What is the significance of seers in spiritual lineage?

Osho, the Nirukta contains this verse: manuṣyā vā ṛṣisūtkramatsu devān abruvan ko na ṛṣir bhaviṣyatīti, tebhya etaṁ tarkamūṣim prāyacchan. “When, from this world, the seers began to depart, when their lineage began to end, human beings said to the gods: ‘Then who will be our ṛṣi?’ In that situation the gods gave them Reason as a ṛṣi in their stead. That is, the gods told humans: henceforth consider Reason to stand in the place of the ṛṣi.” Osho, please explain the purport of this saying of the Nirukta.

Sahajanand! First thing: the seers never left; they cannot leave. If there is night, there will be stars in the sky. If there is earth, somewhere flowers will bloom. If human consciousness is present, the ṛṣi cannot vanish. Somewhere a spring will burst forth, somewhere a song will arise, somewhere a flute will play. Man is not so barren that the lineage of seers could ever end. It has never ended. But the one who wrote the Nirukta was not a seer—he was a linguist, a grammarian. His allegiance is to logic, not to poetry; to thought, not to meditation. And people justify their allegiance by a thousand clever devices. Nirukta is not a scripture of religion. It is a science of language, and language as a science rests on logic. Grammar is mathematics. Therefore the mathematician will not wish for seers to exist; for the mathematician, the greatest threat…

Osho, “laukikānām hi sādhūnām artha vāg anuvartate; ṛṣīṇām punar ādyānām vācam artho’nudhāvati.” The speech of worldly saints follows meaning; but in the case of the ancient rishis, meaning followed their speech. Osho, out of compassion please explain this aphorism of Vashistha. Were the ancient rishis really so superior?

And the cause of the fight? When the police investigated, it became even more amusing. The picchī stick—bamboo—had been hollowed out and stuffed with hundred-rupee notes! That was their wallet. If you ever see a Jain monk’s picchī, look closely at the stick—there is nothing else they can use. Man is inventive: they had filled bundle upon bundle of notes inside. The fight was over division—the elder monk wanted more than the younger, a question of seniority! The younger insisted on equal halves: “This is conspiracy, not a government office!” They thrashed each other; the money was found. The community hushed it up with bribes lest it come out. They came to me: “What should we do?” I said, “Publish it in the newspapers—with photos!” They cried, “What are you saying! We came to ask how to hush it up. It is the prestige of the monk—of our religion.” I…

Osho, what is the definition of God?

Words are very small. If you say God is light, then what of darkness? The scriptures have said that God is light. Suppose we accept this as a definition—then what about darkness? Where will darkness go? Darkness is too; in fact it is far more than light. Light sometimes is and sometimes is not; darkness is always, eternal. Where will you place darkness? If you say God is light, darkness is left out. If you say God is darkness, then light is left out. If you say God is both darkness and light, a contradiction arises: they cannot be together. Try to have both darkness and light in the same room. If you bring in light, darkness disappears; if you preserve darkness, you cannot have light. Then how can both be together? That becomes an impossibility. So you cannot say “both” either. Then the fourth device is to say: it…

Osho, this verse is from the Mundaka Upanishad: Satyam eva jayate nānṛtam, satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ; yenākramanti ṛṣayo hyāptakāmā, yatra tatra satyasya paramaṁ nidhānam. That is: Only truth is victorious, not untruth. The path by which the desireless seers go, and where the supreme treasure of truth abides—that divine path opens to us only through truth. Is truth both the goal and the means? Kindly grace us with direction.

Devayāna means the realization and proclamation of one’s own divinity; freedom from tradition; freedom from the past; the art of living in the present. “Satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ”—this path of truth is Devayāna; it is the road of rebellion; it is revolt. It is not Pitṛyāna. You cannot say, “My father believed, therefore I believe.” No—you must know. Knowing comes first. And one who has known has no need to believe. For the believer, the blessing of knowing never arises. The believer dies. The day he believes, he dies—because the search ends, inquiry ceases. Belief means: What’s left to do? I have believed. And this is what you have been taught: believe, have faith. Thus the whole earth is filled with hollow “religious” people—believers, not truly religious. Belief is always hollow. What is not your own experience, how can it be truth for you? I may say it is my…

Osho, in India today, on the spiritual plane, is there any ongoing lineage of figures like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, or Aurobindo? In these past two or three hundred years, has there been anyone like that?

Yes. Here, in the past two–three centuries, the most influential figures have been Ramana and Krishnamurti. But no lineage could form behind Ramana, and behind Krishnamurti it will not form either. Krishnamurti is opposed to creating one. And behind Ramana it could not form. A man of that caliber was not found who could carry the matter forward or add something to it. Ramakrishna found Vivekananda. Vivekananda is a very powerful person, but not experienced. Because of his power he did set the wheel in motion, but there isn’t much life in that wheel, so it is not going to go far. Ramakrishna is deeply experienced, but he is not in the position of being a teacher, of being a Tirthankara. He cannot be a teacher. So for the first time... It happens many times that when someone cannot be a teacher, he places the work of teaching on another’s…