Astrology

Osho, Paltu Das says, “All auspicious ascendants and muhurts are false, and they even spoil the work.” And astrology says that by choosing an auspicious ascendant and time, the chances of success increase...?

Astrology is a pursuit of the worldly mind. No spiritual person goes to an astrologer. It is the worldly man who goes to astrologers: “We must do the ground-breaking for a new house—find a lagna-muhurt; we’re opening a new shop—find a lagna-muhurt; we’re inaugurating a new film—find a lagna-muhurt; my son’s getting married—find a lagna-muhurt.” The worldly man is afraid: “What if something goes wrong!” And there is reason for fear—everything is going wrong; so the fear is that even more might go wrong! That is how he is stuck: “May nothing else go wrong!” He is frightened. Out of fear he tries every possible safeguard. And he forgets the One from whom true safety can come. That is exactly what Paltu is saying: the One on whose support all becomes right—you don’t remember Him. Instead you arrange everything else: you ask for auspicious timings. With simple trust, with faith,…

Question: A friend has asked: Osho, do you teach atheism? Would the man who wants to save people even from learning theism teach atheism? I teach neither theism nor atheism. I teach neither belief nor disbelief. I say: remain free of belief as well as disbelief, and search in freedom. Do not be bound by partisanship. Seek impartially—there are two sides. And remember, opposing sides are two faces of the same coin. There is not much difference between them. The theist and the atheist are two faces of the same coin. There isn’t much difference: one is the back of the same thing, the other its face. Reason is a very fragile realm. I am not saying, “Cling to belief.” The believer says, “We have reasons, arguments.” The disbeliever also says, “We have reasons, arguments. We say there is no God, no soul.” I am not speaking for either.

Osho, do you believe it is in everyone? I do not believe. There is no need to believe. It is in all; it needs to be seen—there is no need to believe.

One last thing. Let me give you a sutra: whoever accepts on belief that it is in everyone will never come to know. Belief will become a barrier; belief has no meaning. Why believe at all? If it is seen, fine; if it is not seen, fine. At least we should declare the truth: that I do not see it. There was a fakir, Sarmad. In Islam it is uttered like a sacred mantra: There is only one Allah, and there is no Allah other than Him. There is only one God, and there is no God other than Him. But Sarmad would say only half. He would not say the whole. He would say: There is no God. The first part is: There is only one God; other than Him there is no God. Sarmad would utter only the last fragment. He would say: There is no God. Aurangzeb…

Osho, is this also a science? Science—the supreme science! But ordinarily, in relation to religion, it is understood to be belief, faith. In my view, that is a misunderstanding. To me, religion too is another kind of knowing. And whatever principles religion has have issued from someone’s knowing, not from someone’s belief. Therefore my constant emphasis is: do not believe—try to know; and the day you know, believe that day. The acceptance that comes through knowing is called shraddha—trust; and the acceptance that comes without knowing is called belief. Shraddha is the ultimate state of knowi

Therefore, when I have said, “Do not believe in transmigration, do not believe in reincarnation,” it does not mean I am saying that transmigration does not exist. It also does not mean I am saying that reincarnation does not exist. I am saying only this: once you believe, the search stops. Try to know. And knowing happens only when right doubt is present. If you assume the opposite, even then doubt disappears. If I assume that there is no reincarnation, the search stops. If I assume that there is reincarnation, the search stops. Search is in suspension. I know neither that it is, nor that it is not. So I set out to find what is, so that I may know it. I take a religious person to be the deepest of inquirers; there is no search deeper than that. But those whom we ordinarily call religious, I do not…