Most people want quick power and rewards, but Lao Tzu asks us to drop all that for deep peace, so only a few choose him.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Question: bhagwan sri, from lao tzu's elucidation of the original advaita mono-theist philosophy, it is clear that he had attained the supreme knowledge. Then why is it that very few people followed his philosophy and tread on the path he showed? Is not this failure to gain followers, a bitter criticism of his view-point? And if many followed aristotle, is that not the proof of the excellence of his science? Please enlighten us on this.
It is Man's bad luck that he does not live on the mountains. He lives on the plains and therefore the wisdom of the peaks get lost and forgotten. Then after a long time someone comes along and brings them back and they appear new. These sayings of Lao Tzu are a few of the supreme statements that Man has given before. They are the statements that are on the boundary-line, the very last words that can be spoken. And Lao Tzu stands tottering at the verge of this boundary-line, beyond which is the realm of No-Word. Lao Tzu speaks from this ultimate boundary-line. So he alone can understand him, who has reached this boundary whereas those who have not do not understand him. This is no fault of Lao Tzu. Then there are a few things which you will not understand until you have experienced them. If we tell…
Osho, from the exposition of Lao Tzu’s nondual philosophy it is clear that he had attained supreme knowing. Then why is it that only a handful in the world have taken his vision of life as their guiding light? Is this very lack of acceptance not a harsh criticism of his standpoint? And does the wide adoption of Aristotle not prove the excellence of his science? Please throw light on this!
These statements of Lao Tzu are among the finest ever uttered by man. He stands on the last frontier where nothing more can be said—beyond is silence. On that ultimate boundary he says a few things. Only when someone reaches there can he understand; if he does not, he cannot. In that, there is no fault of Lao Tzu. And there are some things you will not know until they become part of your own experience. A small child—if you tell him things that are not part of his experience—will hear like a deaf person; he will forget. They will not even be imprinted on his memory, because only that is imprinted which matches experience. Our experience must resonate somewhere. What Lao Tzu says does not match our experience anywhere. That his book survives at all—is that not something! His words do not meet our experience anywhere. Lao Tzu says:…
You said there are only two types of people: those whose path is awareness and those whose path is surrender or bhakti. It seems to me that lao tzu has nothing to do with either of them -- is there a third type then who follow neither or both?
Yes, there are two types of people, two types of persons. Humanity is divided into two types: the male and the female, the yin and the yang, the negative and the positive, the aggressive and the passive. These two types of people both live in illusion, in a sort of dream, a kind of sleep; drunk with desire, blind with desire. The person who belongs to the male type needs some path upon which he can exercise his will; that will suit him. Finally, a day will come when by this exercising of his will, by and by, he will start understanding that he is engaging in a futile effort. But he will take a long time to understand this. He will have to fall many times, and he will again stand, and he will again make efforts, and he will again be a failure because the will cannot succeed.…
Banish wisdom, discard knowledge, and the people shall profit a hundred fold; banish 'humanity', discard 'justice', and the people shall recover love of their kin; banish cunning, discard 'utility', and the thieves and brigands shall disappear.
If we try to measure Buddha against Einstein, his value will be less. If both are for sale, who will buy Buddha? Anybody would buy Einstein for he would be useful in making bombs. Buddha would only create confusion. No one will buy him. Buddha can only be bought when people understand the meaning of value, and not the price. Then the flowering of Buddha would have value. He is a person in whose life existence has flowered. If we set aside his utilitarian value, Einstein will appear to be an ordinary man, like any other. What Einstein could do was of value. What he is, is of no value. Hence he is a pauper. But when it came to doing, he is a king. Buddha is rich in his being; there is no question of his doing anything. He is established in non-action. Says Lao Tzu: "Because non-action is…
Lao tzu says: my teachings are very easy to understand and very easy to practise, but no one can understand them and no one can practise them. In my words there is a principle. In the affairs of men there is a system. Because they know not these, they also know me not. Since there are few that know me, therefore I am distinguished. Therefore the sage wears a coarse cloth on top and carries jade within his bosom.
Have you watched children? Have you told them stories? You tell them a story and the next day they are again asking: Tell us the same one again. You feel bored, but they are asking for the same story again. If you tell it to them, and if they are not feeling sleepy, they say: Once more! Tell us the story again! Because the number of times you tell it does not make much difference. They don't become knowledgeable. They don't gather dust. They remain clean, their mirror remains fresh. Again, some day it can happen that you are sitting with a man who is very boring. You are perfectly bored; then you.turn on the music and that same symphony starts filling the room. You have heard it many times but suddenly now again it is enchanting. It has a magic. What has happened? That boring man was creating so…