But then life cannot have joy. It will be only a long drawn, dragging affair. And deep down you will be waiting for death to come and release you from all this nonsense, from all this meaningless turmoil – this tale told by an idiot, full of fury and noise, signifying nothing.

If science succeeds in destroying the mysterious totally from the world, man is bound to commit suicide sooner or later. One can only live joyously and with a dance when poetry surrounds you, and one can live with immense rejoicing when God is felt. But these things are not for clear understanding. Those who insist on clear understanding, they are asking for mathematics, not for music, and certainly not for mysticism.

You have to learn how to drop this insane desire to reduce everything to clarity. What are you going to do then with clarity? You will be stuck with it. Ask for those things which are essentially unclear – essentially, I say. That means they can never be clear. Then you open up to love, then you open up to beauty, then you open up to God.

And life blooms only when it is rooted in the mysterious. I teach you the mystery of life, not a clear-cut understanding of it. I lead you deeper and deeper into the world where you can also enjoy being muddy like Lao Tzu.

The second question:

Osho,
Jesus said, “Whoever is not with me is against me.” Now the question arises: is the same statement true in connection with you? Or could there be a third way – not being against you but not being able to follow you?

Pit Kortenhorst,

The statement made by Jesus apparently looks like that of a fanatic. It is not. Just one word you will have to change and it will be immediately understood. Jesus says, “Whoever is not with me is against me.” Change one word to truth and things will be very clear – and that is Jesus’ meaning: “Whoever is not with truth is against truth.” Then there is no possible third way.

Jesus is not speaking as a person, he is speaking as truth. He says, “I am the way, I am the door, I am the truth.” Jesus is just a revelation of truth. When he says ‘me’ he does not mean it in the same way as when you say ‘me’. He has no ‘me’ – the ‘I’ has disappeared long before, and the ‘me’ is only a shadow of ‘I’. When there is no ‘I’, no ego, there is no ‘me’. But he has to use the language that you use; there is no other way, it can’t be helped.

But what he is saying is, “Whoever is not with truth is against truth.”

And you ask me: “Now the question arises: is the same statement true in connection with you?”