Why is there a revival of traditional ancient scriptures?

Osho, you are always immersed in bliss—what is the secret of it? When will I be able to attain this ecstasy?

Yogananda, I have given you the name Yogananda; the whole secret is in it. A human being can live in two ways: either cut off from existence, or in oneness with it. Whoever lives separate will live in sorrow—anxiety and anguish. That is natural, for to live apart from existence is like a tree pulling its roots out of the earth and trying to live. It will wither; the leaves will droop, flowers will cease to bloom. Spring will come and keep coming, but that tree will never become a bride, never a bridegroom. For it there will be no spring. If the roots have been torn from the soil, what remedy can even the honeyed month of spring offer? Then where is bliss, where is ecstasy! Then there is no dawn—only a dark new-moon night, a night with no morning. Such a life is called ego. And the tree…

Osho, a question arises in my mind. Last night you said some things about the scriptures. It seemed to me that whatever you say could also be found in the scriptures. And what you are saying is itself gradually becoming a scripture. And what you say about the scriptures will apply verbatim to what you yourself have said as well. One who can see will see it here too; one who cannot see will not see it here either. And one who can see will also see it in the ancient scriptures, while the one who cannot see will not see it there either. Then there remains no purpose in criticizing them.

If this much becomes clear to us, then you will see I am not condemning scripture; I am stating the factual situation of scripture. And what you say is right: much of what I say will be found in the scriptures—not because it is there, but because you will have understood me. If my words have been understood by you, you will find them in the scriptures, because in scripture you will find only what your understanding is. Whatever your understanding is, that is what you will find—because we project our own understanding into scripture. Ordinarily we think that understanding comes out of scripture. It does not. We put our understanding into the scripture. That is why a thousand commentaries on the Gita are possible. If understanding came out of the Gita, how could there be a thousand commentaries? And if Krishna had a thousand meanings, then Krishna’s mind must…

Osho, why does pratikraman—the return home—feel uneasy, difficult, almost impossible to us?

Hence whenever a living Master appears, those who uphold old scriptures become his opponents, because because of him people begin to set scriptures aside. When scriptures are set aside, the pandits are set aside, the whole business is set aside. It becomes hard. The pandits become enemies. Then when this Master dies, the same pandits who were his enemies gather at the cremation ground—to offer homage. They then make scriptures out of him. Their enmity was with the living, not with scripture. So they themselves make the scriptures. It is amusing: Mahavira was a Kshatriya, but all his ganadharas were Brahmins! Strange—what is this? The moment Mahavira died, the Brahmins rushed in: “Good opportunity—now we can make scriptures again.” At once they set up scriptures. Jainism got constructed. Now if once again someone brings living religion, the scholars, the pandits, the worshipers of scripture, are in trouble again; their business…

Osho, awakened ones, considering place, time, circumstance, and the era-appropriate psychology of people, have expressed the same truth in very different forms. To the point that they appear mutually quite disputatious and even contradictory. Is an absolute expression of the ultimate truths of life and existence not possible? Will the limits of the age and the condition of the people always continue to be imposed upon truth?

Expression will always be limited. Expression will always be relative. The speaker and the listener—both create the boundaries of expression. I will say only what can be said. You will understand only what can be understood. Truth is vast. If I go to see the ocean and you say to me, “On your way back, bring a little of the ocean,” I will not be able to bring the whole ocean. I may bring a little water from it. But in that water much will be missing. There will be no storm of the ocean, no waves. And that was the real ocean: that tumultuous roar and fierce thunder! Waves crashing against cliffs! Those surges rising and spreading for miles! That swell! None of that will be there. I will bring a vessel filled with a little ocean water. Still, there will be something! If you taste it, it will…

Osho, you said that scriptures and religious texts are of no use—except after enlightenment. Please explain this clearly. It is generally held that after enlightenment there is no need for any scripture.

When Buddha first attained enlightenment, he came to Kashi. He stayed under a tree outside the city. No one knew him then, no one recognized him. He was an insignificant, unknown, unfamiliar beggar—a bhikkhu. The king of Kashi, much troubled and anxious one evening, went out in his chariot for some air. As he left the town, the sun’s rays were slanting; Buddha was sitting, leaning against a tree, sunlight on his face. The king said to his charioteer, “Stop, stop! This man is something extraordinary—so luminous, so peaceful! I have never seen eyes so full of music, so full of joy! Stop; let me go near him a little.” As when you pass a garden brimming with fragrance and you feel like pausing a while; or when, parched by the sun, you come under the shade of a great banyan and feel to rest awhile—so it happened to that…