Question – Ayn Rand, the originator of Objectivism philosophy, went mad and committed suicide. How could this happen to such a rare, logical mind?
Osho – Precisely! It happened because of such a logical, rational mind. The rational mind cannot go beyond suicide and madness. That is the ultimate that has to happen. If some logical person is not mad it simply means that he is not logical enough. If some logical person has not committed suicide yet, it simply means that he is mediocre. He has not touched the pinnacle of logicality. If you reach to the pinnacle of logicality, life loses all meaning – because logic cannot give any meaning.
Logic takes away all meaning. Logic is destructive, poisonous. It is love that gives meaning to life, it is love that blooms and flowers, it is love that sings and dances, it is love that becomes celebration. A logical mind by and by loses all possibility of loving – because love is so illogical it cannot exist with logic. They prohibit each other, they exclude each other.
If you love, you become illogical; if you are very logical, you become unloving. and without love, what is there to live by, to live with, to live for? What is there? Ayn Rand was a very egoistic, rationalistic, realistic woman. Her philosophy is that of absolute selfishness. If you are absolutely selfish, how can you be loving? It is impossible. Her philosophy is absolutely realistic, materialistic. When there is only matter, what is there to bloom into?
There is no soul. All search disappears. Life is flat and dull. There is no mystery. With the soul enter mystery and life. With mystery there is joy, because there is a possibility to enquire, to explore, to expand. There is a possibility that something may happen, can happen.
Man is more than he knows. You are more than you know. Not only that, you are more than you can ever know, because your intrinsic reality remains mysterious, always remains unknown, unknowable. You can go on knowing more and more and more but that does not reduce your mystery. That’s what we mean by soul – utterly mysterious.
For Ayn Rand there was no mystery. When there is no mystery, how can there be life? Then what is there to live for? Suicide seems to be the logical conclusion. And if you don’t commit suicide, then madness is the conclusion. Those seem to be the two alternatives. Either go mad – mad means go illogical, drop your rational mind – or commit suicide, drop this useless life. Jean Paul Sartre has said: ’Man is a useless passion.’
Now my feeling is that Sartre is not very, very logical, otherwise he would have committed suicide. If man is a useless passion, if there is no meaning in it, if life is meaninglessness, then why go on living? Why think of tomorrow – that you would like to exist tomorrow? That is very irrational. If nothing is going to happen, if nothing has ever happened, if nothing happens in the very reality, then why go on living? Why go on eating and why go on sleeping and getting up again and again? It is nauseating.
Another book of Sartre’s is NAUSEA. But it seems it is still philosophical, he has not taken it existentially – otherwise suicide would be the logical conclusion to the philosophy. Beware. These possibilities are in you too. If you become too logical, madness or suicide or both will be the conclusion.
That’s why I teach you love not logic, feeling not reasoning, heart not mind. Then life has such beauty, such beatitude, such joy, that one cannot contain it. It is so much, it is so over-flowing, so overwhelming.
qouted by Osho discourse
6 comments:
If her position is egoistic, self-centered, selfish, than why did she write Fountainhead and Roark's summation to the jury that focused on his creation, the objects of his loves, other-centered in all respects, including his love for a woman and beyond. Are you saying that the only legitimate non-egoistic person is the one who is part of the herd? Perhaps she should become more an Obama type where the community is more important than are individuals. Claysamerica.com
их сонирхолтой юм. орчуулчихвал мань мэтэд их дөхөм юм да..
to Clay barham
yes, i agree with you She has one of the most beautiful mind female philosopher i have ever read.., 20th but ego is very subtle substance.., more deep conception.
We live by Ego. We cannot live without Ego, We cannot do anything without Ego. but we should try it less ego more happiness.
Bayasum :)
уучлаарай, би орчуулж чадахгүй
ошо сайхан хэлжээ. Би Эйн Рэндийг тал тархитай хүн гэж үздэг, өөрийнх нь Anthem гэдэг роман дээр нь тал тархитай хүн гэдэг хэллэг гардагшт, мань хүн өөрийгөө лаг гэж бодсоор байгаал мухардалд орсон байж таарна, үнэхээр зүүн тархины хөгжил бол дангаараа их хол явсан хүн дээ, харин бодол эргэцүүллийн тэр өндөр түвшинд хүрсэн хүн уг нь хайр энэрэл, мэргэн ухаанаараа ч гэсэн бусдаас хол тасарсан байдаг, гэтэл Эйн рэнд тийм биш, үзэн ядалт, хорсол, би?лэгдээгүй хүслээс улбаалсан дутуу дундуурын мэдрэмжиндээ боолчллогдсоор дууссан хүн дээ.Үүнийг Ошо шиг хүн л харж, мэдэрч чадна. Эйн Рэндийг харанхуй хар маасс л шүтнэ, жинхэнэ ухамсарын шатаар аялж яваа хүн бол бүтээл номыг нь сөхөхийн төдийд хар энергээр дүүрсэн болохыг мэдэрнэ байх..
Ego is not the opposite of happiness. The whole point of Ego is to allow you to be become useful to yourself so that if you choose you can be useful to others. This is especially important if you want to be useful to your partner.
Post a Comment