Origin of Life

Osho, I am a scientist working on the question of how life originated from non-living matter. It seems to me that this study of how non-life is transformed into living matter is vital to understanding the relationship of science to religion. The reason is that the study is a clue to how our emotions and spirituality developed in the first place. What do you think?

Now, what kind of answer is this? But this is the answer of a mystic, not the answer of a scientist. The scientist will try to prove, will answer WHY he believes; he will argue. But Tertullian simply says, "Because God is absurd, hence I believe. I believe in the mysterious, in the miraculous, in the unanswerable, in the unknowable." If you have any interest in religion... and you can be both! I am not saying that a man who is a scientist cannot be religious -- a man who is a scientist can be religious -- but then he will have to create a dialectics in his own being. He will have to be very conscious. When he is working in the lab he has to forget all about religion; religion should not interfere in his scientific work. And when he leaves the lab and sits in his meditation…

Put mindstuff in such inexpressible fineness above, below and in your heart.

CONSIDER ANY AREA OF YOUR PRESENT FORM For a logician, knowledge must be expressible -- that which can be known can be made known to others, there is no problem. If you have known it, then where is the problem? You can make it known to others. But the mystic's knowledge is not of thoughts. He has not known it as a thought, he has known it as a feeling. So really, it is not good to say, "I know God." It is better to say, "I feel." It is not good to say, "I have known God." It is better to say, "I have felt him." That is a more accurate description of the phenomenon because the `knowledge' is through the heart it is like feeling, it is not like knowledge. PUT MINDSTUFF IN SUCH INEXPRESSIBLE FINENESS.... Mindstuff, consciousness, CHITT, is inexpressible. If a single thought is moving, it…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, ISN'T A SYNTHESIS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION NEEDED? Only what I call religiousness can be an intrinsic part of science. But that is not a synthesis because there is not antithesis. To me religion is really one aspect of science. Science has two hands. Now nobody tries to synthesize my right and left hand. They are synthesized, they are continuously synthesized without anybody synthesizing them; they are always in tune. While you are walking do you synthesize your left and right leg, keeping alert so that you do not commit some mistake? I have heard that in an army regiment a captain was training the new recruits and he was saying, "Left turn, right turn, march." And then he said, "All of you raise your left leg." Everybody raised his left leg.

Osho, what do those people mean who say that, so that there is no explosion, one should search within with a subtle, refined vision...

But the effortless awakening I speak of—once it arrives, there is no question of its departure, because you did not bring it; it came. Gradually you and awakening are not two; you are the awakening. You did not make even anger “the other,” so how would awakening be “other”? It becomes you. There is no question of its return. Whatever we have truly known cannot be unknown. You cannot undo knowing. Yes, what we have merely learned by rote can wobble. But what is known—like a child who comes to know love; once he knows, he cannot un‑know it. Knowing becomes part of you; it cannot fall away. Reading four books about love is different; that can be forgotten. Through the experiment of awakening, whatever happens in us reveals itself gradually. Awakening is not something that comes from outside; it is your inner being uncovering itself. If it were an…