According to Osho, 'rebel' does not only mean fighting against; that is merely the negative, preparatory half. He is not changing the word but completing it: true rebellion also fights for the living, for truth and for freedom's positive goal. Society has reduced such words to negativity; he restores their fullness - where 'freedom from' serves 'freedom for,' and clearing weeds is followed by planting roses.
A real rebel not only says no to what’s wrong but also says yes and builds what’s right.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Beloved master, doesn't the word `rebel' imply fighting against something? The word itself comes from latin, rebellare, fighting back. When you speak on the rebel, you speak of it in a positive sense. Are you changing the meaning of the word?
Rabia Prabhudasi, I am not changing the meaning of the word; I am making it complete. The meaning that has been given to it is only half... just the negative meaning; and no negative can be without a positive. It is true, the word `rebel' comes from Latin, rebellare, fighting back. But that is only half of the meaning; the other half has been missing for centuries, from the very beginning. Nobody has bothered to complete the whole meaning of the word. Fighting against is only the beginning part. But fighting for what? And it is not only with the word `rebel', it is with many words. `Freedom' has only a negative nuance in people's minds -- freedom from. But nobody asks about freedom for. Freedom from is an essential part, but only a negative part. Unless you have a positive goal, your freedom from is meaningless. You should also…
Beloved master, what is the difference between the rebel and the enlightened one? Is it possible to be a real rebel without being enlightened?
Anand Rupen, it is possible to be a rebel without being enlightened. It is also possible to be enlightened without being a rebel. But both will be half-hearted; something will be missing, something which is very essential. It will be almost like a corpse -- the soul is missing. A rebel who is not enlightened is living in blindness, unconsciousness, darkness. He does not know what is right and what is not right -- he has no clarity of vision. He cannot open up other people's hearts for the birth of a new humanity -- he himself is not born yet. His rebelliousness is nothing but a kind of thinking in his mind. He is a revolutionary thinker, he is a philosopher, but he does not know exactly what will end this night, and how we are going to bring the dawn; how the sun will rise, how the birds…
Osho, how can rebellion be receptive, feminine, yes-saying? It feels so much like a no to all these old things. Is it just awareness and love that is it?
REVOLUTION IS NO, REBELLION IS YES. Revolution is negative, rebellion is positive. Revolution says no to all that is wrong and should not be. Rebellion says yes to all that is beautiful, good. Revolution is past-oriented, rebellion is present-oriented. They are not synonymous. Revolution is destructive, rebellion is creative. Revolution can never be feminine, receptive, yes-saying. That is impossible. But rebellion is always feminine, always receptive, always yes-saying. I am talking about rebellion, I am not talking about revolution. Revolution is political, rebellion is spiritual. Revolution is of the crowd, rebellion is individual. You can be a rebel and you don't need anybody else to be with you -- you alone can be a rebel. But you alone cannot be a revolutionary; you will need a great organization, you will need a great army behind you. And the problem is -- one of the most significant things to be understood…
Question: BELOVED OSHO, WHAT IS YOUR NOTION OF REBELLION AND OF A REBEL? Giulia, my notion about the rebel and rebellion is very simple: a man who does not live like a robot conditioned by the past. Religion, society, culture... anything that is of yesterday does not in any way interfere in his way of life, in his style of life. He lives individually -- not as a cog in the wheel, but as an organic unity. His life is not decided by anybody else, but by his own intelligence. The very fragrance of his life is that of freedom -- not only that he lives in freedom, he allows everybody else also to live in freedom. He does not allow anybody to interfere in his life; neither does he interfere in anybody else's life.
Osho, you have been praising rebels, but it seems to me that so far rebellion has changed situations only for the worse. Is it not better simply to accept what is? Also it seems that whatever happens, the evil in the world becomes more powerful, more creative. Can you comment?
When the word Hind started moving from Persia into other languages, by the time it reached Rome it became "Ind," and from "Ind" comes the English word India. It is absolutely meaningless; just because Persian does not have the letter "s," that's why it is called India otherwise there is no reason. Pakistan is a beautiful word. I would have loved and welcomed them. Yes, the country would be Pakistan, their flag would be there -- but what is wrong in it? Their flag is also beautiful -- a green flag, with a star and the moon. It is a beautiful flag, there is nothing wrong in it. The color is good, the symbol is beautiful. What difference does it make? Perhaps they may have forced Hindus to become Mohammedans -- so what! You have been Hindus for thousands of years, what have you done? Just for a change it…