What is the relationship between modern physics and spiritual realization?

Maneesha's question: beloved Osho, fritjof capra contends that, "modern physics goes far beyond technology. The way -- or tao -- of physics can be a path with a heart, a way to spiritual realization." do you agree?

As the evening progresses, one by one, Jesus calls his apostles to him, eating some bread and drinking wine with each of them. Finally, his wandering eye rests on Judas, who has been sitting in the corner for the past hour, making out with Mary Magdelena. "Judas!" shouts Jesus. "Yes, Lord!" replies Judas, straightening his shirt. "Judas!" cries Jesus. "Come here! I want you!" "Yes, Lord," says Judas, jumping up and standing nervously in front of Jesus. "Judas!" says Jesus. "Tonight, you are going to betray me!" "Ah, Jesus Christ!" cries Judas. "Why do you always pick on me when you get drunk?" Sexy Miss Thornbum, the primary school teacher, wiggles into the classroom one morning. "Now, children," she announces, "today, we are going to start a whole new and exciting subject called Sex Education!" There is a loud cheering from the boys, and excited squealing from the girls as…

Osho, modern science has taken humankind away from nature and developed many dimensions of life. Please tell us: given the complexity of the scientific way of living, how can a balance be established today with the Taoist era’s effortless, natural way of life?

There is no question of establishing a balance. It is not a matter of balancing Lao Tzu and modern science. If Lao Tzu’s vision truly comes into view, an entirely new science will be born—utterly new. A science founded on Lao Tzu’s vision would be born, because the whole perspective on life would be different. The science that has evolved on Aristotle’s foundations is very incomplete, ignorant. It has tried to understand such a tiny fragment of life and has left the whole. One should say it is childish. It has made no attempt to see the totality. But until now it could not have. Now it will have to. After the discovery of atomic weapons and the development of atomic energy, science has been compelled to reconsider all its basic premises. Why? Because if science keeps moving as it has till now—if it says, “We will go on this…

Osho, meditativeness and science are difficult to reconcile. Yet painting a picture, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem all bring the same joy. The same joy! Why is it so difficult to be meditative and a scientist? Why has there never been a society in which the inner and the outer sciences, the science of gentleness and love and the science of aggression and death, live in harmony?

Mahavira, twenty-five centuries ago, used to make each of his statements with a 'perhaps'. If you asked him, "Is there a God?" he would say, "Perhaps." In those days it was not understood at all -- because how can you say, "Perhaps"? Either God is or is not. It seems so simple and so logical: "If God is, God is; if he is not, he is not. What do you mean by 'perhaps'?" Now it can be understood. Mahavira was using the same language in religion that is being used by Albert Einstein in physics. Albert Einstein calls it the theory of relativity. Mahavira has called his philosophy exactly the same: SAPEKSHAWAD -- the theory of relativity. Nothing is certain, everything is flexible, fluid. The moment you have said something, it is no longer the same. Things don't exist, Mahavira says, but only events. That's what modern science is saying,…

Do I rightly understand you that if you and your beloved can transmute your sexual energy into spirituality, that this relationship will not be satisfying either? Your seeming contradictions on love confuse me.

Once you have understood that, you listen to me as one listens to music. You listen to me as one listens to the wind passing through the pine trees, you listen to me as one listens to the birds singing in the morning. You don't say to the cuckoo, "Yesterday your song was different," and you don't go to the roseflower and say, "Last season the flowers were bigger" -- or smaller -- "why are you contradicting yourself?" You don't say to the poet, "In one of your poems you said this, and in another poem you have said something else." You don't expect a poet to be consistent, so you don't ask. Poetry is not a theory, it is not a syllogism, it is a song. I am not a philosopher. Always remember that I am a poet, not a philosopher. Remember always that I am not a missionary,…

Osho, according to a very recent theory in astronomic physics, every atom which exists in the body or which builds up all material things around us comes out of a cosmic circle through which it must go at least twice. However, this fact doesn't help me to feel part of the cosmos. Osho, as a scientist, do I ever stand a chance of experiencing mystery?

Walter Hultzsch, science is a demystification of existence, hence it is absolutely impossible to feel any sense of the mysterious through science; the very method of science prohibits it. It is just like somebody who is blind trying to see through the ears, or somebody who is deaf trying to listen to music through the eyes: the very method becomes the barrier. Science has a definite methodology and that makes it limited; it gives it a demarcation, a definition. And it is absolutely necessary for science to be defined, otherwise there would be no difference at all between science and meditation, between science and religious consciousness. Science means being definite, being absolutely definite, about facts. And if you are very definite about facts then you cannot feel mysterious -- the more definite you are the more mystery evaporates. Mystery needs a certain vagueness; mystery needs something undefined, undemarcated. Science is…