According to Osho, science and religion are not truly separate; there is only one science with two complementary dimensions: objective inquiry into the outer world and subjective inquiry into the inner. The split is an illusion sustained by belief. Both domains demand the same method—honest doubt and direct experience—while belief only conceals ignorance. Unite them through inquiry, not creed.
The outside world and your inner world are two sides of one truth—stop believing blindly and find out by questioning and experiencing yourself.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Beloved Osho, the scientific vision of objective reality and the subjective experience of existence seem to be two completely separate and unbridgeable dimensions. Is this because of the nature of things, or is it only an illusion of our mind?
The scientific approach to existence and the religious approach have been in the past separate and unbridgeable. The reason was the insistence of old religions on superstitions, belief systems, denial of inquiry and doubt. In fact, there is nothing unbridgeable between science and religion, and there is no separation either. But religion insisted on belief -- science cannot accept that. Belief is covering up your ignorance. It never reveals to you the truth; it only gives you certain dogmas, creeds, and you can create an illusion of knowledge through them. But that knowledge is nothing but a delusion. Anything based on belief is bogus. Because religions insisted continuously on belief, and the basic method of science is doubt, the separation happened. And it became unbridgeable. It is unbridgeable if religion does not arise and face the challenge of doubt. The whole responsibility of the religions has been to keep these…
Osho, what do those people mean who say that, so that there is no explosion, one should search within with a subtle, refined vision...
But the effortless awakening I speak of—once it arrives, there is no question of its departure, because you did not bring it; it came. Gradually you and awakening are not two; you are the awakening. You did not make even anger “the other,” so how would awakening be “other”? It becomes you. There is no question of its return. Whatever we have truly known cannot be unknown. You cannot undo knowing. Yes, what we have merely learned by rote can wobble. But what is known—like a child who comes to know love; once he knows, he cannot un‑know it. Knowing becomes part of you; it cannot fall away. Reading four books about love is different; that can be forgotten. Through the experiment of awakening, whatever happens in us reveals itself gradually. Awakening is not something that comes from outside; it is your inner being uncovering itself. If it were an…
You have said that science experiments with the objective, and religion with the subjective. But now there is a new growing science, psychology, or more accurately, depth psychology, which is both subjective and objective. So science and religion meet in depth psychology.
They cannot meet. Depth psychology, or the study of psychic phenomena, is again objective. And the method of depth psychology is the method of objective science. Try to see the distinction. For example, you can study meditation in a scientific way. You can observe someone who is meditating, but then this has become objective for you. You meditate and I observe. I can bring all the scientific instruments to observe what is happening to you, what is happening there in you, but the study remains objective. I am outside. I am not meditating. You are meditating; you are an object to me. Then I can try to understand what is happening to you. Even through instruments much can be known about you, but that will remain objective and scientific. So really, whatsoever I am studying is not the real thing that is happening to you, but the effects that your…
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…
I am smaller than the smallest; I am also the most vast. I am the marvelous cosmos.
I AM THE ANCIENT ONE, PURUSHA -- THE BASE OF ALL. I AM HIRANYAMAYA, THE EFFULGENT ONE, THE EVER- Science is bound to come -- reducing everything to its atomic existence -- to the minutest part. Then the whole world becomes a chaos; there is no inter-relatedness. Really, with science there is no universe. Universe means one. Science has created multi-verses. The very word universe means one -- "uni" means one. Science has created multi-verses. Every science has its own universe, and no two sciences are in any way related. Every science goes into its own specialization, more to the part, and then the whole is lost. You can know a part, but a part is always dead. Life exists in the relatedness of the total. Life is always of the whole. That's why life is holy. Both the words mean the same thing. Holy means of the whole, belonging…