Emptiness and Fullness

Osho, Buddha insists on emptiness and Shankara on fullness. They each marshal weighty arguments and debates for their respective positions. They know the Truth, the Divine. Even so, why do they refute the other and extol their own? And you support both at once—why is that?

Death is just as divine. Night is as much God as day is. One aspect had been missed; there had been too much talk—only talk remained; the air was smoky with words; a web of words had been woven. A fresh expression was needed; the Divine was in search of a new word with which to knock again on the hearts still untouched by the stupidity of scholarship; to call again to those who are innocent, guileless, simple. Buddha caught hold of “emptiness.” It was a significant word. Consider: Buddha and Mahavira were born in the same era. Yet Buddha’s impact was unprecedented; Mahavira’s was not. Buddha’s thought spread across the world; its waves went to far horizons. Mahavira’s remained limited, reaching only a few. Both are equally wise. Both have the same experience. Both are mighty. One is not superior to the other, neither is behind. Then why did…

Osho, could Shankara’s maya mean not falsehood but changeability?

You can assign any meaning you like. But Shankara calls change itself false. What Shankara is saying is precisely this: that which is not the same forever is untrue; that which was one thing yesterday, is something else today, and will be something else tomorrow—this is mithya, the unreal. In Shankara’s definition, change is the very synonym of falsehood, and the unchanging the synonym of truth. For him, truth is that which is eternal—eternity itself—what simply is, as it is, without ever undergoing any change and in which change is not even possible. What does this imply? It means that what was one thing a moment ago and becomes something else a moment later—what does that mean? It means what it was a moment ago, it truly wasn’t; and what it becomes a moment later, that too it isn’t—because in the next moment it will be something else again. That…

Osho, Lord Buddha used to tell a story. A man met a tiger in a field. He ran. The tiger chased him. He reached the edge of a terrifying ravine, with no way forward. Grabbing the root of a wild vine, he hung down into the chasm. The tiger came up and sniffed at him from above. Trembling, the man looked into the ravine and saw another tiger below, waiting to swallow him. Meanwhile two mice—one white and one black—began gnawing the root of the vine. And just then the man spotted a ripe, sweet fruit. Holding the vine with one hand, he plucked the fruit with the other. How sweet it tasted! Osho! Pl

The story is older than Buddha, but the way Buddha used it is entirely his own. Both meanings are worth understanding. The story, in its original form, is the essence of Hindu thought. But Buddha wrote over it with a bold, new ink—and the entire meaning changed. Buddha’s interpretation is unique. First, let us understand the Hindu perspective. It has its own validity. Then we will also see how the same symbol can become a foundation for two different visions. Change the way of seeing, and what is seen also changes. The world is in our vision, not in things. As the seer is, so the world appears. Hindu thought rests on the idea that the world is maya—illusion. The pleasures found in it are momentary, not true. Now they are, and in the next moment they are not. Death erases life—indeed, every moment it is erasing it. The white…

Question: Fifth question: Osho, why are you bringing love into Buddha’s emptiness? Therefore I am using both together. The pundit has ruined the Full, the pundit has ruined the Empty. Now there is only one way: we use both at once. Perhaps the pundit will not be able to grasp both together. Because to him it will seem contradictory, incongruent. What I say will seem to the pundit contradictory, inconsistent. For pundit means logic. He will say: either say the Whole—then surely you are an Upanishadist; or say emptiness—then surely you are a Buddhist. I am no -ist at all. I have seen that the door of emptiness leads into the temple of the Whole. And I have seen that whoever would enter the temple of the Whole cannot go by any gate other than the door of emptiness.