According to Osho, introversion and extroversion arise from accumulated impressions across countless lives and the habits we reinforce daily. Repeated outward pursuits—wealth, fame, lust—close the inner door; regular inwardness keeps it open. Society and education further condition us toward extroversion because it serves worldly success. Thus temperament is a momentum of karma and conditioning that can be reversed through conscious practice (silence, meditation).
You’re quiet or outgoing mostly because long-built habits (past lives + daily choices) and social training shape you—steady inner practice can change that.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, yesterday you spoke in detail about introvert and extrovert personalities. I want one more thing clarified in this regard: What are the fundamental bases and causes of someone being introvert or extrovert? And are extroversion or introversion unchangeable? Are Krishna, by nature, introvert or extrovert?
The complete man stands beyond prediction; hence he is hard to understand. That is why there are many lovers of Krishna—and yet, in truth, those who accept him are as good as none. To accept Krishna wholly is very arduous. Those who “accept” also choose; they do not accept the whole Krishna. Some accept the child Krishna; they do not touch the youth. “Our Bala-Gopala is good,” they say—because the later Krishna appears dangerous. So they settle for the little Kanhaiya—that suffices for them. Their fear is their own. For the youth—what he does—frightens them. How can Surdas accept the youthful Krishna? He put out his eyes at the sight of women! How can youthful Krishna and Sur meet? Where Surdas, who, seeing the eyes lead to lust, put them out—and where Krishna, who can make the eyes dance and play the flute! Sur will say the later Krishna is…
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…
The introvert person also becomes very lopsided. He also closes the door of the heart because he becomes afraid. From that door opens the world. So he goes on denying. He becomes a renunciate, a monk, anti-life, condemnatory, repressive, afraid -- continuously afraid of relationship, of moving with people, of creating any sort of love, because who knows? -- love may bring in sex. Once you open the door of love, then the whole three chakras become available -- the chakras of the below. It is better not to open the doors so you can forget all about the lower world. Then one remains just inside -- but one's life becomes a morbidity. One becomes like an island -- cut off from everything . . . a dry bone. No juice remains. The very shape of life disappears, because if you don't love, life starts disappearing.
Mind gone, consciousness born
But for centuries we have been told that you can either be an extrovert or an introvert -- and not only the old traditions say so; even one of the most important psychologists of this age, Carl Gustav Jung repeats the same thing -- either-or, either you are an extrovert or you are an introvert. Nobody has recognized even the possibility of being flexible. When there is time to go out, go out, when there is time to come in, come in, and let them balance each other. This balancing is my sannyas. My sannyas cannot be categorized by Carl Gustav Jung, my sannyasin will defy his categorization. Jung cannot call him introvert because he loves, relates, creates -- he is in the thick of the world. He enjoys both worlds. When you can have both worlds why choose one? That is foolish! But for centuries man has chosen one.…
Beloved Osho, some mystics have been very introverted and silent. In your own case, you appear to be moving both introvertedly and extrovertedly without any difficulty. Please explain how this is possible.
A real mystic is one for whom the coin has disappeared; there is no hate, no love -- no hate-love relationship. He simply exists without dividing. And there is no difficulty in it. If you try to make a harmony between the two then there will be difficulty, if you try somehow to synthesize then there will be difficulty. You cannot synthesize. This has been tried. Reading the Upanishad you may come to realize, intellectually of course, that the out and the in are one, within and without are the same. If you realize intellectually then you will start trying to make a synthesis of the division. In the first place division is wrong; in the second place, to try to synthesize is doubly wrong, because synthesis means that you still think they are divided and somehow they have to be joined. Then it is very difficult and your synthesis…