According to Osho, he would gladly accept a Dutch TV debate, provided it is a forthright, face-to-face encounter with competent, relevant opponents—such as the archbishop or the prime minister—whose views he challenges. He rejects token panels or lightweight sparring, insisting on uncompromising, plain-spoken truth. For him, debate must be meaningful, direct, and with those in real positions of influence.
Yes—but only if it’s a straight, no-nonsense debate with top people he actually challenges, not a superficial TV panel.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
I would love to see you in a direct debate with people who oppose what you are saying. Would you accept an invitation from dutch television when you come to holland?
I would love to. But the debate has to be really direct, and you have to choose people who are capable of debating. Ask the archbishop there, ask your prime minister there, because they are the people I am speaking against continually and it would be good to have an encounter face to face. But don't bring pygmies to me. I am a simple man; I simply call a spade a fucking spade.
Beloved Osho, you have said many times that a dialogue is not possible through debate. But shankara announced his universal victory and defeated innumerable intellectuals in a debate on the meaning of the scriptures. After the defeat they had to become shankara's disciples. Please explain what kind of debate on the scriptures this was.
Shankara agreed to debate with Bharati. But he found he could not reply to the questions asked by her, because she did not ask any question regarding Brahma or knowledge of Brahma. As he had already defeated Mandan on that topic. She had understood from the debate with Mandan that it was useless to talk to this young man about Brahma. She thought "This young-looking person is actually a very ancient being." And Mandan certainly knew more than Bharati. That is why Bharati had fallen in love with him, married him, and was looking after him. She had seen him defeated by Shankara on the subject of Brahma, so she asked Shankara questions regarding sex. Shankara was young. He was thirty years old and was unmarried. He found himself in a difficult situation. He said, "I want six months' time to reply to these questions because I am unmarried and…
You wanted to challenge the pope to a public debate during his last travel to india, but it didn't happen. Why? Particularly on which points did you want to contest with the pope?
Not only had I challenged him for a public discussion on fundamental questions of religiousness, I had opposed the Hindu chauvinistic people who were opposing him. I was the only one in the whole of India who raised his voice to say that the pope should not be opposed in such a way, that this is ugly. The better and more human way is to invite him respectfully to public debates, wherever he goes. India has thousands of years' experience in argumentation. There is no problem in arguing about fundamental questions, but throwing stones, shouting, screaming, protesting... All these are ugly things. I hope the pope will remember, when I come to Italy, that I was the only one who was opposing the people who were opposing him in these inhuman ways. The fundamental questions I want to discuss publicly -- amongst his own people, in his own citadel, in…
Question: BELOVED OSHO, ARE YOU THE WORLD TEACHER? I am not even a primary school teacher, and you are asking about being a world teacher. But this foolish idea of being a world teacher is very ancient in India. Shankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha, Nimbaraka, and hundreds of others down the ages have claimed that they are the world teachers. Strange: they have never gone out of their small states, not even all over India. They don't know anything about the world, but they are claiming they are world teachers. The world knows nothing about them, the world has not accepted them; how can they be world teachers? But they had found a logical basis for it, and they had all agreed upon it.
Osho, you have titled this series of talks “Sahaj Yoga.” Do “sahaj” and “yoga” not seem mutually opposed?
Anand Maitreya! They don’t just seem opposed, they are opposed. But no ultimate truth of life can manifest without contradiction. Life is made of opposites—darkness and light, day and night, woman and man, negative electricity and positive electricity, birth and death. The very structure of life is woven of opposites. Hence the opposites are not only opposed; they are complementary to each other. If you have labored hard all day, you will be able to sleep deeply. Labor and rest are opposites, yet only the one who has worked can rest deeply—and the one who has not worked cannot. So the opposites are not only opposed, they complete each other. And only the one who has rested deeply at night can rise in the morning and engage in work again. One who has not rested through the night will not be able to work in the morning. Look closely at…