Literature

Osho, when you give examples, why do you draw them from Western literature?

No, no—there are several reasons. The examples I give are not chosen with the idea of whether they are Indian or Western. I choose an example according to the point I am trying to explain. If the example happens to be Western, and you can suggest an equally apt one from India, I’m open—do you see my point? I use an example to clarify something; where it comes from doesn’t concern me. For me there is no West, no India, no East— the whole world is one. To make something clear, I use whatever is the most fitting, the most excellent. If someone tells me there are better Indian examples than the one I used, let them tell me—I will gladly use those. And when I do give an Indian example, it’s because, for that purpose, it is the best; otherwise I don’t use it. Look at any example I…

You have asked in passing: what if one reads good literature? You ask—if one reads good literature, will that be right nourishment or not? Because to watch films is bad nourishment; to read trashy literature is bad nourishment. But if one reads good literature?

If someone concludes, “The soul exists, therefore what is there to gain?” he will ruin his life. This is mere talk—borrowed logic. You have heard others say the soul is within; then you have concluded, “If it is within, what is there to gain?” This is your trick to avoid awakening. In that sentence are two people’s conclusions, not one. “The soul is”—this belongs to Mahavira, to Buddha, to Krishna. “Then what is there to gain?”—this belongs to you. If the first is also yours, then there is no problem. If the first is another’s, you cannot draw your conclusion from someone else’s experience. Your experience will give your conclusion; another’s cannot give it to you. So you are using a device. You are tacking on your half to someone else’s half—only to show that you do not wish to wake up from your sleep. You want life to go…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, YOU SAY THAT MIND'S SUBSTANCE IS MEMORY AND INFORMATION. DOES READING THEREFORE INFLATE AND INVIGORATE THE MIND? Prose is logical, poetry is illogical. Prose is linear, it moves in a straight line. Poetry is not linear, it is circular, it moves in circles. Prose is for ordinary things and ordinary experiences. There are experiences which cannot be expressed in prose. Those experiences need poetry. Poetry means a more liquid form. Poetry means a more singing, dancing, celebrating form. All great scriptures are poetry; even if they are written in prose they are poetry. Poetry can be written in prose and prose can be written in poetry. So it is not a question only of linguistic form -- it is a question of its very essence. So when you read the Koran, don't read it -- sing it!

Beloved Osho, you have told us that the mind becomes more and more quiet if we meditate regularly. Last year, when I was living in europe outside of a commune, thoughts became stronger and stronger during my meditations until I began to dread sitting. Now that I am with you again, this problem has gone away. But I wondered: how can one be a sannyasin for ten years, meditating every day, and have a mind which becomes more and more noisy?

Scientists say there is no reason for the body to die for at least three hundred years. It is just an old hypnosis, autohypnosis, which has made the idea prevalent that you have only seventy years to live. It goes so deep in your consciousness that by the seventieth year you start thinking you are sinking, you are gone. And anyway by the time you are retired at the age of sixty there is nothing to do. Death seems to be a relief, not a danger. We have not been capable enough and human enough to provide a situation where our old people can have some dignity, some self-respect, some pride. We have not been able to find dimensions where they can contribute to the world. And they are experienced and certainly capable of contributing enough -- enough for their self-respect, enough for them to live and not to feel…