Sankhya

Osho, I have understood a little of Sankhya, but it has not become an experience, so questions naturally arise. Osho, is jnana-nishtha, that is Sankhya, and karma-nishtha, that is Yoga, each complete in itself? Or are they complementary to each other? And why do they seem to be in opposition? Please explain this.

There is no opposition between Sankhya and Yoga; but the direction of Sankhya that is suitable for one person will be unsuitable for him when it comes to Yoga. For whom the direction of Yoga is suitable, the direction of Sankhya is unsuitable. There is no opposition between Sankhya and Yoga, but in this world there are two types of people, two basic types of temperament. Therefore, for some, Sankhya may be completely wrong and Yoga absolutely right; for others, Yoga may be entirely wrong and Sankhya absolutely right. There are two kinds of people in the world. Carl Gustav Jung has made two broad divisions of people. One he calls extrovert, the other introvert. One is outward-going; the other inward-going. For those who are introverted, Yoga is not of any use at all. For the introverted, Sankhya is sufficient—more than sufficient. For those who are extroverted, Sankhya will not…

OSHO, on the first day you said that karma-sannyas is the path of the inward-turned person, and desireless action (nishkama karma) is the path of the outward-turned person. But people find that sometimes they are extroverted and sometimes introverted. In this situation, please explain how a person can decide precisely whether he is inward-turned or outward-turned.

So the extrovert concludes, “Religion is not for me. My fate doesn’t include it. The mind never becomes silent; nothing reveals within; I simply can’t go inside. I must be suffering the fruits of past karmas.” Not necessary. You are suffering a misunderstanding. You haven’t seen clearly that you are extroverted. If you are extroverted, the religious form must be entirely different for you. You need a religion that can use your outward-running energy. For the introvert, meditation; for the extrovert, prayer. Notice: meditation and prayer are very different paths. Meditation is the religion of the inward-turned; prayer is the religion of the outward-turned. In meditation, even God has no place. Meditation means utterly alone—alone, and alone—reaching the point where only I am, nothing else remains. Prayer means God; not one, but two. Ultimately, prayer arrives where only God remains and I am not. The fruits are the same, but…

Osho, you have just shed light on attachment. Along with that, in the Gita Krishna speaks of two things: sannyas from action—meaning the renunciation of doership in all action—and nishkama karma—doing action with the equanimous intelligence of sameness. So what is the relation or the difference among non-attachment, karmasannyas, and nishkama karma? Please say more about this.

Anasakti yoga—non-attachment—is the root. And this yoga of non-attachment is the third angle; from this angle two angles of life unfold: not-doing while doing, and doing while not-doing. Call one karmasannyas, and the other nishkama karma. Nishkama karma means not-doing while doing. Even while doing there is no craving to do, no insistence on doing; even while doing, non-doing has arrived. Then there is neither sorrow nor hurt; even if no result comes from the doing, there is no despondency; even if all that was done gets undone, there is no pain. That is nishkama karma. Let me open this a little more. Doing while not-doing—this is subtler still. This is what I call sannyas. Doing while not-doing: “I do nothing, and yet...” I come to your door to beg; if you have stolen and you live on stolen bread, you give me stolen bread too. If a person is…

Osho, a part of my earlier question remained to be taken up. It is this: by combining Shankara’s supermoralism and Tilak’s activism, do you think the Gita would be complete? Because the supra-morality you speak of is what Shankara speaks of, not Tilak. Tilak is intensely moralistic. And the engagement you speak of is what Tilak speaks of; Shankara does not—he follows the path of renunciation (nivritti-marga).

A dead sum is only the complete total of its parts. A living whole is a little more than its parts. Consider yourself: if we calculate all the constituents of your body—how much iron, copper, aluminum, salt, water, phosphorus—we could list it all. In a human body, at best there are only a few rupees’ worth of materials; most of it—perhaps ninety percent—is just water. If we were to put all this on paper, add it up, the sum would be complete. But you would not be in it. Everything would be there—except you. Because you are a living person, something more than that sum. You are within the sum, yet you are not the sum. The total can be complete, and yet you will be absent. Krishna’s life-vision is an organic unity. A thousand commentaries have been written on its many facets. Ramanuja says one thing, Shankara another, Nimbarka…