Why should my happiness depend on my attunement with nature?

A friend has asked: Osho, whether I move in deepest attunement with nature, in the outermost attunement, or even against it—in all three situations nature is equally pleased; I am completely free to choose any one of them. Then why should my happiness differ among the three choices?

There will be a difference, because each leads to a different experience. Consider: the earth has gravity. You walk along the road; if you walk upright, you don’t fall. You are free—you can also walk crookedly and fall. Gravity will not say, “Don’t walk crookedly.” Walk askew, fall, your leg breaks—there is pain and trouble. When you fall sideways on the ground, the same gravity is at work; it was at work when you were walking, too. No difference. The same law functions—impartially. If you err in walking, or choose wrongly, you will be hurt. Choose rightly, and you will not be hurt. What does happiness mean? Happiness means: in accord with the law. Unhappiness means: against the law. The law is neutral. You drink poison—nature will kill you. You are ill; you take a dose of poison—the illness dies and you become healthy. Even water, if you drink too…

Another friend has asked, Osho, if the soul leaves the body, can it also enter another dead body?

It can. But there is no meaning or purpose in entering another dead body. Because that body died precisely because the soul living in it had become incapable of remaining there. That body had become useless; that’s why it was left. There is no purpose in entering such a body. Still, the possibility of entering another body does exist. But it is not a valuable question to ask how to enter someone else’s body when we don’t even know how we are sitting in our own. What benefit can we gain by pondering the futile idea of entering another’s body? We do not know how we ourselves entered this very body. We don’t know how we live in our own body. We have no experience of separating from our own body and seeing ourselves. There is no purpose in entering another’s body. Yet, scientifically one can say it is possible…

Beloved Osho, you have said that when the self surrenders, the whole existence then protects. Then why was the fakir who could see the formless everywhere, or who could feel the presence of godliness everywhere, murdered by the english soldiers?

It appears like murder to you, but not to him. You see it as murder because you are under illusion. He saw only the divine in that spear; he saw that the death was a meeting with the divine. Existence protected him in the sense that even death did not seem like death to him. Death became the door of the ultimate bliss. To you it seems that he died, he was finished. When the Ganges flows into the sea, to you it seems that it is finished. But ask the Ganges: it will say, "I have disappeared and thus become the sea." The Ganges will say, "The fear of annihilation was there before but now it has disappeared. Before this I was very narrow, bounded by the two banks. I could have been finished. I was limited so I could have died. But now I have become unlimited, now…

Do they simply have to be endured? They do have to be endured. So his freedom is not license. There is a deep check upon it. He is free in that he can act contrary to nature. But whatever consequences arise from acting contrary—painful ones—he will have to endure them.

This kind of man is not what we ordinarily call a “seeker.” The seeker we speak of is usually a reaction to the householder. If the householder runs a shop, the seeker does not; if the householder earns wealth, the seeker renounces it; if the householder marries, the seeker does not. But his rules are derived from the householder—he is only a reaction. Lao Tzu says, “I am no one’s reaction. It does not matter what others do. I neither follow anyone to do as he does, nor go against anyone to do the opposite. I let happen what arises from within.” Allowing nature to happen means not imitating anyone, not copying anyone, not building one’s personality in opposition to anyone. Whatever can happen from within, whatever wants to happen—we allow it. No obstruction, no condemnation, no opposition, no struggle, no conflict. Let what happens, happen. This means dropping notions…

Osho, is sadhana a natural development, or is it a leap beyond nature’s evolutionary process and its transcendence? If sadhana is not an overstepping leap beyond natural growth, then will the whole of humanity, within the cosmic process, arrive on its own at spiritual heights? And if evolution always moves forward, why did the great ancient spiritual cultures recede from the evolutionary current?

There are many strands here. First: the moment we separate man from existence and look at him as apart, these questions begin to arise. For example, heat water to one hundred degrees and, at that point, it “leaps” and becomes steam. Water becoming steam is a natural event. Its heating is also natural, not unnatural. Heating is natural; the leap into steam is natural. If nature did not contain the law that at one hundred degrees water can jump into steam, water would have no way to become steam. If nature did not contain the potential to heat to one hundred degrees, water would have no power to reach that heat. Even so, if water had consciousness, it could save itself from fire—or it could put itself on the fire. That too would be a natural happening: to save itself or to offer itself—both. My point is: in this universe…