OSHO: Science and the Inner Journey


100 comments

  1. totally agree – scientists brilliantly study the world around them making awesome discoveries – while tending to dismiss the human mind as something they aren't capable of studying…. meditation is the same as observation one makes in a lab, only in meditation the lab goes with you wherever you go!

  2. the notable thing here is: he is not rejecting science, as science rejects him. For he speaks the truth – and truth is always both opposites. And not so the science

  3. I am a scinetist, very aware of dialectiscs, and i have a great respect for many of Osho's teaching.

    But i'm not convinced of the part where he tells that if there is an author, there must be an inner. I experienced the power of meditation. But his logic here is not right towards my understanding.
    He is not afraid to contradict himself, and so he does as i learned from him that my subjective conscience can be seen objectively, with practice even by itself.

  4. I can cut down a conscience to its compounds. The subjective can be viewed on as objective as the stone is used t build a wall. Using the right meditation you can find your subjective self in the same way you see the outer.

    Opposites are not fixed, they may become the same according to circumstances. That is what dialectics told us.

  5. its an interesting mental construction I also had some time ago but its very dishonest with your experience. You dont only think, you actualy see your thoughts and your life. What is hapening to you when you say that is that you are bothered or amazed by some type of mental framework that engloves the knowledge you have been taugh -as was my case- by society that seems to fail to reach those same conclusions. this veil is incredibly thin. dont think of soul in relation to any atributes

  6. if you are honest you wont find answers youll find reality as the truth. And the mind wont know what to do with it. It will seem helpless and not smart.. But you can still use it to make planes, play "go", and all that 🙂

  7. You feel beter if you know but knowledge is only electrical storms in your brain as you said. it has limitations but the part of you who sees is not bound the same way. if you are watching this you probably already know all this ;P

  8. get use to it. life is not logical. logic is not = light = good = god = hapyness = …
    sorry to have to tell this to you.

  9. first of all, there was a man first ant later he invented the computer so how can u say we are advanced computer?
    i agree with all that action/reaction and electrical storm thing, but this is just a data about our physical body and its chemic reactions…im not saying that there is something more just cuz i want to worship smth… i say so cuz i have experienced smth more… how can u deny inner experience wihtout being in that state? have u ever experienced a meditation?

  10. There is no side!! Science explains fisical, chemical ….process and then you have spiritual process.

  11. @youngking1686, There are no "sides", there just "IS". You're applying methodology to explain a side, but the method you use is not applicable to the "inner" which itself is unmeasurable. In scientific terms, it's like for example you're attempting to use trigonometry to define Quantum Entanglement. The two methodologies are entirely incompatible, and therefore only confuses you. Meditation is the key to accepting the disparity here, if first you can accept the possibility of the inner.

  12. because atoms are arranged in billions of different ways into complex and simple molecules that form the world we live in.

  13. First of all he is starting his argument on the false premise that scientists only observe objects which are the outer reality.The whole subject of psychology consists of observing and experimenting with the inner world ie thoughts, concepts etc.Science studies all phenomena whether they are internal or external.

  14. You're absolutely correct. What about the math – none of it exists in the real world to be observer and yet people have invented it by the act of thinking. There's nothing mystic about it. Nothing which can't be explained – unlike religion, which pretends to be able to explain everything, while denying one's right to question it.

  15. @Vega88beats he is practising his lizard meditation, in which one learns to not blink. i have tried it myself. one time i went so deep i actually turned the same colour as my carpet. like a kind of camouflage mechanism.

  16. @BurntCatMedia That creative force is what people call God. I call it Life Force, Universe or the Creative Mind- some people call the phenomenon God- it is the word that differs- otherwise the belief is the same. 🙂

  17. I respect this person deeply for the amunt of thought he seems to put into each sentence he speaks, but I believe that the "inner" is essentially also an objective if you only strive deep enough to investigate it. Inner consciousness seems as far as we know only to be chemical reactions in our brains. I think that it is important to know these phenomenon not just from a subjective perspective, but from an objective one also.

  18. @TheStigma. Dear chemical reaction, your opinions seem very objective to me. Subjective and objective Greetings (from another chemical reaction).

  19. @TheStigma
    I used to think that way too, until I realized that there is no basic unit to reality. For there to be a basic unit of reality, it would have to be indivisible, which is logically impossible. The ion potentials are not the smallest variables affecting the brain. Reality is infinitley divisible, that is the only logically possible reality. The concept of an objective reality is a fallacy. Reality is a bottomless pit, 'inside' all of us is the infinite. Reality is subjective…

  20. Este caballero hablar cosas que ni el alcanza a procesar completamente :S

    Sigue el razonamiento de una explicacion irracional para que una masa de gente o la gente, le de razon.

    PESIMO – MALO – BAD.

  21. @TEARDUCTER

    in short, yes. many drugs can be used in this way. However you cannot compare meditation to a drug, each are unique experiences.

  22. @zatoichiable there is nothing exoteric here… osho studied philosophy and is helping people and even therapists to find themselves…

    thats it. esotheric is different, esotheric is bullshit to be honest…

  23. Hey.. but he seys that 'there' (in me) is emptines, so: there is nothing, and scientist are right, and he is right; there is no difference.
    So, why he is talking about emptines (about 'inner') like about something which is not empty, but full? ;]
    And: the best methotology for the inner is philosophy ;]

  24. @TheStigma if this phenomenon is only chemical reactions, how can we know it from both a subjective perspective and an objective perspective. Why can't a computer know the inner by detecting chemical reactions in the brain

  25. Osho meets science on its own terms…and then tells it about it's own mistakes… that is truly inspired and inspirational. Thank you Osho – much love and gratitude

  26. So basicaly scientists are fools for only believing claims that have been empiricaly proven and dismissing those that haven't? Nobody claims that subjectivity is an object, that doesn't even make sense, it's like saying water is not an elephant.

  27. @incognito509b His meaning of emptiness is totally different than what scientists mean when they get the conclusion that there is no soul.
    Osho have said many times that what is within cannot be expressed by words.It is both empty and full and all kind of terms can be used to describe it and those words would still be wrong.It is something unique that can only be lived and cannot be talked about.

  28. It's great how he made the distinction between inner and outer. Study is for the outer, meditation for the inner. As we can't build a house by meditating, we can't understand consciousness through science.

  29. What Osho's saying has a very high degree of rigor. For him, scientists are fools because they lack a methodology for operating outside objects, making science incomplete.
    Now, if you want to define empiricism as something which operates with objects or as something which has a methodology, it's up to you, just don't mix them up.

  30. I think Osho is wrong in several points about how science understands the human mind, but I respect his psichological perspicacity.

  31. may be scientists are subjectively unconscious…..they need to think how their bodies had formed when they are in the womb….obviously some consciousness had made them.

  32. As a materialist, I think consciousness is just a manifestation and effect of complex formations of matter in the brain.

  33. The world should learn a lesson. If we all slow down and become silent we can learn a lot rather than rushing everywhere.

  34. don't want to judge him, just want to listen him….feeling the power in his word….that gives…the experiance of being free..from something….

  35. Os papas, cardeais, bispos, padres e toda a escória religiosa de todas as religiões, são os principais culpados de toda ou quase toda a pobreza, fome e miséria do mundo, e os verdadeiros protectores e seguranças de poderosos e ricos do Planeta…

  36. If osho was alive today,half of the population would have come under his spell…so he was killed by the nations..

  37. I'm a scientist and pure mathematician but science and math per se can not explain everything about the existence. It's a simple common sense but not a sign of humility.

  38. How many of you were cutting gemstones while listening to this video and freaked out when he mentions cutting a stone? Lol

  39. A beautiful mind in an awakened energy is this authentic mystic master: at the very least, a genius! Osho is a true treasure.

  40. A very clever man,very funny,very carismatic,but ultimately a fake guru,a power obsessed man very far from being illuminated,who died in shame…….. I cant believe so many people think is any thing more than a glorified crook

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published