Action

Another friend has asked a question similar to the first: Osho, Lao Tzu emphasizes non-action, and Krishna emphasizes action. Is there any contradiction between the two, or are they the same?

These are two poles. Lao Tzu does not say, “Don’t act.” He says: act, but as if you are not doing it—rather, it is happening. Just happening. As breathing goes on; don’t take it, don’t release it deliberately—let it flow. So with life. Slip into non-action; let whatever action happens, happen. Krishna says the same, from the other pole. He says: act—don’t run from action—but drop the doer. Drop the feeling, “I am the one who is doing.” The divine is the doer. In Lao Tzu’s vision there is no place for God as a separate agency, because even pointing that much creates duality. Lao Tzu says: even to say, “God is the doer,” changes nothing—you have simply relocated your ego into God. A doer remains—if not you, then God. Lao Tzu says: there is no doer at all; action is happening. This is a little difficult. It is easier…

Then at noon a friend said, Osho, you say we should do nothing. Then what should we do? Do not accumulate knowledge, no devotion and worship, no turning the rosary and chanting mantras—then what should we do?

He had thought the king would panic. The opposite happened—the youth panicked. The king lifted his hands to the sky and said, O God, the man I was waiting for has come. How many days you pointed the way—at last he has arrived. Embracing the youth, he said, You go inside; I will go out. And these clothes too—I’ll leave them; I’ve worn them long and am tired of them. Now I would like to go naked. The youth was alarmed. Wait! Wait a moment—let me think a little more. What is this? Why are you so eager to run? Why such impatience to leave your things? The king said, Don’t ask, don’t think. Life is long—think slowly. After all, I too reached here thinking over a lifetime. How can I tell you so quickly, and how will you understand? You go in; I go out. Life is long; you…

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,”…

He says: "lao tzu stresses inaction, whereas krishna lays stress on action. How do these two theories compare and contrast?

We all are capable of deceiving ourselves; we are great adepts at this art. We are very clever at deceiving ourselves. We will run away and then philosophise, "It is happening. I am not the doer. I am only the witness." If a man in the same mental state as Arjuna runs away, he is responsible for his actions. In fact, it is the sense of doer-ship that makes him think that he would be committing a sin by killing his near and dear ones. Therefore, he should run away. Krishna stops him from running away and explains to him that this feeling that 'I am doing' is wrong. If Arjuna had reached the stage where his ego had dropped, and then, if he had laid down his bow and arrow and walked away, Krishna would have been the last person to stop him. But then, that going would have…