When one acts spontaneously, do they follow the path or fulfill latent desire?

When one acts spontaneously does one follow the path or does one fulfil latent desire?

There is no contradiction. The desire is the path. You have to go through it, you have to go into it, you have to go into it utterly, totally. Only by going into it, to the very bottom of it, do you start rising above it. Desire is the way to become desireless. So such a contradiction does not exist for me. You ask: WHEN ONE ACTS SPONTANEOUSLY DOES ONE FOLLOW THE PATH OR DOES ONE FULFIL LATENT DESIRE? To me there is no difference. Desire is the path. In following the desire you are following the path. That's the revolution I bring to you, that's the radical standpoint I want you to understand. In following your desire you are not going astray, you are going God-wards. The desire is given by God, you have not created it. You have found it, it is a given thing, it is a…

Osho, why does every desire come carrying its opposite? Is its dividedness inevitable? And is no whole and undivided desire possible? What is desire?

One day, by mistake, he wandered into the camp of a Muslim chieftain. He was going along in ecstasy, dancing; the camp happened to be in the way—that was all. The women, frightened, screamed. A naked man, dancing in ecstasy, had walked in—they thought he was mad. Seeing a naked sadhu intrude, the chieftain, too, grew angry. He drew his sword and struck. One of Sadashiva’s hands was cut off and fell to the ground. But Sadashiva’s joy suffered no interruption. The hand fell, blood began to flow, yet the dance continued. Just as he had been dancing, he turned and kept dancing as he walked away. The chieftain was astonished, and also pained—he had never seen such ecstasy. And that a hand could be cut off and he would not even notice—such ecstasy! The man was in some other realm. Looking into his eyes, it was as if he…

Beloved Osho, I feel and realize the futility of desiring. There seems to be no ambition in me. But yet there is a thirst, a yearning, and an inner sense of unfulfillment. Please explain whether this too is a part of desiring.

Yes, this too is a part of desiring -- the negative part. Everything has two parts, the positive and the negative. The positive part of desiring is to desire something, to be ambitious. To be aware of the object of desire is a positive desire. The negative desire is: one is not aware of the object of desire, but one is aware only of the thirst of desire -- of the yearning. These are the two parts. The subjective feeling of unfulfillment is the negative part of ambition and being obsessed with an object of desire is the positive part of ambition. Both are ambition. And if you intellectually understand that desire is futile, the negative part will remain with you -- if you INTELLECTUALLY understand that desire is futile and this is not an existential experience. You have been hearing things, you have been listening and you have been…

Osho, on the one hand you say desire is by nature insatiable; it remains forever unfulfilled. And on the other hand you also say that if any relish for the world remains, it should be enjoyed fully. Please have the compassion to remove this contradiction.

Contradictions appear because you do not see. They seem like contradictions because your eyes are not yet open. You grope in the dark; therefore contradictions appear. Otherwise, there is no contradiction. Understand. Certainly desire is insatiable; this is the dictum of the Buddha, of all the awakened ones. Desire is insatiable means it cannot be filled—do whatever you may. If you have ten rupees, you want twenty. If you have ten thousand, you want twenty thousand; a million, you want two. The gap between ten and twenty remains the same. Desire is insatiable means the ratio of your discontent remains constant. It makes no difference how much you acquire; desire will move just that much ahead. Desire is like the horizon: it appears to meet the earth ten or twelve miles away. You run and think you will reach in an hour or two. Run for lifetimes—you will never arrive.…

Pragya has asked: “You and all the saints say the same...”

I don’t know about all the saints, because among your so‑called saints most are not saints at all. Out of a hundred of your saints, perhaps one is a saint; the other ninety‑nine are as sick as you are—and often far more chronically sick. But you understand the language of those ninety‑nine, because they speak the language of your disease. The one who is a real saint—you don’t understand his language. I am choosing to speak about those few, those one‑in‑a‑hundred saints, so I can sift for you who the real saints are. There are too many non‑saints; they’re not worth counting. I keep speaking on saints. They are not many. Your “all saints” are not saints—and certainly Pragya’s “all saints” cannot be. For her, those she calls saints will be the sick and deranged—because her mind, her way of thinking, her chain of logic is repression: anti‑body, anti‑world. “You…