.webp)
According to Osho, monotheism is not a step in human evolution but a priestly device that centralizes power, enforces intolerance, and blocks the flowering of buddhas. By insisting on one God, one book, one prophet, it breeds violence and conformity. Polytheistic, decentralized traditions allow freedom, diversity, and inner growth, honoring each person as a potential god without priests.
Monotheism is a control trick by priests that stops your inner growth; many paths and personal freedom help you evolve.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Is monotheism a necessary step in human evolution, or is it just an invention of the priests?
You are asking about monotheism: is it a necessary step? No, not at all. It is an absolutely unnecessary step, and not only unnecessary, but dangerous. It has created only violence, murder. Living people have been burned in the name of a monotheistic god. One god will not allow you to believe in another god. Polytheism is also an invention of priests, but far more liberal. Monotheism is the invention of the priests, but far more dictatorial. It gives you commandments, as if you are an army and you need commandments. Buddha does not have any commandments, nor Mahavira. They persuade you; they don't command, they don't humiliate you. They respect you, they know that your hidden potential is the same as theirs. Gautam Buddha relates this about his past life. He heard that one man had become enlightened. He was not very much interested, but just out of curiosity...…
The old religions are just corpses, stinking; still they are immensely powerful, because the whole past has given them prestige, authority. And nobody wants to leave power and authority. They go on manipulating humanity, exploiting human beings; they go on keeping you retarded. They don't want you to evolve, because the moment you evolve and you become intelligent, you will be free from the bondage which is their vested interest. Anybody who is intelligent cannot be a Hindu, cannot be a Mohammedan, cannot be a Christian, -- because all these religions have done so many ugly actions in the past, they have killed millions of people, burned people alive in the name of God, in the name of love. They have been simply destructive; they have not enhanced beauty, they have not contributed to humanity in any way. They are parasites.
With each man becoming enlightened some consciousness in everyone is raised higher. But one buddha cannot transform the whole world; at least two hundred buddhas are needed. Two hundred buddhas around the world can certainly change the whole climate of the human mind. Religions will disappear, nations will disappear, wars will disappear; and man will be able to breathe freely for the first time, without any repression, without any condemnation. Man can be accepted as he is. There should be no 'should' or 'should not' imposed upon him. He will be loved and respected in whatsoever way he grows. But at least two hundred enlightened people are needed, and that is one of my basic works.
Osho, what is religion, and why are there so many religions in the world? Is it not possible to have just one religion for the whole humanity?
No, even to support that idea is dangerous because that simply means, destroy others. But who are we? If somebody wants to remain a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a Christian, then it is his choice. It is nobody else's business. Religion is a private concern, a personal concern. You like a certain flower, and I don't like it, but that does not men that we are enemies. No, there is no need of one religion. But there can be one religiousness. People can belong to different kinds of religions but still they can carry the same quality of religiousness. Then there is no problem about whether they go to the church or to the synagogue or to the temple, or nowhere. They may not go anywhere their own house is a temple. It is possible -- not only possible, it should be made actual -- that there could be…
Osho, is it not possible in any way to preserve your living religion and not let it be reduced to a cult like christianity? The very idea of your religion being reduced with time to a cult is unbearable.
IT is almost impossible to preserve a religion as a religion. Up to now nobody has succeeded in doing it. But I said it is almost impossible, not absolutely, because we are fortunate in seeing all the failures of the past: all that helps a religion to become a cult can be dropped from the very beginning. We know that many people have tried before. Their efforts are also helpful. There is not an intrinsic impossibility of a religion remaining a religion. The reasons that reduce it to a cult are not very fundamental. The first thing: it is not my religion. I have nothing to do with it. In fact, when I ceased to be it came into being. This is the first thing to remember -- it will help the religion to remain a living current. Do not make it a certain kind of religion -- Christianity, Hinduism,…