Because words always split the unsayable One into pairs, we use many names to point toward the same silent truth.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Question: bhagwan sri, why has this silent manifestation of the unknown been given different basic names like, heaven, earth, matter and consciousness? Why has the manifestation of the absolute not been given?
The man died. so did Farid. Neither the man went to Farid wit!l his question. nor did anyone hear Farid s answer. When he was on his death-bed others reminded Farid about the answer he said he already had for the man."We are anxious to hear your answer. Please tell us," They pleaded. Farid was silent. "Please tell us," they urged. "You are about to die. Let not the answer die with you." Farid said. "I am answering you. I am silent and that is my answer. If I say even this. that I am answering you with my silence a duality is created. For that would mean that it can be shown with silence and not without it. Duality is created, distinction is formed. Therefore do not make me say that I am answering with my silence. I am silent and you should understand. Raise no words." But how…
Osho, why has this silent experience of the Nameless been given dualistic names like Heaven and Earth, or consciousness and matter? Why has nonduality not been expressed?
Expression can only be of duality; nonduality remains inexpressible. So, at the most, in speaking, what can be done is two—in speech. The nearest to truth that speech can come is two—in speech. Outside speaking, only one remains. But language cannot say anything without breaking it into two. If Lao Tzu is speaking, writing, he is committing the minimum mistake possible. Nothing more accurate can be done with words. And even if we want to deny this, we will still have to use words. Then we say “nondual”—not two. Yet to say “not two” we still use the two. Even to say “not,” one has to say it. The two will follow us. As long as we make the effort to speak, the two will follow us. Leave speaking, and the one remains. You may say, “Why don’t we just say ‘one’?” But we don’t notice what happens. The moment…
O how may I ever express that secret word? O how can I say he is not like this, and he is like that? If I say that he is within me, the universe is ashamed. If I say that he is without me, it is falsehood. He makes the inner and the outer worlds to be indivisibly one; the conscious and the unconscious, both are his footstools. He is neither manifest nor hidden, he is neither revealed nor unrevealed: there are no words to tell that which he is.
II. 56. dariya ki lahar dariyao hai ji THE RIVER AND ITS WAVES ARE ONE SURF: WHERE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RIVER AND ITS WAVES? WHEN THE WAVE RISES, IT IS THE WATER; AND WHEN IT FALLS, IT IS THE SAME WATER AGAIN. TELL ME, SIR, WHERE IS THE DISTINCTION? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN NAMED AS WAVE, SHALL IT NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AS WATER? WITHIN THE ABSOLUTE, THE WORLDS ARE BEING TOLD LIKE BEADS. LOOK UPON THAT ROSARY WITH THE EYES OF WISDOM. THE TRUTH IS KNOWN AND YET NOT KNOWN -- known in a sense and not known in another -- known because we are part of it, but not known because we are not separate from it. To know something, the knower has to be separate; and yet again, to know something really, how can you know it if you are separate? This is the basic…
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, sages, buddhas, and devotees have seen the Divine in countless forms and the formless, and have given it many names in their own ways—including “the Nameless” and “neti-neti.” Is this diversity of vision dependent on the seer’s personality?
There is no diversity in vision; the diversity is in expression. What has been seen is one. Yes, what has been said is many. “Ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti”—Truth is one; the wise speak of it in many ways. The knowers have seen that One; they have spoken of it in many ways because there are many ways to speak. There are not many ways to see, for as long as a way of seeing remains, it will not be seen. Understand this. As long as a viewpoint remains, there is no vision. As long as you carry a viewpoint, a way of seeing, a pair of spectacles, you will color it; you will not see what is, you will see what you could see, what you wanted to see. You will project yourself onto it. The moment vision is free of viewpoint, vision happens. When you have no “eye”…