They see truths as pictures, not numbers, and because the sky keeps changing, their messages need translation to look like science.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Why has the meditator who has gained the capacity for vision and subtle sight on the fourth plane -- and many have attained this stage -- not been able to reveal the knowledge of the moon, the sun, the earth and their movements, as the scientists have done?
Another thing to note is that psychic force has infinite dimensions. It is not absolutely necessary that a person who has attained the fourth plane should know about the moon. It is possible he is not interested to know; he may not consider it worth knowing. Such persons were interested in knowing other things -- things which were more valuable according to them -- and they have completed their search in these directions. For instance, they were eager to know if spirits were an actuality or not -- and they have known. Now science has discovered that spirits are there. Those who had reached the fourth body were eager to know where people go after death and how. Those who reached the fourth plane had hardly any interest in the material world. They did not care about the diameter of the earth. To expect them to be interested in such…Read the full discourse →
Question: Osho, you said that when the faculty of imagination and dreaming is transformed in the fourth body, one attains divine vision and farsight. We don’t really know how many people have reached this fourth body. And as you said, science too has developed up to the fourth stage. If that is so, then why did those who reached the fourth body not report their findings about the very things science is discovering today? Why did they not express them? A simple point: today someone who reaches the moon can describe it, but no one who has reached the fourth stage, anywhere, in any country, has been able to give an exact account of that state. The moon is very far away, yet such a person could not even tell us accurately about our own earth—whether the earth goes around the sun or the sun goes around the earth! Understood!Read the full discourse →
Osho, in yesterday’s talk you said that a seeker should first be concerned with becoming a vessel, and should not go about begging from place to place. But the very meaning of a seeker is that he has obstacles in practice. He doesn’t know how to become a vessel, how to prepare. So if he does not go asking, what should he do? How difficult it is to meet the right guide!
But searching and begging are two different things. In fact, the one who does not want to search is the one who begs. Searching and begging are not the same; they are opposites. He who wants to avoid searching begs; a seeker never begs. And the processes of searching and begging are entirely different. In begging you have to keep your attention on the other—the one who will give. In searching you have to keep your attention on yourself—the one who is to receive. It is true that there are obstacles on the path of the seeker. But if we understand rightly, saying there are obstacles on the path of the seeker means the obstacles are within the seeker; the path too is within. And to understand one’s obstacles is not very difficult. So we will have to speak a little more extensively on what the obstacles are and how…Read the full discourse →
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,…Read the full discourse →
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…Read the full discourse →