Contradiction

You are always contradictory, as you say. Does that mean you always change your mind?

If I had a mind I would not be contradictory. Mind is a computer. No computer ever contradicts; it gives always the same reply, it is always consistent. My state is of a no-mind. The mind is there for utilitarian purposes; for example, I am using it now to answer your questions. But my own being is beyond the mind; it is a state of no-mind. I contradict because life goes on changing. If you ask me in the morning I will say, "It is morning"; if you ask me in the evening, do you want me to say it is morning just to be consistent? I will say, "It is evening." I say only that which is the case. It does not matter whether it contradicts anything said in the past. When it was said, it was absolutely true for the moment; what I am saying this moment is…

Osho, today I shall ask about contradiction. To me, sir, this issue has been very confusing. Socrates cleansed the system by advocating democracy; over time Aristotle’s attitude shifted toward changing the system. I agree with your view that our future organizations will be organizations of love, not of domination. But I must admit, sir, that to run a government—whether of small units or of work organizations—we will have to frame a code of conduct which checks the malpractices of bad elements and keeps the system sound. May I have, sir, the details?

Large nations are antagonistic to this; they obstruct. They too call for international government, but what they mean is to dominate—to become the international government themselves. The call for internationalism is very old, and it has come in two kinds: Alexander and Genghis Khan too wanted an international government—one world under their rule. But that could not be; the very feeling was wrong. In that way, an international government can never be formed. It will arise on the basis that the units are small—so small as to be negligible in terms of power—and thus able to unite and come together. Therefore the nation must go. In the future, there can be no place for nation-states. There will be small towns, small districts, small clusters that wish to associate. Those small clusters will organize themselves; they can manage within their small bounds. They will have no great power. Their administrative thread…

Usually I an "this way" or "that way'.' but for some time I have experienced all kinds of contradictions, simultaneously. I see women as objects of worship, and at the same time I lust after them. I am content to let life flow, and I am afraid of the future. I crave to be alone, and I crave to be always with people. I feel bizarre because these contradictions all seem equally real and true. Is there anything to be understood or done about this?

The false man cannot jump to the enlightened state; hence I teach the real man, but the real man is not the goal. That's why my work goes beyond the Encounter ideology, Gestalt ideology. The Gestalt ideology or the Encounter ideology stops at the real man. Good. Better than the unreal. But not enough. Something has yet to happen. I use Encounter groups, Gestalt groups, and all the therapies that have become available in the West. They are perfectly beautiful; they bring you from the first, false state to the authentic, real state. But my work goes beyond them. But I can go beyond only if you have gone through the second stage. From the first there is no way, from the false there is no way, to enlightenment; only from the real is there a way. You will have to go through the ecstasy of the real and the…

Osho, for some twenty years you have been speaking to us, and many of your statements contradict one another; yet, remarkably, to this day you have never taken back a single statement nor felt the need to revise any. And all your statements have now become public property. Are you doing this knowingly, and is there some secret behind it? And is there not the danger that, in time, people will doubt that all these statements could be from one and the same enlightened master?

That’s how a Muslim is a Muslim—he has grabbed the Qur’an’s statements. A Buddhist is a Buddhist—he has grabbed Buddha’s. A Jain is a Jain—he has grabbed Mahavira’s. I don’t want to leave statements behind for you to grab. I want to leave you in the statementless, the ineffable. I will say everything and take it all away. Give with one hand, remove with the other. One day you will understand that this empty state—when nothing remains in your hands—is the state of truth. The moment you grasp, you are grasped. The grasper is captured by what he grasps. The one who clings to statements becomes sectarian. The one who lives in the statementless is religious. Then he understands all statements and is possessed by none, defined by none. “Your many statements contradict one another. But surprisingly, you have never taken back a single statement.” There is no need to.…