According to Osho, even a lottery win can look fated—some people can predict who will get it or when events will occur—yet, from another angle, it is 'all coincidence.' Fate and chance are perspectives on the same unfolding; the wise don’t cling to either story but stay alert and undisturbed.
Winning can seem planned or just luck, so don’t get stuck on explanations—stay calm and aware.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, can’t we just say that someone had to win the lottery, so they did? Someone had to win the lottery, therefore it went to them.
Now, here’s the thing: it can also be predicted who will get it. It can be predicted. There are people who, out of a hundred thousand who have bought lottery tickets, can tell who will get it. Then what will you do? Then it becomes very awkward, very difficult to keep saying that it is… There are people who told the very day Hitler would die. There are people who told the day Gandhi would die. There are people who say on which day China will attack India; there are people who say there will be an attack. In one sense we can say, it is all coincidence.
Question: Second question: Osho, is believing in fate always bad? Nothing is absolutely good or absolutely bad in every situation. There are times when even poison is good, because there are illnesses for which poison is medicine. And there are times when even nectar can be harmful, because there can be illnesses in which taking anything into the body is too costly—even nectar. There are conditions in which fasting itself becomes the door to health; at such times, don’t drink nectar either. Nothing in life is fixed and rigid—but that is exactly what we try to make it. We want labels: such-and-such is bad—“fate,” for example. People ask me, say it clearly, is believing in fate right or wrong? Fate can be understood rightly—in which case it is of great value. Fate can also be understood wrongly—in which case it is greatly misused.
Beloved Osho, could you please explain the difference between trusting existence and fatalism?
The difference between trust and fate is very subtle. On the surface it seems they mean exactly the same thing, but in reality they are diametrically opposite experiences. Fate is a consolation. You are poor, and you see others getting richer and richer -- some consolation is needed. You do everything and you do it honestly, truthfully, morally. You never use wrong means; still you are a failure. And you see others being dishonest, cunning, insincere, immoral, criminal, using all kinds of wrong means and succeeding, becoming richer, attaining power, prestige. How to explain it? It is not new. Since the very beginning man has been puzzled by it. And he had to create some idea as a consolation. Fate, kismet, destiny, God -- everything is written in the lines of your hand, in the lines of your forehead; everything is predetermined in your birthchart, you cannot do anything against…
Osho, is it a factual truth that nothing happens through our doing? Should we really just let things be as they are happening?
Whether it is factual or not—do you understand?—it is supportive for your descent into samadhi. So the question of whether it is factual is not very important. This is not a big question. My own view is that many times very wondrous things have been discovered, but we have grabbed them and trapped them in the wrong place—things, ideas—like fate. Fate is not factual, but for samadhi it is very meaningful. If a person is a complete fatalist, then as far as samadhi is concerned, there is no obstacle for him. The matter is finished. The point is not the factuality of whether fate exists or not. To reduce it to “Does fate exist or not?” is to throw the whole thing into foolishness. For those who discovered it, it was a device for meditation. These are all devices within which meditation will happen. The meaning of fate is: now…
A friend has asked: Osho, a person is born with his destiny; so if the search for God is in one’s destiny, it will happen. If it is not, it won’t!
A person who leaves everything to destiny cannot be disturbed. Whether destiny truly exists or not is not the question; it is irrelevant. It is simply a device: the one who leaves everything to destiny has attained everything. Nothing can be taken away from him. His peace becomes ultimate; his joy becomes unbroken. And if God is, God will be found by him; whatever is, will be available to him—because he has dropped the very language of nonattainment. And even if God does not meet him, there will still be no restlessness. That is the marvel: he has no restlessness at all. He will say, “What is in destiny will happen.” But this is a very deep matter. Do not think you are a fatalist just because you show your palm to some astrologer sitting at a crossroads. Don’t imagine that makes you a fatalist. If you really were one,…