Why does unlearning seem even more difficult than learning?

Osho, Why does unlearning seem even more difficult than learning?

A scholar is an egotist—supremely so. He may think, “I am very humble.” He may even display humility: “I am the dust of your feet.” But look into his eyes—he is saying, “See how humble I am! Is there anyone more humble than I?” And if a scholar says to you, “I am the dust of your feet,” and you reply, “Brother, that much we know—you are worse than the dust of our feet,” watch how angry he gets! He’ll buzz with rage: “What did you say?” And if you say, “We’re only affirming what you yourself said,” know that he never said it to be affirmed. He said it so you would protest, “No, no—dust of our feet? You are the peacock-plumed crown! You are the diadem! You are the Kohinoor diamond! Dust of our feet? Never! It is your humility that proves you are our crown!” Three Christian…

Beloved Osho, there is a sannyasin of yours who is my friend. He has been in your divine satsang for many years. The other day, in the course of conversation, he said to me, "I have not yet learned even the first lesson given by Osho!" I said to myself, "this man is telling my own story!" is this a symptom of our foolishness? Or is this kind of learning very hard? Or is it that in reality we don't want to learn the lesson?

If you are getting prestige and position, and deriving pleasure in it... what happens when the position is lost? And these positions are going to be taken away, otherwise how will others get them? If they were not snatched away, then how did you get them? You only got the position because it was taken away from someone else. So the taking away and the getting will continue. If your position brings you happiness, then when it is taken from you you will contract and suffer. Today glory, tomorrow shame! Today people are singing your praises, tomorrow they will be criticizing you. They too cannot sing your praises forever -- they get tired. Criticism becomes necessary. And remember, one who has praised you a lot, he will have to put you down. He will grow tired of singing songs in your praise. When he sang them he selected all that…

Beloved Osho, I feel that through developing an attitude of endurance towards difficulties, I have become resigned to much of life. This resignation feels like a weight pushing against my effort to become more alive in meditation. Does this mean that I have suppressed my ego, and that I must find it again before I can really lose it?

If you are simply ignorant because you never attained to any knowledge, your ignorance cannot be wise, it cannot be wisdom -- it is simply absence of knowledge. And the hankering will be inside: How to gain more knowledge? How to gain more information? When you know too much -- you have known the scriptures, you have known the past, the tradition, you have known all that can be known -- then suddenly you become aware of the futility of it all, suddenly you become aware that this is not knowledge. This is borrowed! This is not your own existential experience, this is not what you have come to know. Others may have known it, you have simply gathered it. Your gathering is mechanical. It has not arisen out of you, it is not a growth. It is just rubbish gathered from other doors, borrowed, dead. Remember, knowing is alive…

Osho, one of your sannyasins is my friend. For years he has had the blessing of your sacred satsang. One day in conversation he said to me, “I have not yet even learned the very first lesson God gives.” In my heart I said, “Ah, this man is speaking my own truth.” Is this a sign of our stupidity? Or is this wisdom itself extremely difficult? Or is it that we simply never want to learn this lesson?

The difficulty is that this game cannot be played with God, because God has no opposite that could help you define Him. The boundary of your house is formed by the existence of another’s house. If you alone were on the earth, how would you draw a boundary? A boundary requires the other, the opposite, even an enemy. With God there is none other—no “other” can be said, no adversary. Therefore God cannot be forced into the categories of duality. Visitors come and ask me, “What is the definition of God?” I say, “There is none.” They reply, “Then there’s no further discussion to be had.” They are right. If a term cannot be defined, what is there to discuss? For this reason many modern Western thinkers say words like “God” are meaningless—since they cannot be defined, how can they have meaning? In the West a major movement has arisen…

What is the difference between waiting for godot and waiting for god?

It is as if the sun has risen in the morning and you are sitting in your room with closed doors and windows, in darkness. Open the doors, you become available to the sun. The sun was already available -- just the meeting happens. You cannot wait for God. All waiting is for Godot. Godot means the one who never comes, who CANNOT come, whose arrival is impossible. And the only impossible thing is that which has already happened -- how can it happen again? You are alive, and you are waiting for life, Now, this is ridiculous. The real man of religion does not think in terms of God. He thinks in terms of life or, even better, of living -- because life can again become an abstract idea. Living, moment-to-moment living. In that very living, one knows what God is, because one knows who one is. Your idea…