Will we be outside this law?

Osho, you said, “You are free—now, here, in this very moment”; but how do I get free of this “I”?

This is the marvelous principle of destiny, of fate: everything is happening by itself. The wrong people took it in the wrong sense—that was their mistake. Properly understood, fate means only this: if you understand the principle of destiny rightly, you become a witness, and there is nothing to do. But people did not become witnesses through fate; they became inert, indolent. There is a difference between a non-doer (akarta) and an idler (akarmanya). The idler is lazy, sluggish, dead. The non-doer is overflowing with energy—he simply does not say, “I am doing.” The Divine is doing. I am only seeing. This play is happening; I am watching. Man is very dishonest; he uses even the most beautiful truths in ugly ways. Fate is a very beautiful truth. It means only this: everything is happening; nothing is happening by your doing. All is ordained. What has to be, will be.…

Another friend has asked: if it is true that I come to rest in non-doing, settle into the Purusha, stop in the witnessing within my consciousness—then, as Krishna says, whatever conduct then occurs carries neither loss nor gain, no sin and no virtue. That friend has asked: when all my wanting has fallen, desire has dissolved, and when I have known my Purusha, then how will any conduct happen at all? When I have come to rest in my soul, how will any conduct happen?

This is worth thinking about. This question will arise, because all the conduct we know is born of desire. You walk because there is somewhere to reach. If someone says there is nowhere to reach—then walk as much as you like—you will say, Why would we walk? If walking has no meaning, no purpose, no reason, why walk? We are not mad to walk without cause when there is nowhere to get to—no urge, no desire, no destination. We act out of some craving. So the friend’s question is perfectly valid: when craving itself is gone, and it is understood that action is just an acting-out; when it is clearly seen that there is nothing to attain and nowhere to arrive—then what does Krishna mean by saying, “Let whatever conduct happen; then there will be neither rebirth nor any karmic result of conduct”? Why would conduct happen at all? This…

Therefore do not raise the entanglement of karma at all. If you ask Ashtavakra, 'You say liberation can be this very moment—what then of actions? We have done sins across many births—what then? How to be freed of them?' Ashtavakra says: you never did them. Because of hunger the body may have done something; because of prana, prana may have done something; because of mind, mind may have done something—you have never done anything. You are always unattached; you abide in the non-action. Action has never been yours; you are the witness of all actions. Therefore liberation can be this very moment. Consider: if we have to break the entire web of actions, perhaps liberation could never be. Impossible. In beginningless time how many actions have we done—try doing the accounting. If we must be freed of them all, it will take an infinite time.

Osho, you have explained karma-sannyas to mean renunciation of action. But in the previous sixth verse, karma-sannyas was said to mean the renunciation of doership in all actions. Please clarify the apparent difference between these two meanings of karma-sannyas.

Buddha used emptiness; Hindu thought used destiny. It said everything is in the hands of the Controller. Some unknown power sends you and the same calls you back. Since we are nothing, why strut about? Why be troubled? There is the Divine—leave it in His hands. Then the doer becomes zero. When we are not the ones doing, whatever He wills, He gets done; if He doesn’t will it, it is not done. The one who surrenders himself completely—his doer is lost. - A third path: to know That which is within us. This is Krishna’s path—to know That which is within. It is also Mahavira’s path. We keep saying “I, I, I” without even bothering to find out who this “I” is. What is it? We never trace it. Enter within. Before you say “I,” find out clearly whom you are calling “I.” The deeper you go within, the…

Osho, you said... then you will find that the devotee is God. The question arises: if one devotee prefers to be God and another wants to remain only a devotee, then which of the two is superior?

The one who wants to be God will not be able to be. And the one who wants to remain a devotee will become God. The question of superior or inferior does not arise, because only one of the two will happen. The one who does not want to be will be. The one who wants to be will be deprived. That very wanting is of the ego. But the matter is a little delicate. Sometimes humility too belongs to the ego. Beware that your humility may not be of the ego. Perhaps you are saying, “No, I don’t want to be,” because you know that those who refuse are the ones who attain. Then you are clever. Then your humility is adulterous. Your humility is not pure, not sacred, not virginal—it is like a prostitute. The one who wants to be God, whose ego says, “I must become God,”…