According to Osho, the dispute over whether existence precedes essence or vice versa is childish; like egg and chicken, seed and tree, they are not two. They are simultaneous phases of a single unfolding, which our narrow, sequential vision splits into before and after. From a total vision (“Krishna’s eyes”), essence and existence co-arise together; arguing precedence misses the living process.
Existence and essence are one living process—like egg and chicken—so asking which comes first is just our small view talking.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Questioner: sartre says, "existence precedes essence," and you say, "essence precedes existence." please explain the actual relationship between the two statements. Please also say something about the confusion in which we find ourselves with regard to the distinction between devotion and discipline, because here in manali we are participating in a camp meant for spiritual discipline.
It is utterly wrong to say that God exists. We say a flower exists because tomorrow this flower will cease to exist. But will God ever cease to exist? If so then he is not God. One who will never cease to exist cannot be said to have an existence. We can say that we exist, because we will certainly cease to exist sometime in the future. But it is an error of language to say that God exists, because he is ever and ever and ever. It is utterly wrong to say God exists; the right way to say it is: God is existence. But language always puts us into difficulty; it is in the very nature of language. In fact, even the phrase "God is existence" is erroneous, because the word "is" between God and existence creates a schism and confusion. It means on one side is God…
Osho, Sartre says, “Existence precedes essence.” Do you hold essence to be prior to existence? Or how do you relate the two? And people who have come to this camp have also become confused: have they come to a worship camp or to a meditation/sadhana camp?
Putting you into a muddle is my job. When the distance between sadhana and upasana—practice and worship—drops, then the meaning of the camp has been understood. Sartre and other existentialists say: existence precedes essence. It is a strange statement, because in the world it has rarely been held; almost always the opposite has been believed: essence precedes existence. Understand it well. Before Sartre, the entire range of metaphysical thinking held that the seed is prior to the tree—naturally. Sartre says the tree is prior to the seed. In general, philosophers would say: the soul is before existence; only then can existence be. Sartre says: existence is first, then the soul; because if there were no existence, how could “soul” be constituted? What would it mean in Krishna’s context? In truth, all of man’s metaphysical battles are childish—very childlike. The whole of metaphysical controversy, even by the greatest philosophers, collapses into…
Osho, what is the meaning of existence?
Buddha says: The inner emptiness is so beautiful, don't stuff it with junk, leave it as it is. And that's what meditation is all about, that's what Zen is. It means living out of emptiness, asking nothing from life, living moment to moment for no other reason, just enjoying being alive. It is more than you can ask for! What more meaning do you need? Is breathing not enough? Is this chirping of the birds not enough? Is the green and the red and the gold of the trees not enough? Is this vast existence with all its splendor not enough? You want some meaning? Yoka says: <q>THE MOON RISES ABOVE THE RIVER. ON THE BANK THE WIND PLAYS SOFTLY IN THE PINES ALL NIGHT LONG, PURE AND CALM. WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THAT SERENITY? LOOK ON THE BUDDHA'S PRECEPTS OF NATURE. WINTER AND AUTUMN MISTS, DEW, CLOUDS, SPRING…
Osho, does self-acceptance flower out of awareness, or does awareness flower out of self-acceptance?
Here, everything is self-supported, because the truth of the Self is the truth of the Divine. No one is holding anyone else. Otherwise there would be no end to the regress. Turn from chicken to egg and you ask, “Where did the egg come from?”—again the chicken. Ask, “Where did the chicken come from?”—again the egg. There will be no end. But in life we do end it. Who bothers about which came first, chicken or egg? When you are hungry and both are before you, do you philosophize? You eat. I say the same to you. Start with awareness if you like—you will reach the same place, for awareness gives birth to self-acceptance. Or start with self-acceptance—you will reach the same place. Whether you begin with the left foot or the right makes no difference—both feet are yours, and both will carry you. You are supported by both feet,…
Is this difference -- the difference in their stages -- due to their own choice, or is it their destiny?
To me, the solution to the whole problem takes on a different shape. Do not divide them. They are not two, they are already one -- they have always been one. When the energy becomes conscious it is soul, when it becomes unconscious it becomes body. Sometimes you are more a soul and less a body, sometimes you are more a body and less a soul. This flickering back and forth between one and the other goes on continuously. In the morning you may be more a soul, in the evening you are more a body. When you are in anger you are more a body, when you are in love you are more a soul. The degrees change continuously. When you meditate your consciousness expands and your body shrinks; when you take an intoxicant your consciousness shrinks and your body expands. Body and consciousness are two poles of one…