Can a true religion be born out of a synthesis of all religions?

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…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, ISN'T A SYNTHESIS BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION NEEDED? I was too small; I saw him when I was very small, met him, talked with him, but it was not time for me to discuss. I was not even aware of what he was doing. But I discussed with his son, Ramdas, I discussed with his chief religious follower, Vinoba Bhave, and I have discussed with many of his disciples who had lived with him very closely. None of them has any answer .... And they are not ordinary people. Acharya J. B. Kripalani, who must be ninety-five years old, was a professor before he became committed to Mahatma Gandhi's programs -- a learned man. I asked him, "Can't you see that Gandhi chooses from the KORAN only those sentences which are almost exactly the same as the BHAGAVAD GITA, the Hindu holy scripture?

Beloved Osho, there are so many religions in the world which cause so many divisions amongst people, although all religions have good things in them. Why can't there be a religion which has the good things of all religions, which is accepted universally and which breaks down all divisions, thus causing a world fraternity? Kindly show the way.

Yes, Ashoka Agrawal, the religions have good things in them, that is true, but those good things also have bad sides. And a truly religious person will not bother about choosing; he will start living according to his consciousness. He will not follow Jesus, Buddha or Mahavira or Mohammed. To follow is to be political. Only the blind follow, the superstitious people follow, gullible people follow. The people who are intelligent try to understand Buddha, Mahavira, Krishna, but it is just an effort to understand the message, what these people were doing, what they were living. Finally, you have to discover your own inner light. That's what I call meditation: the moment you have discovered your own inner insight, you follow it. Then you are religious -- neither Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. A religious quality, a fragrance will surround you. You will be more loving, more compassionate. And these…

Osho, you have said that, in order that the chain not continue and no sect remain, you will present every religion before us. But wouldn’t that itself create a sect—one that takes up every religion in a new way and includes people from every religion? Why don’t you think that all religions could take on a single new form?

It will arise of its own accord.

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…