Why did Meera and Socrates have different experiences with poison despite both being intoxicated with love and knowledge?

Osho, both the love-intoxicated Meera and Socrates, who knew himself, drank poison. “Pivat Meera hansi re!”—drinking, Meera laughed! But Socrates passed away. Why? Kindly explain!

Umashankar Bharati, It only proves this much: even in Meera’s time, things didn’t come pure. The poison was adulterated—hence “Pivat Meera hansi re!” And in Greece, where Socrates was given poison, it was poison indeed. Socrates did not laugh. That wasn’t India. Here, everything is adulterated. Mulla Nasruddin wanted to die. He bought poison, drank it, and lay down to sleep. He kept thinking, “Now I’m dead, now I’m dead…” He opened his eyes again and again—same room, and his wife snoring beside him. What’s the matter? Eleven struck, twelve, one, two. He pinched himself to see whether he was alive or dead. The pinch hurt—clearly alive. He grew very puzzled. Then he felt like urinating. He said, “This is the limit—dead already, and I still need to pee! I thought once I died I’d be rid of all these hassles.” He held it for a while, but couldn’t. He…

Someone is asking, Osho, what is the reason that Meera did not die even after drinking poison? What kind of devotion was that? What kind of love? The same is said about Prahlad—that he did not burn in fire. But why did Socrates die after drinking poison? And why did Jesus not survive the crucifixion?

Meera sees the whole world as nectar, as Krishna. She must have seen the poison as Krishna too and drunk it, tasting the very rasa of Krishna in it. In such a state, the poison has no effect. It remains untouched; it cannot reach Meera. And if a hand does not blister even when a live coal is placed upon it, the scientific point is settled: Prahlad too can be saved from burning. It is a question of inner state. No God is standing there saving Prahlad—that is a story, not science. If some God were going around saving this one, instructing that one, and blocking poisons, what a complicated racket that would be! No God is sitting and doing all that. It is Prahlad’s inner state. His trust is absolute that he will not burn, that God will save him. Whether God is saving him is not the question.…

Osho, last night you mentioned the case of a man who saw visions of krishna and thought he was advanced, while you said he had not yet taken the first step. How does one know how far along one is? Are not visions and other psychic phenomena supposed to be indications of high spiritual development? If not, then what are some of the indications?

There can be visions, and they can be indicative of advanced states. But with one condition: the more advanced you are, the less you feel that you are advanced. The more you move towards being Enlightened, the less there is the ego which says, "I am enlightened." Spiritual advancement is a very humble progress. So one thing: visions can be indicative of higher states, but only if you feel more humble. If you begin to feel that you are advanced, that shows another thing: that those visions are not spiritual but simply projections of the mind. So this is the criterion. If you have really seen Krishna in visions, you will be no more if this is authentic. If really this is a realization, you will be effaced completely. You will say, "Krishna is and I am not." But if you are strengthened by this vision, you are not effaced.…

Osho, at least this much the incident certainly shows: there is no supreme authority.

“The second possibility: I will remain—I will go beyond death. Then also there is no reason for sorrow; whatever I went beyond was not truly me, otherwise I could not have remained. So in either case—Socrates remains, or he does not—be happy. And if there is a third possibility, we do not know it; it can only be known by dying. I am fortunate—I am dying, and I will have the chance to know. I am dying in complete awareness, in full understanding.” When the poison was being prepared outside, Socrates lay down with his friends around him and kept sending word, “See—he is taking too long grinding the poison.” The man grinding it said, “You are mad! I am delaying so you may live a little longer. You are such a good man.” Socrates replied, “Foolish fellow! If we are not ready to welcome what is coming—if we cannot…

Osho, are the deaths of meditation and of love different? Are their processes different as well?

Death is one and the same—whether through meditation or through love. But the processes, the paths, the methods that lead to that death are different. Through meditation, the same thing happens: you disappear. Through love, the same thing happens: you disappear. The dissolving happens in both cases, but the ways are very different. In the first stages of meditation, you do not vanish. At that stage, what is false in you is burned away and what is true is preserved. The inauspicious is removed; the auspicious is kept. Impurity is burned; purity is protected. Thus on the path of knowledge or meditation one begins to be purified. One does not disappear; one becomes refined, yet one remains. In the final leap, the refinement reaches a point where even purity appears impure. Where mere being appears impure, there, in the last jump, the meditator snuffs himself out. The devotee snuffs himself…