Question 1:

Osho,

Meditativeness and science are difficult to reconcile.

Yet painting a picture, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem all bring the same joy. the same joy!

Why is it so difficult to be meditative and a scientist?

Why has there never been a society in which the inner and the outer sciences, the science of gentleness and love and the science of aggression and death, live in harmony?

 

 

THE VERY EFFORT TO RECONCILE THE POLAR opposites is wrong -- you will never succeed in it. It is like trying to reconcile day and night, it is like trying to reconcile life and death. You need not reconcile them, you have only to see that they ARE reconciled. Day and night are moving perfectly in rhythm; life and death are like two wings of existence.

 

Once you see that the polar opposites can't exist separately, once you have seen that reconciliation is not needed at all, that they are already reconciled, that awareness will help you to move from one pole to another without any problem. They are totally different phenomena -- polar opposites, but all polar opposites are also complementaries.

 

Science is concentration: it is mind, it is effort.

 

Meditation or religion is a totally different world: it is relaxation, it is let-go -- it is not concentration at all. It is not one-pointedness, it is no-pointedness. So how can you reconcile them? How do you reconcile work and rest? But you work hard in the day, and at night the rest comes of its own accord. You have earned it; your hard work brings rest.

 

Philosophically reconciliation is not possible: work cannot be rest, rest cannot be work. If you try to create a synthesis you will destroy both, the beauty of both. Work is work, rest is rest. But work done well brings rest, and if you have rested well in the night; in the morning you will feel so vital, so alive, so full of energy, that work is needed. Rest brings work, work brings rest -- it is a circle. Reconciliation is already there: day brings night, night brings day; life brings death, death brings life. They are half-circles; with both together the circle is perfect and complete. But please don't try to reconcile them in theory, in philosophy.

 

In existence watch, and see how polar opposites are functioning together, hand in hand, as complementaries. That has not been done yet; in fact, humanity was not mature enough to do it up to now. Everything needs a particular time, a particular maturity, in which to be done.

 

The East has lived religiously -- that is one pole -- and because IT has lived religiously it has not been able to produce science. The West has lived scientifically, and because of its science it has lost track of religion. Now for the first time, the East is no more East and the West is no more West. The earth is becoming one: the earth is becoming one. global village. This is the time when the reconciliation can be seen, can be understood.

 

Man is entering into a new phase; a new consciousness is to dawn. For at least ten thousand years, as far as consciousness is concerned, nothing new has happened. There have been Buddhas and there have been Albert Einsteins, but we are still waiting for a Buddha who is also an Albert Einstein or an Albert Einstein who is also a Buddha. The day is coming closer and closer. Albert Einstein in his last days was very much interested in meditation, in religion. His last days were full of wonder. He said in his old age, "I used to think when I was young that sooner or later all the mysteries of existence would be solved, and I worked hard. But now I can say that the more we know, the more existence turns out to be mysterious. The more we know, the less we know and the more we become aware of the vastness...."

 

Science has not been able to demystify existence. Now this is recognized not by ordinary technicians but by geniuses, because they are the pioneers; they can see the dawn very close by, they are the prophets. Albert Einstein says that science has failed in demystifying existence, that on the contrary it has mystified things even more.

 

For example, it was so easy in the old days, just a hundred years ago, for the scientist to say that all is matter. Now matter has disappeared; in neo-physics there is no entity called matter. The deeper the physicist went into the world of matter, the more matter was not to be found at all: it is pure energy. How to define energy now? Is it material? Energy cannot be material; energy is something totally different from matter. Matter is static, energy is dynamic; matter is a noun, energy is a verb. Matter is measurable. That is exactly the meaning of the word 'matter': it comes from 'measure', the root means 'measurable'. Matter can be measured, that's why it is called matter. Energy is immeasurable, it cannot be called matter. And as the physicist has entered into the world of energy, he has become more and more puzzled; never before has he been so puzzled.

 

Mystics have always been in awe before existence. The physicist is for the first time in awe, because he has for the first time touched something very vital otherwise he was just looking from the outside. A stone is just a stone from the outside. The physicist now knows that the stone is not just a stone: it contains universes. A single small pebble that you can hold in your hand contains so much atomic energy that the whole universe can grow out of it, contains so much atomic energy that the whole universe can be destroyed by it. It is not just a pebble any more and it is not solid any more. You are holding it in your hand and you know it is solid, but your knowing is no longer scientific. It only appears solid; it is liquid. And it looks so available, manipulatable; you can do things with it. But you don't know its mysteries which are not manipulatable, and the mysteries are really immense -- almost as immense as the mystery of God itself.

 

The modern physicist is using the language of the mystics for the first time. Eddington said, "The universe no longer looks like a thing but like a thought." This, from the mouth of a scientist, a Nobel prize-winner -- the universe looks like a thought and not like a thing? That means the universe is more consciousness than matter. And matter has been analyzed, our penetration has become deeper; we have come across atoms, electrons, neutrons -- and we are utterly mystified, at a loss even to express what we have come across. We don't have the language, the right language for it, because we have never known it.

 

Now the right language has to be found in the words of the mystics: a Buddha will be helpful, a Lao Tzu will be helpful And scientists ARE looking into the words of the Buddhas to find the right language, because these are the people who have been talking about paradox, mystery. And now science is coming across paradoxes.

 

The greatest paradox is that the electron behaves in such a mysterious way that the scientist has no language to express it. It behaves simultaneously as a particle and as a wave. This is impossible, inconceivable for the mind. Either something is a particle or it is a wave; the same thing cannot be both at the same time.

 

You know Euclidean geometry: either something is a point or something is a line; one thing cannot be a point and a line together at the same time. A line means many points following each other in sequence; a single point cannot function like a line. But that's now electrons are functioning -- simultaneously as a point and as a line, as a particle and as a wave. What to make of it? How to say it?

 

The scientist is dumb. Now he knows that the mystics, who have always been talking in paradoxes, who have been saying God is far away and very close by, must be saying something through their experience. The mystics who used to say that life and death are one, not two, for the first time are becoming relevant to the scientist's mind. A new science is arising which says it is a science of uncertainty. NO more certainty! Certainty seems to be too gross.

 

Mahavira, twenty-five centuries ago, used to make each of his statements with a 'perhaps'. If you asked him, "Is there a God?" he would say, "Perhaps." In those days it was not understood at all -- because how can you say, "Perhaps"? Either God is or is not.

 

It seems so simple and so logical: "If God is, God is; if he is not, he is not. What do you mean by 'perhaps'?"

 

Now it can be understood. Mahavira was using the same language in religion that is being used by Albert Einstein in physics. Albert Einstein calls it the theory of relativity.

 

Mahavira has called his philosophy exactly the same: SAPEKSHAWAD -- the theory of relativity. Nothing is certain, everything is flexible, fluid. The moment you have said something, it is no longer the same. Things don't exist, Mahavira says, but only events.

 

That's what modern science is saying, that there are no things in the world, but only events. And we cannot say anything absolutely, we cannot say, "This is so." Whenever somebody says absolutely, "This is so," he is behaving foolishly. In the past he was thought to be a man of knowledge; the more certain he was, the more it was thought that he knew. The uncertain person, the hesitating person, was thought to be ignorant.

 

That's why Mahavira could not influence the world very much; he came too early, he arrived before his time. Now is the time for him -- now he will be understood by the scientist, by the highest intelligence in the world. But he was talking to people, the ordinary masses, who could not understand his SYADAWAD -- his perhaps-ism. People wanted certain knowledge: "Is there a God?" And Mahavira would say, "Perhaps. Yes -- in one way it can be said yes, and in another it can be said no. And both are right together, simultaneously."

 

Now the time has come. Ananda Prabhu, don't try to reconcile things -- that will be a false phenomenon. Just watch, just look deep into things as they are. They are already reconciled; there is no conflict in existence. All contraries are complementaries.

 

YOU SAY: MEDITATIVENESS AND SCIENCE ARE DIFFICULT TO RECONCILE.

 

If you try to reconcile them it is not only difficult but impossible. It cannot be done. You will go mad -- the very effort to reconcile them will drive you crazy. Avoid such an effort. Rather, on the contrary, simply watch.

 

Life is paradoxical. It is already a synthesis of paradoxes; the opposites are already meeting in it. All that we need is a pure mirror-like consciousness, so that whatsoever life is it is reflected. And you will see in that reflection the meeting of the opposites: the meeting of East and West, the meeting of religion and science.

 

YOU SAY: YET PAINTING A PICTURE, WRITING A POEM, AND SOLVING A SCIENTIFIC PROBLEM ALL BRING THE SAME JOY. THE SAME JOY!

 

Yes, they can -- because art is just in the middle between both, equidistant from religion and science. Art has the qualities of both. One aspect of art is scientific, the technological aspect. Hence the scientist can paint and enjoy painting, and will have the same joy; and the mystic can also paint and will have the same joy as in prayer, as in meditation -- although both are doing the same thing, the mystic's painting will be totally different from the scientist's painting.

 

You can look: modern painting in the West is too much under the influence of technology. It has lost beauty; it is no longer helpful in bringing you to the divine presence that permeates existence. On the contrary, it simply reflects the insane mind of man. Looking at Western painting you will feel dizzy, nauseous, ill.

 

Zen Masters have also painted, but their painting is totally different. Watching a Zen painting you will feel uplifted; a feeling of subtle joy will arise in you. You would like to dance or sing or play on your flute. Zen painting comes from the other side, the mystic's side. Picasso, Dali, and others come from the side of science. Now, there is no similarity between a Picasso painting and the painting of a Zen Master, no similarity. They are two totally different worlds, and the reason is that the painters are different.

 

Yes, Ananda Prabhu, you may be feeling the same joy in painting, writing a poem, and solving a scientific problem. It is all mind. Solving a scientific problem is mind; your poem will also be more or less mathematical, logical. It will have only the form of poetry but its spirit will be prose.

 

That's why in the West poetry is dying, painting has become ugly, sculpture is no longer representative of nature. Something is immensely missing: the spirit, the very spirit of art is missing. Looking at a Zen painting you will be overwhelmed; something from the beyond Will start showering on you.

 

Have you watched a Zen painting closely? There are a few things you will be surprised to see. Human figures are very small, so small that if you don't look minutely you will miss them. Trees are big, mountains are big, the sun and moon, rivers and waterfalls are big, but human beings are very small.

 

In Western painting the human being is very big; he covers the whole canvas. Now this is not right, this is not proportionate, this is not true. The human being covering the whole canvas is very egoistic -- but the painter IS egoistic. The Zen Master is right: man is only a tiny part in this great universe. The mountains are big and the waterfalls are big and the trees are big and the stars and the moon and the sun -- and where is man?

 

Just the other day I was looking at a Zen painting. The men were so small, two small figures crossing a bridge, that I would have missed them because tall mountains and trees were covering the whole painting. But there was a note underneath the painting saying, "Please don't miss: there are two human figures on the bridge." I had to look very closely -- yes, they were there, two human figures, very small, walking hand in hand, passing over the bridge. This is the right proportion; this is a non-egoistic painting.

 

In Western paintings you will find the whole canvas covered. In Zen painting only a small part of the canvas is covered, and the remaining part is empty. It looks like a wastage: if you are going to make such a small painting, why not use a small canvas?

 

Why use such a big canvas which covers the whole wall, and just in the corner make a small painting? But the Zen people say that's how things are: "Emptiness is so much all around. The whole sky is empty -- how can we leave out the sky? If we leave out the sky the painting will be untrue."

 

Now no Western painting has that vision, that we are surrounded by emptiness: the earth is very small, humanity a very small part of the earth, and infinite emptiness all around....

 

To be true, to be existentially true, the emptiness cannot be left outside; it has to be there.

 

This is a different vision, from a different side.

 

Zen painting is not done in the Western way. In Western painting you will find that the painter goes on improving: over one coat of paint there will be another coat of paint and still another coat of paint, and he goes on improving and touching up and doing things.

 

Zen painters cannot do that; that is impossible. They use a certain kind of paper, rice- paper, on which you can make only one stroke. You cannot correct it; you have to leave it as it is. The paper is so thin that if you try to correct it the whole thing will be lost. Why is rice-paper being used? So that the mind has nothing to do -- the mind is constantly trying to improve, to make things better. It has to be from the heart, a single stroke. If your heart is full of it, it will come right. But you cannot correct it; correction comes from the mind.

 

Zen painting is never corrected; if you correct it your correction will always show that you are not a Master. It has to come out of your meditativeness, your silence. Your feeling of the moment is spread on the rice-paper.

 

Art is just in the middle, equidistant from science and religion. It can be both. It can be scientific art, as it is in the West -- that's what you mean, Ananda Prabhu. It can be religious art: you don't know anything about that yet, because before you can know anything about it you will have to know what meditation is.

 

Meditation is not a state of concentration; it is not a state of mind at all. It is a state of total mindlessness -- and not a state of sleep either. No mind, no sleep; no mind, but total awareness. Out of that awareness you bring a different quality to music, to painting, to poetry. And out of that meditativeness you can bring a totally different quality to science too. But before that can happen we will need large numbers of meditative people around the earth.

 

That's what my work is. That's what I am trying to do here: to create meditators. That is the first requirement. If we want to bring a new world vision where science and religion can meet, we will have to create the foundation first; only then can the temple be raised on it. Meditation has to be the foundation.

 

And don't try to reconcile things: just become more meditative. In your meditation is reconciliation, because in your meditation you become able to see that the contradictions are only apparent, that the contraries are only enemies on the surface but deep down they are friends. It is like two friends playing chess: on the surface they are enemies, but deep down they are friends. That's why they are playing chess -- they are friends; but because they are playing chess they are pretending to be enemies.

 

This is the LEELA of existence, the play of existence. God has divided himself into two, because that is the only way to play hide-and-seek. k is a very beautiful play if you understand it as play. Don't take it too seriously because then you will not be able to see the playfulness of it.

 

You ask me: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO BE MEDITATIVE AND A SCIENTIST?

 

It is not. To be meditative is difficult for everybody; it is not only a question of the scientist. Ananda Prabhu is a scientist. But it is the same difficulty as a businessman will feel, it is the same difficulty as the carpenter will feel. It is not just something new to the scientist. Maybe quantitatively it is a little more difficult, because his whole mind knows only one way of functioning, that of concentration. He knows only one way to use the mind: to focus it on a certain object. And meditation means remaining unfocussed, just remaining open, open for everything.

 

While listening to me you can listen in two ways. The scientific way is to concentrate -- what I am saying, concentrate on it. That means close your mind to everything else: the airplane passes by, and the train makes a noise, and the traffic on the road and the birds singing in the trees...close your mind to everything. Just let there be only a small keyhole available to me; listen only to me. That's how the scientist listens; he looks through a keyhole into existence.

 

The mystic comes out of the room, stands under the sky, utterly open to everything. That is the other way of listening, the way a meditator listens. Then you go on listening to me, and the chirping of the birds goes on as a background to it. And what I am saying the chirping of the birds cannot disturb -- no, not at all. It enhances its beauty; it gives it color, it gives it music And not only the chirping of the birds but the airplane passing by and sudden noise create more silence in contrast.

 

When the airplane has passed by, you are suddenly listening to me on a deeper level. And while the airplane is passing and the noise is there, you listen to both. You don't become disturbed. You don't say inside, "This stupid airplane is disturbing me." The airplane cannot disturb you. But if you say inside, "This stupid plane is disturbing me," your SAYING it will be a disturbance; when you are saying it you will lose track of me. The airplane cannot disturb you, but your reaction to it is bound to.

 

Listening meditatively means all that is is accepted, welcomed. In all its multiplicity the universe is received. You are simply open from all sides to all that is happening. And you will be surprised' It brings such a great silence, such exquisite silence, such profound silence.

 

Concentration tires you, meditation never tires you. But it is difficult for everybody, not only for the scientist -- because we have become accustomed to a certain pattern of looking at things. You will have to melt your pattern; you will have to become a little more liquid, fluid, and meditation will come to you. Don't be worried about it being difficult for the scientist; that idea can create difficulty. Once you have accepted the idea that it is difficult then it will be difficult. Don't bring that idea; that will become auto- hypnotic, it will become a suggestion. It is not difficult: meditation is the simplest and the easiest thing in the world. We have just become accustomed to concentration. We have been told since childhood to concentrate: from the primary school to the university we have been trained for concentration. This is a kind of habituation; it takes a little time to drop the old habit and to learn something which is not a habit but your very nature.

 

YOU SAY: WHY HAS THERE NEVER BEEN A SOCIETY IN WHICH THE INNER AND THE OUTER SCIENCES, THE SCIENCE OF GENTLENESS AND LOVE AND THE SCIENCE OF AGGRESSION AND DEATH, LIVE IN HARMONY?

 

Now the time has come. Everything can happen only at a particular time. Religion has come to its ultimate peak in the Buddhas; now science is also coming to an ultimate peak.

 

And only when two things have grown is a meeting possible.

 

A seed cannot meet a tree; the seed will have to become a tree. Only then, high in the winds, in the clouds, can they whisper to each other, can they fall in love with each other, can they embrace each other, hug each other -- can they have a dialogue. But a seed cannot have a dialogue with a grown-up tree; it is impossible. The seed will not know the language, the tree will not understand the language of the seed.

 

Religion has been in a mature state for almost five thousand years. Science is still growing, coming to maturity. Hence I say this time is one of the most precious times.

 

You are fortunate to be alive today, because something immensely great is going to happen -- and that is the meeting of science and religion, the meeting of West and East, the meeting of the extrovert mind and the introvert mind. It will create the new man who will be able to move easily to the outside or into the inside, who will be able to move easily into the extrovert world of science and into the introvert world of religion -- just as you move outside your house into the garden and back into the house. It is not a problem; you don't need any reconciliation. You need not make a great effort each time you come out of your house onto the lawn -- you simply come out! It is feeling cold inside, and the sun is beautiful and warm outside: you come onto the lawn, you sit on the lawn. Later on when it becomes too hot you simply move in because there is coolness inside.

 

Just as easily as you come out of your house and go in, a total man will be able to move into science and religion; the inner and outer will both be his.

 

Carl Gustav Jung has divided human beings into two: the extroverts and the introverts.

 

His categorization is relevant for the past but will be utterly useless for the future, because the future man will be BOTH together. In the past, we have always been categorizing in this way, but the future man will not be a man and will not be a woman. I am not saying biologically -- biologically the woman will be a woman, and the man will be a man -- but spiritually the future man will have as many feminine qualities as the woman, and the woman will have as many masculine qualities as the man. Spiritually they will never be labeled as man or woman any more. And that will be the real liberation -- not only the liberation of women, but the liberation of men too: liberation from straitjackets, liberation from imprisoning categories, liberation from all labels.

 

Man is not going to be Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian; man is not going to be Indian, German, English; man is not going to be white or black. Not that colors will disappear -- the white man will be white and the black will be black -- but these will become irrelevant, trivial, meaningless; they will not be decisive. The new man will have a universal consciousness, and the foundation will be laid by the meeting of science and religion.

 

- Osho, "Be Still and Know, #1, Q1"