✓ already translated: opens instantly. A new translation takes about a minute and is then saved for everyone. Sign-in required.
Pity feels generous and is secretly violent: it needs the other to stay below, and it settles for two coins where surgery is required. Osho's critique cuts both ways — pity consoles the sufferer just enough to keep the machinery of suffering running, and it flatters the giver with a superiority he has not earned. Compassion has no such vantage point. It is love grown desireless, and it would rather uproot misery than sedate it.
Osho also gives compassion an exact place on the inner map: the bridge where desire ends and desirelessness begins — the last perfume of the awakened. The sections below let him make the distinction in his own words, each linked to the full discourse.
The difference, in Osho's words
The short notes are Osho Live's; the quoted passages are his own words, checked against the talk.
Feeling Sorry Is Not Compassion
A disciple senses condescension hiding inside "feeling sorry." Osho takes up the distinction from there.
Having compassion is not possible -- either you are compassionate or you are not; it is not a question of having. If you have compassion, it is the same, in different words, as feeling sorry for someone.
Compassion and Pity across his talks
Each year, the share of Osho's talks in which the word is used — counted from 6,627 dated talks on Osho Live.
Lighter bars: years with few dated talks. Counts are of the words themselves, so they show how Osho's vocabulary moved — not every talk on the subject.
| Year | Compassion | Pity | Dated talks |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1964 | 3 | 0 | 13 |
| 1965 | 8 | 4 | 19 |
| 1966 | 2 | 1 | 7 |
| 1967 | 4 | 2 | 33 |
| 1968 | 7 | 0 | 30 |
| 1969 | 38 | 13 | 110 |
| 1970 | 27 | 7 | 131 |
| 1971 | 39 | 9 | 111 |
| 1972 | 56 | 9 | 223 |
| 1973 | 67 | 15 | 205 |
| 1974 | 128 | 23 | 271 |
| 1975 | 167 | 25 | 303 |
| 1976 | 282 | 46 | 700 |
| 1977 | 267 | 46 | 679 |
| 1978 | 233 | 41 | 702 |
| 1979 | 262 | 39 | 683 |
| 1980 | 217 | 45 | 674 |
| 1981 | 33 | 9 | 122 |
| 1984 | 18 | 2 | 63 |
| 1985 | 153 | 6 | 356 |
| 1986 | 159 | 7 | 369 |
| 1987 | 210 | 20 | 486 |
| 1988 | 113 | 4 | 276 |
| 1989 | 45 | 3 | 61 |
More in his words
Pity Preserves What It Weeps Over
In a discourse on compassion and revolution, Osho shows the social face of the distinction: charity that consoles the beggar protects the system that makes beggars.
Pity does not bring revolution; that is why revolution has not come to India. Pity rather blocks revolution. Because pity gives a beggar two coins, but it does not go in search of why beggars are produced in the first place.
Compassion: The Bridge Beyond Desire
Where pity is desire wearing a kind face, Osho places compassion at the exact border of the egoless state — the last form desire takes before dissolving.
If you wish, you can call compassion the final form of desire, or you can call it the first form of desirelessness. It is the link in-between where desire ends and desirelessness begins.
From the discourses
Where Osho draws this distinction himself — each passage links to the exact place in the talk.
Another friend has asked: How do you differentiate among compassion, nonviolence, pity, and love? Don’t they all mean the same?
Pity does not bring revolution; that is why revolution has not come to India. Pity rather blocks revolution. Because pity gives a beggar two coins, but it does not go in search of why beggars are produced in the first place. And when the beggar gets two coins, he too feels relief. He too does not reach that limit where he grabs the donor by the neck and says, “We will not take this charity. First you pick our pockets and then you give us alms. First you make us beggars and then you arrive to give us charity. First you suck our blood and then you build hospitals for us where ‘blood donation’ is conducted. What kind of net is this?” No, pity does not allow even this to happen. Pity becomes a consolation. And the poor feel that the rich are so “pitiful.” Nothing has shielded the rich…
एक और मित्र ने पूछा है कि आप करुणा, अहिंसा, दया, प्रेम इन सबमें क्या फर्क करते हैं? ये तो सब एक ही अर्थ रखते हैं?
दया क्रांति नहीं लाती, इसलिए भारत में क्रांति नहीं आ सकी। दया बल्कि क्रांति को रोकती है। क्योंकि दया भिखमंगे को दो पैसे दे देती है, लेकिन भिखमंगा क्यों पैदा होता है, इसकी तलाश में नहीं जाती। और भिखमंगे को दो पैसे मिल जाते हैं, तो भिखमंगा भी राहत अनुभव करता है। वह भी उस सीमा पर नहीं पहुंच पाता कि दान देने वाले की गर्दन पकड़ ले और कहे कि यह दान नहीं लेंगे; क्योंकि पहले हमारी जेब काटते हो और फिर हमको दान देते हो। वह कहेगा कि पहले हमें भिखमंगा बना देते हो और फिर दान देने आ जाते हो। वह कहेगा किपहले तो हमें चूस लेते हो हमारे खून को और फिर हमारे लिए अस्पतालें बना देते हो, जिनमें खून का दान चल रहा है। यह जाल कैसा है?
Osho, you have said that in liberated souls compassion remains, and that compassion is the subtlest form of desire. In desire there is always conflict, always two—two mutually opposed. In that case, what is the opposing element of compassion that still remains in liberated souls?
First, not that compassion is a subtle form of desire; compassion is desire’s ultimate form. There is a difference. By “ultimate form” I mean the bridge between desire and desirelessness. If you wish, you can call compassion the final form of desire, or you can call it the first form of desirelessness. It is the link in-between where desire ends and desirelessness begins. Compassion is not a subtle form of desire. If it were, there would be duality in compassion too. Desire is always dual. No one can be free of duality within desire. Therefore there is suffering in desire, because wherever there is duality, there is suffering. So however pleasurable desire may seem, its painful counterpart will always be standing right behind it; it cannot be avoided. Thus every desire, at a certain limit, turns into its opposite. The opposite of each desire is present instantaneously; it is never…
प्रश्न: ओशो, मुक्त आत्माओं में करुणा शेष रह जाती है और करुणा भी वासना का ही एक सूक्ष्मतम रूप है--ऐसा आपने कहा। वासना में सदा द्वंद्व रहता है, सदा दो रहते हैं, परस्पर-विरोधी दो। ऐसी स्थिति में करुणा का विरोधी कौन सा तत्व है जो मुक्त आत्माओं में शेष रह जाता है?
पहली बात तो यह कि करुणा वासना का सूक्ष्म रूप है, ऐसा नहीं, करुणा वासना का अंतिम रूप है। इन दोनों में भेद है। अंतिम रूप का मतलब मेरा यह है कि वासना और निर्वासना के बीच जो सेतु है। चाहें तो हम करुणा को वासना का अंतिम रूप कह सकते हैं और चाहें तो करुणा को निर्वासना का प्रथम रूप कह सकते हैं। वह बीच की कड़ी है जहां वासना समाप्त होती है और निर्वासना शुरू होती है। करुणा सूक्ष्म रूप नहीं है वासना का। अगर सूक्ष्म रूप हो तो करुणा में भी द्वंद्व होगा। वासना में सदा द्वंद्व है। वासना में निर्द्वंद्व कभी भी कोई नहीं हो सकता। इसलिए वासना में दुख है, क्योंकि जहां द्वंद्व है, वहां दुख है। तो वासना चाहे कितनी ही सुखद हो, उसके पीछे उसका दुखद रूप खड़ा ही रहेगा, वह जा ही नहीं सकता।
Osho, I have been reflecting on the difference between 'feeling sorry' for someone and 'having compassion'. It seems to me that to be sorry for someone has an element of condescension in it, as if you were superior to the other, and that it does not necessarily have anything to do with love, whereas compassion must be an integral part of loving. Please comment.
The first and the most important thing to remember is that reflecting is not going to help at all. 'Reflecting' is nothing but a beautiful word for 'thinking'. The blind man can go on thinking about light, he can arrive at certain conclusions too, but those conclusions cannot be right. Howsoever right they appear to be, they are bound to be false, untrue. The moon in the sky is one thing and the moon reflected in the silent lake is totally another. One exists, the other is only a reflection. If you jump into the silent lake you will not be able to catch hold of the moon; on the contrary, you may even disturb the reflection because the lake will be disturbed. The more you think, the more you are creating waves and ripples in the mind. The real thing for the blind man to do is not to…
Osho, what is compassion?
Man goes on living like a robot, functioning well, efficiently. In fact, the more like a robot you are, the better you function, the better the society feels with you -- because it is a society of robots. To be awakened, alert, conscious here is dangerous. It is a society of blind people; to have eyes is to invite danger. But without creating consciousness you will never be able to know the beauty, the blessing that God has bestowed upon you. You will never know the great opportunity that has been given for you to grow, to become. You can be sunlit peaks and you are just dark holes! "Shit!" said Polaris. "I got a real jolt in court this morning. The judge fined me five hundred dollars for attempting to rape some broad I met on the subway. And then when he took a good look at her he…
Osho, what is the fundamental anguish of human life?
There is only one anguish: that a human being cannot become what he was born to be. There is only one anguish: that the seed remains a seed and does not bloom like a flower; that it cannot scatter its fragrance to the infinite winds; cannot converse with the moon and stars; cannot offer its colors to the sky; cannot be expressed. If the poem within the poet cannot be revealed—anguish. If the painter cannot paint—anguish. If the dancer cannot dance—if chains lie on his feet—anguish. Anguish means only this: that what we are meant to be—our innate nature and destiny—does not come to fruition, and we are forced to be something else. Then anguish is born. Then melancholy gathers over life. And all those countless people you see burdened with sorrow, living in a kind of hell—the reason is only this: each has come carrying the seed of becoming…
चौथा प्रश्न: ओशो, मनुष्य जीवन का मूल संताप क्या है?
एक ही संताप है कि मनुष्य वह न हो पाए जो होने को पैदा हुआ है। एक ही संताप है, कि बीज बीज रह जाए, फूल की तरह खिल न पाए। बिखेर न सके अपनी सुवास को अनंत-अनंत हवाओं में; कर न सके गुफ्तगू चांद-तारों से; निवेदन न कर पाए अपने रंगों का आकाश के प्रति; अभिव्यक्त न हो पाए--एक ही संताप है। कवि के भीतर की कविता प्रकट न हो सके--तो संताप। चित्रकार चित्र न बना सके--तो संताप। नर्तक नाच न सके, पैरों में जंजीरें पड़ी हों--तो संताप। संताप का एक ही अर्थ होता है: जो हम होने को हैं, जो हमारी सहज प्रकृति और नियति है, वह न हो पाए और हमें अन्यथा होने को मजबूर होना पड़े, तो संताप पैदा होता है। तो जीवन में विषाद घिरता है।
Frequently asked
What is the difference between compassion and pity according to Osho?
Pity operates from above: it needs the other's inferiority, consoles rather than cures, and secretly nourishes the giver's ego. Compassion is love purified of desire — it stands level with the other, wants their liberation rather than their gratitude, and is willing to be surgical where pity only soothes.
Why does Osho say pity blocks change?
Because consolation defuses the very discontent that produces transformation. His example is charity: two coins relieve the beggar just enough that no one asks why beggars exist at all. Pity thus becomes a shield for the status quo — personally and socially — while compassion goes to the root.
Do enlightened beings still feel compassion?
Yes — Osho calls compassion the fragrance that remains after the ego and its desires dissolve. He defines it precisely as the bridge between desire and desirelessness: no longer a want directed at anyone, but an overflowing that helps without calculating, the way a flower releases scent.