According to Osho, Shandilya speaks of the indescribable to signal that words are only milestones—pointers, not the path. If you clutch his statement, it becomes a stone that breeds sects and stops movement; if you understand and move on, the ‘stone’ turns into a step, lifting vision and leading you beyond doctrines toward living realization.
He used words like signposts so you’d keep walking; they become rocks only if you cling to them instead of stepping past them.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, of that which is indescribable—by speaking of it, why would a Shandilya place a stone before humanity?
And if the choice is between God and these wandering ones—let no injustice be done to these wanderers. That is why Shandilya speaks. That is why Buddha had to speak. It is their great compassion. They have not placed stones in your way; they have given the key to turn those stones into steps. And at least do not be unjust to Shandilya by making such a charge. For Shandilya is not telling you to drop affection; he is saying, purify affection—stone becomes a step. Shandilya is not telling you to drop love; he is saying, love can become a step—purify it, it becomes devotion, and you will rise. Shandilya is not telling you to renounce the world; he is saying, do not hate the world—otherwise that very hatred will become the obstacle. Shandilya does not preach dispassion-as-aversion, asceticism, grim austerity—he is opening the doors of the temple of love.…
Shandilya is answering likely doubts. He says: Someone may feel, “When everything is dropped and the Divine is found, why bring up majesty? Everything has been left—majesty too; all grasping dropped, all possessiveness dropped. If everything is dropped and union with the Divine has happened, why is Shandilya now speaking of aiśvarya?” The sutras are complete. Where the devotee has become God, the sutras should end. Such a doubt can arise. It is a valid and useful doubt. Shandilya anticipates it and answers: He says, “The need remains—because intellects are of many kinds.” These sutras are not being written for a single type of intelligence. They are written taking into account the whole range of human minds. For all, not for one class.
The eyes cannot approach it, neither can speech nor mind. We do not, therefore, know it, nor do we know how to teach it. It is different from what is known and it is different from what is unknown. Thus we have heard from our predecessors who instructed us about it. What speech cannot reveal but what reveals speech -- know thou that alone as brahman and not this -- anything objective -- that people worship here. What mind does not comprehend but what comprehends the mind -- know thou that alone as brahman and not this that people worship here.
God is not indubitable. Remember this: God is not indubitable. He can be doubted -- not only doubted, he can be disproved. And really, when someone doubts God you cannot prove his existence. You can only convince those who are already convinced, but you cannot convert a new man; that is impossible. Not a single atheist can be converted because he needs proof and you cannot prove God. God is not indubitable. He can be doubted, rejected. The whole hypothesis can be said to be false. There is no proof that can help. So Descartes goes on discussing, inquiring, and he says that unless he comes to a point, to something in existence that is indubitable.... Not that it can be proved -- no. Rather, it cannot be doubted. And ultimately he comes to the self and says that the self is a greater reality than God. It is, because…
Another friend has asked: If truth cannot be expressed in words and cannot be written in scriptures, then what is the way to express it?
Think of that man who went into that room and sat silently. What did he do? He left all words and cared only to fall silent—utterly silent. When he became perfectly silent, an answer came—not his own; it came from above, from depths; it was God’s. Let us too, for ten minutes in this quiet night, try to be silent. It is possible; there is no difficulty. We have simply never experimented—that is why it has not happened. But what has never happened may happen today; if not today, tomorrow. The possibility is always there. For those who put in a little effort, the possibility becomes a reality. What will we do here for ten minutes? Look: the night is utterly still—the trees are still, the moon and stars are still, the breezes are still. Can we not, for ten minutes, be still with them and sit quietly? There will…
Osho, but the mantra-experts would say there is some other reason for its use?
Ask the mantra-scholars about that. What I am saying here is that the new arts are making uses that are absurd. Sculptures are being made of a kind you cannot call anyone’s statue. If you want to make a statue of “man,” it has to be made so that no one’s face appears in it—because if any face appears, it becomes someone’s; it is no longer of “man.” So if you want to make a statue of man, it must not have my face, not your face, not anyone’s face. The moment there is any particular face, it becomes some person’s and ceases to be “manhood.” So we make a statue in which there is no one’s face—such a statue can be made; we imagined it would be a statue of humanity, but it won’t remain even of a single human. What I am saying is: it will not become…