According to Osho, a seeker should keep only what is functionally necessary, without clinging—'as much as is needed to cross the river.' Spirituality opposes possessiveness, not possessions. Whether a loincloth or a palace, the issue is inner attachment. Maintain tools for living and practice, but remain free to drop them instantly.
Keep only what you truly need, and don’t be attached to it.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, saints have always been against possessions. But one cannot get by without possessions. Then how much should a seeker of truth keep?
And if he were to shower down gold coins, breaking the roof, we would not refuse, saying, “I am not a sensualist, I am a renunciate—what are you doing? What injustice is this!” Or if today he were to carry everything off from the house—God is a robber indeed; that is why we call him Hari: Hari means the one who takes away, who steals. He is a thief indeed—here he gives, there he also snatches away. Today he gives, tomorrow he may take. And in between you will get into great, unnecessary entanglements. There is a Sufi story. A fakir had two beloved sons, twin boys. They were the pride of the town. Even the emperor, seeing those boys, was filled with envy. The emperor’s sons were neither so handsome nor so gifted. Those two boys were the light of that village; their conduct was equally gracious and noble.…
The old religions have taught people to go beyond possessions; I teach you to go beyond possessiveness -- and there is a vast difference between the two. Going beyond possessions is a masochistic thing. Then you are unnecessarily torturing yourself. Mahavira lived naked, he carried the idea of non-possessions to the ultimate extreme, so he did not even have clothes. He had to live naked -- that is the logical consequence of the idea of not possessing anything, not even the begging bowl which was allowed in India for the monks, for all kinds of mystics. But Mahavira would not have anything to do even with a begging bowl. He would eat with his hands, he would beg with his hands. But this is in a way masochistic. When it was cold he must have been shivering and when it was hot and when it was raining....
Osho, you often say that material prosperity is the foundation of spiritual growth; but in your last discourse on non-possession you said that the fewer things one has, the less enslaved one is, and the more things one has, the more enslaved one becomes. Please clarify this fundamental paradox between prosperity and non-possession, and also explain how more things make a person more enslaved. And how does the possessor become possessed?
Material prosperity is the foundation of spiritual life, but a building is not raised by the foundation alone. It can happen that the foundation is there and the house is never built. A house never exists without a foundation, but a foundation can exist without a house. One may lay the footings and leave them filled in—then there will be a foundation, not a building. But wherever there is a building, it cannot be without a foundation. Prosperity is the base of detachment. Without becoming prosperous, no one ever really discovers that prosperity is futile. Without having wealth, no one ever realizes that nothing essential is gained by wealth. The greatest gift of wealth is not wealth—it is the breaking of the illusion about wealth; it is disillusionment. If wealth is never attained, its futility is never known. The poor, the needy, the destitute find it very hard to be…
Osho, why am I afraid of your neo-sannyas? I do not feel even a little afraid of the old-style sannyas.
Does any Jain read the Gita? Could a Jain really understand it? Impossible. He would find himself opposed at every turn; anger would arise at every step. He would find arguments against Krishna immediately. For Krishna tells Arjuna, “Do whatsoever God wills.” The Jain will say, “And if God is making him renounce, why are you making him fight? How can you decide what God wants?” If Arjuna were truly a Jain, he would have thrown down the Gandiva bow and said, “All right. Now I shall do only what God makes me do. God says, ‘Take the peacock-feather whisk and the begging bowl; sit under a tree; do tapas.’ It is the voice of my inner self!” You know this “voice of conscience.” Delhi politicians have popularized—or polluted—the phrase. Whenever they need to come or go, suddenly their “inner voice” is heard! Krishna deluded him—that is how Jains will…
Osho, what is the first experience of samadhi like?
You will know only when it happens. It cannot be said; at most a few hints can be given. It is as if, in the dark, a lamp is suddenly lit. Or as if a dying patient, right at the edge of death, suddenly finds a medicine that works; life’s wave, life’s thrill spreads again—so it is. As if a corpse becomes alive—such is the first experience of samadhi. It is the taste of nectar. The experience of the ultimate music. But it will be only when it happens; and only then will you understand. You will not understand by my saying it. It is as with love. How can anyone explain it? To someone who has never loved, never known love, no matter how many explanations you offer—he will hear it all and still ask, “I haven’t understood; please explain a little more.” It is like explaining light to…