Do women attain enlightenment, and what is possible for them?

I heard that women do not attain enlightenment. It did not disturb me -- only made me wonder if it is true. And if so, then what is possible or women?

Pratipada, you must have met some male chauvinist pig. There is no difference in the consciousness of man or woman. The only difference is in the chemistry, and chemistry docs not make any difference in consciousness. Consciousness is neither male nor female, it is transcendental. It cannot be categorized in the dualities. It is beyond both, it is one. But man has always been saying things to women. Man has always been trying to prove the woman is inferior. The reason is that man feels inferior to woman. And the basic inferiority is because the woman can give birth to a child and man cannot. Man is envious, jealous. The woman seems to be so powerful: she can give birth to a new being, she can contain a new being in her womb. And man has always felt a little inferior about that. He takes revenge, he tries to prove…

Beloved Osho, I hear you, your loving compassion for me as a woman, behind your words, which sometimes jar me. And I also feel that my very woman-ness is the main barrier to my ever experiencing the bliss of enlightenment, because all of the enlightened beings you ever talk about are men, and because your own experiences are as a male. Please share with me what you can about how enlightenment is for me as a woman.

History is recorded by men, and women are not interested in recording things. They are more interested in experiencing and living them: that is one thing. The second thing is that a woman finds it very easy to become a disciple, very easy to become a disciple, because she is receptive. For a man, it is difficult to become a disciple because he has to surrender, and that is the trouble. He can fight but he cannot surrender. So when it comes to disciplehood, women are perfect. But just the opposite happens when you have to become a Master. A male can easily become a Master. A woman finds it very difficult to become a Master, because to become a Master you have to be really aggressive. You have to go out and destroy others' structures. You have to be almost violent; you have to kill your disciples. You have…

Beloved Osho, there have been very few enlightened women in the world, and none that I know of in this century. Is there hope for us women?

It is not hard -- but man has not allowed it. Man suffers from a deep inferiority complex, and to keep it repressed he keeps the woman in every possible way inferior to himself; otherwise if she is allowed freedom, allowed all her talents, her genius, the great fear of man is that she can prove superior in many dimensions. And she has many things which man is missing. Naturally the only simple way was to cut all possible ways in which the woman could grow. So all women have been left retarded. Their roots have been cut: don't give education to them, don't let them have the freedom of movement in society, don't let them have friends from the other sex. And for thousands of years it has been going on. Naturally if a woman cannot become a scientist, if a woman cannot become a poet, if a woman…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, DO WE NEED SPECIAL MEDITATIONS FOR WOMEN? No. Meditation is concerned with your consciousness -- and consciousness is neither man nor woman. This is one of the fundamentals I want the world to be aware of. All the religions have denied the woman any possibility for spiritual growth, thinking that her body is different, her biology is different: she will not be able to reach to the ultimate flowering of consciousness. But it is strange that nobody down the centuries ever enquired: Who reaches the ultimate flowering -- the body, the mind or consciousness? The body is different. If the body was going into meditation, then there would be certainly a need of different meditations for women than for men. Because the body is not involved in meditation, there is no question of any difference.

Why is it that we hear of fewer enlightened women than men?

So Digamberas are right. Swethamberas go on saying that she was a woman: they are more realistic but not right, more factual but not more right. They relayed just a fact, and sometimes facts are not real. Sometimes facts are very fictitious; and sometimes facts can lie so much that fictions will feel ashamed. This is a fact -- that this Mallibai was a woman -- but this is not reality. Digamberas have the right source. They have forgotten about the fact that she was a woman; they have taken her as man. Her whole being must have been manly. Rarely it happens. In politics, in religion, whenever a woman succeeds she is more manly than feminine. A Lakshmibai or a Joan of Arc, they don't look feminine. Just the body, the outer garb is feminine. Inside is a man. That's why they are not known much, because unless you…