Are all religions inherently necessary for humanity?

Beloved Osho, are you against all religions? Isn't religion something essentially needed by man?

So I said to the Sufi, "Come into the house. Don't be angry. That tree is not strong enough, and that tree is very special; don't destroy it. I became enlightened under a maulshree tree, so my people have brought that tree from the original maulshree tree, as a seed. They have grown it, and it is still not strong enough for your hug. You come inside." He came inside, and he started talking in the same way he must have been talking to his disciples: "I see God everywhere, only God and nothing else." I said, "If you see only God and nothing else, then to whom are you talking? If there is only God and nothing else then to whom are you talking and for what purpose? God must know it. Keep silent!" When all his disciples had gone I told him, "I know what has happened to…

Osho, are you partial to different creeds and doctrines? Can we not abolish sects—the Buddhists of Buddha, the Jains of Mahavira, the Christians of Jesus, and so on—and establish a single religion of humanity?

I have not the slightest partiality toward creeds and sects. There are no Jains, no Buddhists, no Hindus, no Christians, no Muslims. In the world there are only two kinds of people: the religious and the irreligious. And one who is religious can be a Buddha, a Mahavira, a Krishna, a Christ; but he cannot be a Hindu, a Jain, a Muslim, a Christian. The religious person reaches the source; once one has reached the source, there remains no reason to be sectarian. Two kinds of people, I said: religious and irreligious. The religious person becomes what Buddha or Mahavira became. The irreligious person cannot become a Buddha or a Mahavira, so he becomes a Jain or a Buddhist! Sects belong to irreligious people; the religious person has no sect. You can even put it this way: religion has no sects; all sects belong to irreligion. The irreligious person cannot…

Is there any necessity for everybody to have a religion of one kind or other?

Yes, everybody ought to have a religion of one kind or another. You owe it to yourself to know what church you are staying away from. Otherwise you will feel very miserable. You will miss. I have heard.... Nurse: 'What church do you belong to?' Patient: 'None.' Nurse: 'Well, what church do you go to when you go?' Patient: 'If you must know, the church which I stay away from the most of the time when I don't go, is the Baptist.' Or.... Simpkin had been shipwrecked for twenty years on a desert island when finally he was rescued by a passing ship. 'What did you do to keep busy all those years?' asked the captain of the rescue vessel. 'I went into the building business,' replied Simpkin, whereupon he took the captain to a corner of the island and showed him a beautiful synagogue. 'That's incredible!' said the sailing…

Osho, what is religion, and why are there so many religions in the world? Is it not possible to have just one religion for the whole humanity?

No, even to support that idea is dangerous because that simply means, destroy others. But who are we? If somebody wants to remain a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a Christian, then it is his choice. It is nobody else's business. Religion is a private concern, a personal concern. You like a certain flower, and I don't like it, but that does not men that we are enemies. No, there is no need of one religion. But there can be one religiousness. People can belong to different kinds of religions but still they can carry the same quality of religiousness. Then there is no problem about whether they go to the church or to the synagogue or to the temple, or nowhere. They may not go anywhere their own house is a temple. It is possible -- not only possible, it should be made actual -- that there could be…

A friend has asked: Osho, can a true religion be born out of a synthesis of all religions? If Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Sikhs, and all religions were to come together and a synthesis found among them, would that not be the true religion?

It is those divided into religions who have obstructed the birth of religion. Atheists have not prevented religion from developing in the world. Atheists have done nothing so far. You should know: atheists have no organization, no church or temple, no scripture, no flag. They have never gathered and done anything. There is not even a single charge against atheists that they have set fires, burned houses, killed people, burned people. Atheists have not harmed religion. The harm has been done by those “religious” who are Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Christians. Why? By creating these divisions they have prevented the advent of that religion which can never be divided. Do you think there can be many kinds of truth? Do you think there can be many truths about the soul? Many truths about God? Do you think Hindus have one mathematics and Muslims another? There was a time—here in India—when Jains…