According to Osho, the sthitaprajna is no longer a devotee—he has arrived and become one with the Divine, with all seeker-qualities fulfilled as permanent realizations. The devotee is the traveler: on the same path toward the same goal, still experiencing longing, practices, and the I–Thou gap. Their similarity is trajectory and destination; their difference is distance—process versus completion, seeking versus being.
It’s like one person still walking to the city and another who has already reached and lives there; the road is the same, but one is traveling and the other is home.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, what are the similarities and differences between the sthitaprajna and the devotee? This too was in the earlier part of the question.
What is the difference or similarity between the sthitaprajna and the devotee? Sthitaprajna means one who is no longer a devotee—he has become God. Devotee means one who is on the journey toward becoming God. The devotee is on the path; the sthitaprajna has arrived. The path is the same; the arrival is the same. But “sthitaprajna” is the name for one who has reached the destination, and “devotee” is the name for the traveler who is still moving. There must be similarity, because the path and the goal are connected—otherwise how would the path reach the goal? There must be similarity, because the goal is simply the completion of the path. Where the path is complete, the destination appears. There must be similarity, because the one on the path is, in a sense, already at the destination—only a little distance remains, that’s all. It’s a matter of distance. The…
Questioner: a comparative study of a sthitaprajna, one settled in his intelligence, and a devotee, remains to be made by you.
For this reason I say the lovers of today are devotees of tomorrow; they have no way but to turn to devotion. When they know for themselves that it is impossible to be one with an embodied person, they will turn to God, who is bodiless, because it is quite possible to be really one with him. So sooner or later every lover is going to turn into a devotee, and every word of love is going to turn into a prayer. This is how it should be. Otherwise there is no escape from the torture and misery of love. A lover who refuses to be a devotee is bound to be in everlasting anguish. Ironically, while his longings are those of a devotee, he is trying to fulfill them through ordinary love. His aspirations are running in one direction and his efforts in another, and so frustration is inevitable.…
Beloved Osho, I feel and know in my heart, I am your disciple. I don't feel I am yet a devotee although I aspire to be one. Is it the nature of being a devotee that one knows one has become one? Or does the innocence of the devotee make the awareness of it not possible?
Just drop the aspiration and there is no hindrance for your transformation. You will be transmuted from disciplehood into the wider world of a devotee. Certainly you have stumbled upon a beautiful fact which cannot be possible just through intellect. You say, "Is it in the nature of being a devotee that one knows one has become one or does the innocence of the devotee make the awareness of it not possible?" The second part of your statement is correct; the very nature of the devotee makes it impossible for you to recognize it. There is no space left to stand aside and see. Every knowledge, every awareness needs a distance. You have to stand away; then you can see and watch, and you can know and you can be aware. But the devotee has lost all distances between himself and his knowing. He himself has become awareness. Now who…
Question: The first question: Osho, are prayer and devotion different? They are both distinct and inseparable. They are distinct in that where prayer is complete, devotion begins. They are inseparable in that without prayer there can be no devotion. Understand it like this: a classical musician first tunes his instrument. Once the instrument is tuned, music can arise. Tuning is not the music, but without tuning music will not happen—it is the prelude. Prayer is like that. Prayer is the tuning of the instrument. Prayer is moving toward the Divine through the medium of words.
Osho, you did accept that there is no difference between the total “I” and the “no-I,” but earlier in your talk you had said that sadhana leads toward the total I and upasana leads toward the no-I. And you drew a sharp distinction between sadhana and upasana. But later you seem to regard the two as one.
No, I did not say that sadhana leads toward the total I. I said: sadhana leads in the direction of the I. If sadhana were to lead toward the total I, then it would be no different from upasana. But sadhana cannot take you there. And that is why one day the seeker has to lose the I as well. It only moves in the direction of the I. Because the total I can be only when the I is lost. Therefore, at the end the seeker will have to take one more leap. By doing sadhana he will find the I, he will attain the self; and in the end he will have to take the leap of losing even the self. If he does not, he will stop one step short. The leap the devotee takes on the very first day, the seeker will have to take on…