According to Osho, so-called religious leaders - priests, popes, mullahs - are fools because they imitate and exploit religion; they are carbon copies without originality. True masters like Buddha or Lao Tzu are not 'leaders' but living religion itself. Spiritual dignity lies in being oneself, not a follower. Don't walk behind anyone; become a Jina - self-conquered - and, at most, walk with a master as a friend.
Some priests who run religion are silly copycats, but real saints are originals; be yourself and don't just follow - learn and walk alongside.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Question: The last question: Osho! Are religious leaders really fools? Deepak! I don’t know what you mean by “religious leaders.” If by religious leaders you mean Mahavira, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lao Tzu—then they are Buddhas, not fools. But they are not religious leaders; they are religion itself, the very embodiment of dharma. The religious leaders are the pandits, priests, mullahs—Ayatollah Khomeini, Pope Paul, the Shankaracharya of Puri—these are religious leaders. And these religious leaders are certainly fools. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying so. I prefer to state the truth utterly naked. If they were not fools, they wouldn’t be religious leaders. Adi Shankaracharya is dharma; but these are imitators. Are these any Shankaracharyas? They are carbon copies. And there is no greater insult to a human being than to become a carbon copy. Every person is original, and his dignity lies in his originality.
Do you feel, Osho, that all leaders—whether political or religious—are caught in the same dilemma?
If someone were to ask Buddha, “Is there God?” Buddha would say, “There may be.” And if someone were to ask, “Is there no God?” he would say, “There may not be.” How can such a person assume leadership? Buddha is so perfectly in the middle. It is like this: in a room a glass is kept half-filled with water. One man comes out and says the glass is half empty; another says it is half full. These two can argue; two parties can form. A third man, utterly in the middle, having seen the whole, returns and says, “The glass is both half empty and half full.” He will say, “You are right, and you are right—and you are wrong, and you are wrong. It both is and is not half. It is half empty and also not; half full and also not.” Such a man makes such a…
Who can become a better disciple: a learned fool or an unlearned fool? And for the intelligentsia please explain your dictum: blessed are the fools.
So the first type of fool necessarily, out of necessity, has to become the second type of fool. But from the second the third may happen or may not happen, there is no necessity. The third is possible only when the second type of foolishness has become a great burden -- one has carried knowledge too much, to the extreme; one has become lust the head and has lost all sensitivity, all awareness. all living; one has become just theories and scriptures and dogmas and words and words whirling around in the mind. One day, if the person is aware, he has to drop all that. Then he becomes the third type of fool -- the blessed fool. Then he attains to a second childhood; again he is a child. Remember Jesus saying, 'In my kingdom of God only those who are like small children will be welcomed.' But remember,…
Beloved Osho, history shows that when a great master appears on the earth, other, lesser leaders recognize him and bring their followers with them. Do you see this happening here?
Except this Nicodemus, no rabbi ever approached Jesus -- and Nicodemus approached him in the night. It would have been better that he also had not approached Jesus, because he shows the cowardliness of your so-called religious people and who crucified Jesus? The high priest and the supreme command of rabbis who overruled the whole community of Jews -- they decided that he should be crucified. There were many attempts made on Buddha's life by religious people, and I have always suspected -- although it is impossible now after twenty-five centuries to find out whether my suspicion is right or wrong, but there is a ninety-nine percent possibility that it is right .... It has to be right because some fundamental principles are involved. Buddha died of food poisoning. I suspect he was given poison, that it was not a coincidence. There were many attempts on the life of Mahavira.…
Question: Second question: Osho, is it impossible to enter religion through a sect? A few heard Nanak’s song. A few recognized. A few dared to stake their past. The past was secure. They staked the Gita for love of this man, for the pull of this man. “We leave the Gita,” they said—not because Krishna was or was not true; that was not the question. Where is Krishna now in the Gita? Ash remains. They left Mahavira, Buddha, Mohammed—and pledged themselves to this man, married themselves to him. This was risky. The Gita had an ancient reputation—thousands of years old. This man is new—who knows if he is true? He has no old credentials, no standing in the market. No one knows him yet. They bound themselves to an unknown. They were courageous. If Nanak called them “shishya”—disciples (from which Sikh comes)—he was right; they were disciples.