Will understanding come through indulgence, or can it also come without indulgence?

A friend has asked: Osho, yesterday you said that to know anger completely, one must experience it in its totality. Then how is one to know lust completely? Because the experienced say that lust is never satisfied; the more you indulge it, the more it grows. So how can one go beyond lust?

Surely there is an inherent purpose. And it is this: even these saints could not have been born without lust. They too went beyond only by passing through the experience. They too entered it and found it to be futile. That realization of futility is precious—and it comes only when it happens in your own experience. So do not be in a hurry. Do not rely on borrowed experience. That does not mean you tell the experienced, “You are wrong.” You should simply say, “We do not yet know. We wish to enter and know for ourselves what this lust is. We will know it fully. If it turns out to be wrong, that very knowing will bring liberation. And if it turns out to be right, then there is no need for liberation.” One thing is certain: whoever has known rightly has become free. And another thing is also…

Pragya has asked: “You and all the saints say the same...”

I don’t know about all the saints, because among your so‑called saints most are not saints at all. Out of a hundred of your saints, perhaps one is a saint; the other ninety‑nine are as sick as you are—and often far more chronically sick. But you understand the language of those ninety‑nine, because they speak the language of your disease. The one who is a real saint—you don’t understand his language. I am choosing to speak about those few, those one‑in‑a‑hundred saints, so I can sift for you who the real saints are. There are too many non‑saints; they’re not worth counting. I keep speaking on saints. They are not many. Your “all saints” are not saints—and certainly Pragya’s “all saints” cannot be. For her, those she calls saints will be the sick and deranged—because her mind, her way of thinking, her chain of logic is repression: anti‑body, anti‑world. “You…

Osho, just as the word "renunciation" can be misleading, the word "indulgence" can also be misleading, can't it?

That is exactly what Manik Babu says: anything can be misleading. That is not the question—anything can be. But if even here a choice has to be made, I say it is all right if indulgence misleads; I even recommend that. If the choice is between indulgence and renunciation—both capable of misleading—then I say let indulgence be the one to mislead. I say this because indulgence is a sign of life being healthy, simple, and spontaneous. And here is the curious thing: the person who sets out to indulge will, little by little, find renunciations becoming inevitable—however misleading indulgence may be. As he descends into experience, the possibilities of larger enjoyments open up, and renunciations become unavoidable. But the one who sets out to renounce will lose the possibilities of the old enjoyments, and the new possibilities will not arise. He will go on drying up. It is true: overeating…

Osho, you have said that one must pass through the experiences of the world. People like me became sannyasins without passing through life’s sun and shade. Kindly tell us what will happen to us?

First of all, my understanding of sannyas is not against the world. So by joining my sannyas you are not stepping out of life’s sun and shade. On the contrary: the world is only sun, sun—now you have included shade as well. By joining my sannyas you have not left the world; you have gained sannyas. Understand this well. The world was nothing but blazing sun; now I have given you the shade of sannyas too. When you have the strength, walk in the sun; when you are tired, rest in the shade. I have given you meditation; I have not made you drop the world. I have given you something; I have not taken anything away. Therefore, the possibility of experience has increased for you. If you had remained only in the world, you would have only the world’s experience; now you will also have the experience of sannyas.…

Isn't tantra a way of indulgence?

But Tantra is not indulgence at all. The repressive people have always thought that Tantra is indulgence; their minds are so much obsessed. For example: a man who goes to a monastery and lives there without ever seeing a woman, how can he believe that Saraha is not indulging when he lives with a woman? Not only lives but practises strange things: sitting before the woman naked, the woman is naked, and he goes on watching the woman; or even while making love to the woman he goes on watching. Now, you cannot watch his watching; you can see only that he is making love to a woman. And if you are repressive, your whole repressed sexuality will bubble up. You must start going mad! And you will project all that you have repressed in yourself on Saraha -- and Saraha is not doing anything like that; he is moving…