OSHO, IS TRUTH A DISCOVERY OR AN INVENTION?

OSHO, IS TRUTH A DISCOVERY OR AN INVENTION?

Neither.
Once, when commenting upon Isaac Newton's statement that 'the purpose of the scientist is to sail the oceans of the unknown, and discover the islands of truth,' Jerome Bruner impetuously burst forth with the claim: 'Nonsense - the purpose of the scientist is to sail the oceans of the unknown, and INVENT the islands of truth!'


The emphasis - Isaac Newton says 'to discover', and Jerome Bruner says, 'Nonsense. It is to invent.'
And I would like to say to Bruner: Bruner, this is all just bullshit. The purpose of the scientist is to sail the oceans of the unknown and REDISCOVER the islands of truth. It is neither discovery nor invention.


Discovery means 'for the first time'. That is stupid. Eternity has been in the past - all the truths that we know again and again, are only rediscovered.

They have been discovered many times; then we get fed-up, then we start forgetting a truth. It becomes too much, or boring - then we forget the truth. Then, after a few centuries, again we rediscover it.




Truth is not something that is discovered for the first time; it is rediscovered again and again. Truth is eternal. We can move away from it - it is very natural for the human mind, it gets bored very soon. But once we have forgotten, the old again looks like new.


And this is what historians say too. For example, in this age, the truth of the atom is very important.
It is one of the greatest discoveries - but it is not new. Democritus talks about it in 'Eunon', in Greek philosophy.

Mahavira talks about it in India. Kanad, even before Mahavira, talked about it - so much that his name, his very name 'Kanad' means atom. He talked so much about the atoms that his name became Kanad - 'the atomist'. We have forgotten his real name, he talked so much about atoms. His whole philosophy is atomic.



Now again we will forget. After a few centuries, Einstein will be forgotten - as Kanad is forgotten, as Democritus is forgotten, as Mahavira is forgotten. Once we have forgotten, when we stumble upon the same truth again, we call it 'discovery'.



Isaac Newton is not right, truth is never a discovery. But Bruner is also not right, he says it is an invention. Truth is not an invention. I understand what Bruner means, he means that all truths are man-invented mind-constructs. We create them, they are not really there. We imagine them - it is imagination. He also has some point in it, because again and again we go on changing our truths. Truth cannot change, our imagination changes. When our imagination changes, we talk about another truth.


So all truths, according to Bruner, are inventions of the mind. But if the truth is an invention of the mind, then I would like to ask Bruner, 'What will you say about lies?'



Then truth and lie will mean the same. A lie is an invention, an illusion is an invention - a mind-construct. A dream is an invention, a projection. Then what is the difference between a truth and a lie? According to Bruner, there will be no distinction; both are mind-constructs.



But there is a distinction. That's why I say truth is neither a discovery nor an invention, truth is a rediscovery. And truth is not a mind-construct - because only when mind ceases to function is there truth. That's why I don't call scientific truths 'truths'; they are only facts.


Only religious truths are real truths; they are not facts. Because the scientist never loses his mind.
He works THROUGH the mind, he works AS the mind - it is the mind that is trying to find out.


Religious truth is ultimate truth, pure truth - with no lies, with no mind involved in it. And the basis of all religion is to drop the mind. That's what meditation is all about - to put the mind aside, and then look.


Look without the mind, look without this mechanism of the mind. Without the mind there can be no construct - because when the constructor is not there, there cannot be any construct.


When the mind is not there, mind-constructs disappear. Look into things - but don't think, don't contemplate, don't bring thinking in. Just look.


Science discovers facts. Facts are millions - that's why, in science, truth is not singular, it is plural.
There are truths, many truths. Biology has its own truths, and chemistry its own, and physics its own, and mathematics its own. - and so on, so forth. There are many truths, because there are many minds.


Religion talks about a single truth. It is not about truths - ONE. Because when the mind is dropped, you are no more separate from the universal, you are one with the universal. In that universal consciousness, in that cosmic expansion, whatsoever is known is truth. And it never never changes, it remains the same.


What Buddha discovered, that's exactly the same as what Jesus discovered later on - rediscovered.


What Jesus rediscovered is the same as what Eckhart discovered - rediscovered.


What Eckhart discovered is the same. Millions of saints have discovered it, all over the world - Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus and Christians and Jews, Sufis and Hassids and Zen people - they all have discovered the same thing again and again.


Each individual comes to it alone; again he discovers it. But what he discovers is the same cosmic consciousness, is the same satchitanand - bliss, truth, consciousness. It is the same - but when you start expressing it, when you start talking about it, it becomes different.


Languages differ - Jesus speaks in Aramaic, Buddha speaks in Pali, Mahavira speaks in Prakrit, Hui-neng speaks in Chinese, Eckhart speaks in German, Rinzai speaks in Japanese, and so on and so forth. These are differences of language.


And all your so-called three hundred religions are nothing but differences of languages. They use different parables, naturally. They KNOW different parables, so they use different parables.



Buddha can't speak like a seer of the Upanishads - can' t speak like that. He knows different parables, he knows different metaphors, which are closer to his heart. The Upanishads know a different kind of language, a different symbology.


Jesus has a different world of words. Jesus is a carpenter - he speaks like a carpenter, very down to earth. His words smell of the soil, of the wood, of the trees. Buddha can't speak like that, he is the son of a king.

He has never known trees and the soil, he has never walked on the earth, he has lived in palaces. He talks in a different way, naturally - he has been brought up in a different way, he has a different imagery.


He talks like a king - very cultured, very very sophisticated. Jesus is a plain man. Hence the appeal of Jesus is far more than of Buddha, because plain men are more in the world than kings.




Only a few people can understand Buddha; Jesus can be understood by any and everybody.
The poorest man of the earth can understand Jesus, because Jesus speaks in the language of the poorest man.

He talks also to the poor people - fishermen and farmers and prostitutes and labourers, he talks to these people



. If he talks like Buddha they will not understand. And he cannot talk like a Buddha; he himself is a carpenter. The whole of his childhood he was working in his father's carpentry workshop - bringing logs, chopping wood, helping his father. He knows the smell of the wood. And a carpenter lives amidst fishers, farmers - those are the customers, he knows their language.


It is no accident that the whole world, particularly the world of the poor, has a great pull towards Jesus.
In India, Christians have not been able to convert brahmins.

You cannot convert a brahmin; he speaks a totally different language. For him, Jesus looks not up to the mark - he knows the Vedas and the Upanishads and the Gita and the Dhammapada; he lives in a very sophisticated world of the mind.


But Christians have been successful with the poor people - with the labourers, with the villagers, with the primitive aboriginals, they have been successful. They immediately understand the language of Jesus. They may not understand Krishna, he talks about great philosophy. Jesus talks about very pragmatic facts.


These are the differences - otherwise they are talking about the same reality, they are talking about the same truth. So whenever one has attained, one comes to see, it is the same reality discovered again and again and again.



And each one has to discover it on his own. You cannot borrow it from somebody else. I cannot give it to you, I cannot transfer it to you. I can say how it feels, I can say how I arrived at it, I can talk about the path that leads to it.

But you will have to go, and you will have to discover it. And when you discover it, your language will be different than mine. It is bound to be so - your language will be yours, it will have your signature on it.

That's why there are so many religions. Basically religion is one. It cannot be two; it seeks and searches the one. It is not a discovery, as Newton says. It is not an invention, as Bruner says. It is rediscovery.

OSHO