Excerpt from an Interview with Osho by the Italian edition of SCIENCE 85 MONTHLY.

Q: ONE　 OF THE BASIC PROBLEMS OF SCIENCE IS LANGUAGE.
SCIENCE IS GROWING BECAUSE WE HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION
OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
ONE　 OF THE BASIC PROBLEMS FOR A SCIENTIST,
WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE INNER JOURNEY MEANS,
IS TO DEFINE CLEARLY,
FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS MEANS.
MOST OF THE SCIENTISTS DON'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN CONSCIOUSNESS, AWARENESS AND THE CONSCIOUS MIND.
THEY ARE USING THIS TERM IN THE SAME WAY.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU IF IT'S POSSIBLE
TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THOSE TERMS.

Yes, there is no difficulty.
Words can be defined clearly.
The difficulty is not because of the words,
the basic difficulty is coming from somewhere else.
That is,
the scientist, deep down,
does not believe
that there is anything ....... inner.
[그건,
과학자는 자기의 깊은 내면에서
'내면'에 관한 어떠한 것도 믿고 있지 않다는 거다.]
He may say so, he may not say so,
but his whole training,
his whole education,
makes him trust
onl　y objects
which he can dissect,
which he can observe,
which he can analyze,
which he can compose,
create, uncreate,
find out their basic constituents.
His whole mind is object-oriented,
and subjectivity is not an object.
So if he wants that subjectivity
to be put before him on the table,
that is not possible;
that is not the nature of subjectivity.
So the scientist goes on finding everything
in the world
except himself.
[그렇게 과학자는 이 세상 모든 걸
알려고 찾아 다닌다,
자기만 빼놓고.]

A great barrier exists,
and the barrier is that there is nothing inner.
When you cut a stone
into pieces,
what do you find? -- more stone.
You go on cutting smaller pieces, smaller pieces;
you get to molecules, you get to atoms, you get to electrons,
but still
you have not come to anything INNER.
They are all objects.
He would also like life
to be found in the same way,
and because he cannot find life in the same way,
he starts denying it.
And consciousness is even more difficult a problem;
because he cannot
touch it,
dissect it,
find out its constituents,
he simply rejects it. It does not exist.

So this is his prejudice.
[바로 그게 그의 편견이다.]
Because of this prejudice, he gets confused.
And this prejudice can disappear
very simply,
if he
hypothetically accepts --
I'm not saying he has to believe it,
just hypothetically he accepts
that if there are things outside,
then it is something very scientific
to accept that there must be things which are inner,
because in existence, everything is polarized by its opposite.
The outer can exist onl　y if there is an inner.
The unconscious can exist onl　y if there is consciousness.
This is the simple dialectics of life [이건 삶의 기본적인 변증법이다]--
and he knows it,
in existence everywhere he will find the same dialectics.
Everything is opposed by its opposite.
And the both are in some strange way complementary to each other --
opposing, and still
complementary to each other.

Denying the inner is a very unscientific attitude.
So first one　 has hypothetically to accept
that the inner exists.
Secondly, one　 has to understand
that the methodology that works for the outer
cannot work for the inner.
Simply because the inner is
the opposite dimension of the outer,
the same methods will not be applicable.
You will have to find new methodology
for the inner.
And that's what I call meditation:
this is the new methodology
for the inner.
[내면을 알려면
바깥을 알려는 방법과는 전혀 다른 방법론이 필요하다.
그게 바로 내가 말하는 명상이다.
명상은 내면을 알기 위한 새로운 방법론인 것이다.]


이는 오쇼의 말씀입니다.

OM~


[자,
이제 다시 위로 올라가서
스크립트 보지 말고
그저 오쇼의 두 눈을 응시하며
다시 한 번 내용을 음미해 보세요.]