According to Osho, perfection is multidimensional: the inner realization of completeness is one dimension, while the outward means and expressions—such as disciplines or austerities—belong to another. When realization is complete, no austerity is needed for fulfillment; austerities can only polish specific expressions, not add to the already complete state.
If you feel whole inside, you don’t need harsh practices; those only refine outer skills, not inner completeness.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, you say that Mahavira had already become complete in a previous birth. But in this life he had to undertake austerities to find the means of expression. What kind of incompleteness is this within the complete? Doesn’t perfection itself include the acquisition of the means of expression?
No, the attainment of perfection does not include the means of expression. The perfection of expression is a perfection totally different from the perfection of realization. In fact, perfection is not one; there are innumerable perfections. This creates great difficulty for us. Perfection is not a single thing—there are infinite perfections. Mahavira even says “infinitely infinite.” If a person becomes perfect in one direction, it does not mean he has become perfect in all other directions. A person may paint and become perfect in painting; that does not mean he will be perfect in music, that he will be able to play the veena. The veena has its own perfection, its own direction. And if someone becomes perfect in playing the veena, it does not mean he will be perfect in dancing. Dancing has its own perfection. Perfection is multidimensional; it has many dimensions.
Osho, there was a question about perfection. In the morning you said you regard emptiness as the fundamental hallmark of perfection. Then Buddha too was the ultimate void. So can he not be called complete? And along with that, is emptiness itself not multidimensional?
A few points. First, Buddha arrived at emptiness—as I was just saying, Buddha arrived at emptiness. That was his achievement; he attained it. He became empty. The emptiness that is attained becomes one-dimensional. It acquires a direction. It becomes dependent on the attainer. Understand it this way. In fact, whatever I negate within myself, whatever I cut off and set aside, will be finished, removed from within me. A certain kind of emptiness will be available. But that emptiness will come as the absence of something. There is another emptiness that we do not bring about; it is born in the very awareness of our being. We are emptiness—we do not become empty. Emptiness is our nature. That is how we are. The day emptiness is our nature—no discipline, no practice, no attainment—on that day emptiness becomes multidimensional. We have not emptied out anything to become empty; we have simply…
Question: ON CALM QUIETUDE: THE HIGHEST PERFECTION IS LIKE IMPERFECTION, AND ITS USE IS NEVER IMPAIRED. THE GREATEST ABUNDANCE SEEMS MEAGRE, AND ITS USE WILL NEVER FAIL. WHAT IS MOST STRAIGHT APPEARS DEVIOUS, THE GREATEST SKILL APPEARS LIKE CLUMSINESS, THE GREATEST ELOQUENCE APPEARS LIKE STUTTERING. MOVEMENT OVERCOMES COLD, (BUT) KEEPING STILL OVERCOMES HEAT WHO IS CALM AND QUIET BECOMES THE GUIDE FOR THE UNIVERSE. In fact, you can see only those people who are just near you, just like you -- you can understand them. They may be better in certain ways, but they are just like you. You may be more angry, they are less angry -- the difference is of quantity not of quality. You are a sinner, they are a saint. A saint only means one who has also condemned as sin all that you condemn and has dropped it into his own unconscious.
Osho, is it not true that as long as a person is incomplete, imperfect, the rhythms and melodies of life will not stop pursuing him? The question is: how is he to become complete?
If Buddha says it, it must be right. But don’t accept it as your belief. If Buddha says it, it must be right—there is no reason he would be wrong. He has passed through your state, gone beyond you; he too played with these games and toys. So whatever he says is likely to be right. But that is Buddha’s statement; do not make it your creed. You try to understand this play. In the very understanding of the play you will slowly see for yourself that Buddha is right. His rightness will become your experience. Suddenly you will find: the toys are slipping away, lying in a corner. One day every child’s toys lie in a corner; then they go to the trash heap; then they are not even remembered. Years pass, and you don’t even remember what happened to those toys without which even sleep was impossible. Surely…
This is the situation. We are in the middle — incomplete, half-done. The half-done mind longs to be filled, to be whole. Desire for perfection arises out of incompleteness. Remember, in completeness no desire for completeness can arise; it would be meaningless. Desire is always the opposite of what we are. We are poor, so we desire to be rich. We are ill, so we desire health. We are incomplete, so we desire wholeness. Desire is completely logical; in an incomplete mind the idea of becoming complete will naturally arise. Desire is logical — but its fulfillment will never happen. For the incomplete can never become complete — by any effort, by any practice, by any discipline or sadhana. Because all sadhanas, all practices, all efforts will arise from the incomplete. The stamp of incompleteness will remain upon them.