELDER BROTHER WAS VERY TIRED AS HE HAD BEEN STUDYING FOR MANY HOURS, SO HE TOLD THE YOUNGER BROTHER TO GO AND TAKE THE DEBATE. "REQUEST THAT THE DIALOGUE BE IN SILENCE," SAID THE ELDER BROTHER. A LITTLE LATER THE TRAVELER CAME TO THE ELDER BROTHER AND SAID, "WHAT A WONDERFUL FELLOW YOUR BROTHER IS. HE HAS WON THE DEBATE VERY CLEVERLY, SO I MUST MOVE ON. GOOD NIGHT." "BEFORE YOU GO," SAID THE ELDER BROTHER, "PLEASE RELATE THE DIALOGUE TO ME." "WELL," SAID THE TRAVELER, "FIRST I HELD UP ONE FINGER TO REPRESENT BUDDHA. THEN YOUR BROTHER HELD UP TWO FINGERS TO REPRESENT BUDDHA AND HIS TEACHING.…
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…