Ask Osho!
Osho on What is the significance of writing?

What is the significance of writing?

Writing can only hint at the truth; it is the living presence of a shared moment that truly conveys the depth of understanding.

— Osho
According to Osho, writing is largely futile for conveying deep truths: it addresses an unknown mass, forcing ideas to be diluted. The medium itself deadens content; black ink lacks the living presence, gestures, and immediacy of a spoken encounter. True transmission needs a person-to-person, alive exchange that demands total attention; mass literature lowers understanding and erodes attentiveness.

Writing to everyone makes the message thin and lifeless; real understanding happens face-to-face with full attention.

In His Own Words

From the Discourses

Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.

Main Kahta Akhan Dekhi · Discourse 1
1971-02-28 · Bombay · Hindi

Osho, wouldn’t you like to write?

I would not like to write. I would not like to write for many reasons. I would not like to write for many reasons. First, because writing, in my view, is absurd—utterly futile. Futile, because for whom? For me, writing is like having written a letter without knowing the address. After sealing it in an envelope, where am I to send it? A statement is always addressed. Those who write are addressing the mass. They too are addressing an unknown crowd. But the more unknown the crowd, the more trivial the things that can be said; and the more a person is known, the deeper you can speak to them. Deep truths can be spoken to individuals—to a person. To a crowd, you can only say makeshift, workaday things. Deep truths can never be told to a crowd. The larger the crowd, the less the understanding becomes; and if the…
Read the full discourse →

So you do not want to write?

No, I do not want to write. There are many reasons why I do not want to write. For one thing, it is absurd and useless to write. It is useless because for whom shall I write? To me, writing appears to be like writing a letter without knowing the address. How can I enclose it in an envelope and dispatch it when I do not know the address? A statement is always addressed. Those who want to address the masses write. This is the way they address the unknown crowd. But the more unknown the crowd, the fewer are the things that can be said. And the nearer or more known the individual addressed is, the deeper can be the dialogue. Deeper truths can only be told to a particular person. To a crowd, only temporary, simple things can be told. The bigger the crowd, the lesser the understanding,…
Read the full discourse →
Jin Sutra · Discourse 2
1976-05-12 · Pune · Hindi

Osho, when I listen to you, every word sinks to the depths of my heart and stirs me. But when I read you, it remains a mental game. Please tell me why this happens.

It’s plain. The arithmetic is simple. When you read, only you are there; I am not. What you read is nothing but you. It becomes a game of the mind. When you listen to me, then sometimes—knowingly or unknowingly—I also slip into you. You seldom give such a chance, but now and then a lapse happens on your side. Unaware, you leave the door a little open—and I come in. So when you are hearing me, it’s a different matter. That is why truth has always been spoken, not written. It cannot be written. Even speaking it is very difficult, yet it can still be said—at least a little can be said, a little news can be given. Because in speaking, many elements are involved that are lost in writing. When you read a book, the book is dead. A book cannot create an atmosphere around you. A book has…
Read the full discourse →

Osho, but the mantra-experts would say there is some other reason for its use?

Ask the mantra-scholars about that. What I am saying here is that the new arts are making uses that are absurd. Sculptures are being made of a kind you cannot call anyone’s statue. If you want to make a statue of “man,” it has to be made so that no one’s face appears in it—because if any face appears, it becomes someone’s; it is no longer of “man.” So if you want to make a statue of man, it must not have my face, not your face, not anyone’s face. The moment there is any particular face, it becomes some person’s and ceases to be “manhood.” So we make a statue in which there is no one’s face—such a statue can be made; we imagined it would be a statue of humanity, but it won’t remain even of a single human. What I am saying is: it will not become…
Read the full discourse →
The 99 Names Of Nothingness · Discourse 13
1978-05-17 · Chuang Tzu Auditorium · English
Words will not be able to say it, words are not meant to say something so deep. Words are only mundane, superficial. They are good for the marketplace, utilitarian, are a must, but not for such deep experiences. So whenever you come closer to any depth in your being, suddenly words become useless, meaningless. You can go on trying but you will not find the right word to express it. And whatsoever word you find will look inadequate, will look almost sacrilegious... will look almost as if rather than saying it, it is destroying it. It will not be able to contain the meaning because the meaning is big and vast and the word is very tiny and small and narrow. The word to be useful has to be narrow, otherwise it will have so many meanings and will become useless.
Read the full discourse →