How can one know their own distinctive type?

Questioner: how can one know his own distinctive type?

It is not that difficult to know one's type. One way is to remember this simple maxim: that which attracts you is not your type; it is the opposite of your own nature, because the opposite attracts. So beware of the opposite, reflect for a while on it and know that it is not your cup of tea. It seems paradoxical, and difficult too, to understand that what repels you is your type. How does a man know he is a man? Another man does not attract him, while a woman does. How does a woman know she is a woman? She wants to be with a man, not a woman. A woman repels another woman; it is difficult to keep two women together. So take it for a rule: you are not what attracts you; you are its opposite. You are really that which repels you. It is really…

Osho, as one usually fluctuates between both types -- emotional and intellectual -- how can one come to a final decision as to which type one belongs?

These are the three types. If action comes to you first and then feeling and then thinking, then you can determine your predominant factor. And to determine that predominant factor is very helpful, because then you can proceed straight; otherwise your progress will always be zigzag. When you don't know what type you are, you go on unnecessarily in dimensions, directions. where you should not go. When you know your type, you know what is to be done with yourself, how to do it, from where to begin. The first point: remember what comes first and what second. And the second will look very strange. For example, the active type can do the opposite very easily; that is, he can relax very easily. The active type can relax very easily! Gandhi's relaxation was miraculous. He could relax anywhere. So it seems very paradoxical. An active type must be so tense…

Osho, another difficulty has arisen. Today there is such a gap between the private sector and the public sector that if we destroy the private sector, initiative disappears—and when initiative disappears, movement stops. In the same way, when one descends into non-attachment, or desirelessness, or karma-sannyas, it seems that initiative, zest, and drive all get converted into inactivity. That possibility seems real.

Where we claim to go against biology but still obey biology’s rule—being attracted to the opposite—everything turns dull and empty. Houses remain huts, pressed to the ground; all activity wanes; no one sings; a singing person seems criminal; bright clothes disappear; color, charm, beauty are lost; everything becomes sad, subdued, and shrunken. My own view is that both have their own laws, and a true culture stands on both. A true culture will be sex-free in the sense of being un-repressed: it will rejoice in sex, be festive in sex, and vast worldly activity will arise. And true spirituality, based on the right choice of type, will spread a web of spiritual activity. Krishna stands rightly in his own type; Buddha in his own; Mahavira in his own. Hence Krishna acts in one way, but it is not that Buddha does not act. Buddha’s life, too, is a vast web…

Osho, I have done japa, tapas, bhakti, dhyana—everything. But I found nothing anywhere. Now I have come to your refuge. Please rescue me.

That is why sometimes it happens that someone was a man and suddenly a transformation happens and he becomes feminine; or someone was a woman and suddenly becomes masculine. And now scientists say it is not difficult. By hormonal change a woman can be made into a man and a man into a woman. And in the future, before this century ends, many will go through such changes—because people get bored. Bored with being a woman, they become a man; bored with being a man, they become a woman. There will be more freedom. Having lived one style of life, they will want to try the other. This transformation is possible because you are both. The human being is bi-sexed. This means that in religion too two paths open from within you—one masculine, one feminine. The masculine path is of meditation; the feminine path is of love. So recognize rightly…

OSHO, on the first day you said that karma-sannyas is the path of the inward-turned person, and desireless action (nishkama karma) is the path of the outward-turned person. But people find that sometimes they are extroverted and sometimes introverted. In this situation, please explain how a person can decide precisely whether he is inward-turned or outward-turned.

So the extrovert concludes, “Religion is not for me. My fate doesn’t include it. The mind never becomes silent; nothing reveals within; I simply can’t go inside. I must be suffering the fruits of past karmas.” Not necessary. You are suffering a misunderstanding. You haven’t seen clearly that you are extroverted. If you are extroverted, the religious form must be entirely different for you. You need a religion that can use your outward-running energy. For the introvert, meditation; for the extrovert, prayer. Notice: meditation and prayer are very different paths. Meditation is the religion of the inward-turned; prayer is the religion of the outward-turned. In meditation, even God has no place. Meditation means utterly alone—alone, and alone—reaching the point where only I am, nothing else remains. Prayer means God; not one, but two. Ultimately, prayer arrives where only God remains and I am not. The fruits are the same, but…