Socratic Method

Can you tell us why, as an admirer of socrates, you don't practice the socratic method of dialogue?

Dialogue is possible between two blind men; they can discuss ad infinitum about light without coming to any conclusion. Dialogue is impossible between two persons who can see light: the dialogue is unnecessary; light is the experience of both. The third possibility is that one man may be able to see light, and the other may be blind. What kind of dialogue do you think is possible between these two? Socrates was not an enlightened person -- a great philosopher, a great logician, but not an enlightened person, not a man with eyes. Gautam Buddha has no dialogue; he knows, there is no question of discussing it. You can sit silently with him. Even in his silence there will be a communication. Or you can ask him a question and he will respond spontaneously. No enlightened person in the whole world has ever used Socrates' method of dialogue. That's the…

Beloved Osho, are we moving into the socratic dialogue form of discourses now? But I detect an essential difference. Socrates said: "know thyself." you have said: "let go thyself!"

I have been dragged into a court because I used to live outside a city where there was a Mohammedan cemetery, and people used to come there to meditate. The Mohammedans came to me again and again, saying that "This is not good; your disciples are disturbing our sleeping ones." I said, "Why? How can they disturb?" They said, "They go on saying, `Hoo, hoo.' Even a dead person feels like getting out of the grave to find out, `Who is this fellow?' " I said, "We cannot change it. And moreover it is really the last part of ALLAH-HOO. It is a Mohammedan mantra!" They said, "You are very clever, but we have never heard of ALLAH-HOO. ALLAH is okay, but HOO?" I said, "You can do anything you want to do. If your ghosts come out of their graves, it is our problem, we live here. We will…

Osho, you have titled this series of talks “Sahaj Yoga.” Do “sahaj” and “yoga” not seem mutually opposed?

Anand Maitreya! They don’t just seem opposed, they are opposed. But no ultimate truth of life can manifest without contradiction. Life is made of opposites—darkness and light, day and night, woman and man, negative electricity and positive electricity, birth and death. The very structure of life is woven of opposites. Hence the opposites are not only opposed; they are complementary to each other. If you have labored hard all day, you will be able to sleep deeply. Labor and rest are opposites, yet only the one who has worked can rest deeply—and the one who has not worked cannot. So the opposites are not only opposed, they complete each other. And only the one who has rested deeply at night can rise in the morning and engage in work again. One who has not rested through the night will not be able to work in the morning. Look closely at…

Beloved Osho, in plato's 'the symposium' socrates says that, "a man who practises the mysteries of love will be in contact not with a reflection, but with truth itself. To know this blessing of human nature, one can find no better helper than love."

Milarepa, I have been commenting my whole life on love, in thousands of different ways. But the message is the same. Just one most fundamental thing has to be remembered, that is: it is not the love that you think is love. Neither Socrates is speaking about it, nor I am speaking about it. The love you know is nothing but a biological urge, it depends on your chemistry and your hormones. It can be changed very easily, by a small change in your chemistry -- and the love that you thought is the ultimate truth will simply disappear. You have been calling lust, love. This distinction should be remembered. Socrates says, "a man who practises the mysteries of love...." Lust has no mysteries, it is a plain biological game. Every animal, every bird, every tree knows about it. Certainly, the love which has mysteries is going to be totally…