According to Osho, 'removing the condition' is a misunderstanding: trying to eliminate anger, desire, or anything before living naturally only creates a new condition. Naturalness comes from unconditional acceptance of whatever is, without suppression or method. In deep acceptance, traits fall away by themselves; any state produced by effort is temporary and will fade when the effort stops.
Don’t try to fix yourself first; fully accept what you are now, and what doesn’t belong will drop away by itself.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Yes: does “removing the condition” mean that the life which has been running under conditions up to now is not meant to remove the condition?
No, it is not a matter of removing. That is why I am telling you: a natural life is a life of acceptance, not of removal. If desire is in you, then it is—accept it; what is the point of talking about removing it? And the moment there is total acceptance, naturalness bears fruit. There is anger within me. One approach is: let me remove it, then a natural life will blossom. But a so‑called natural life that blossoms on the condition that anger has first been removed cannot be natural. If there is anger in me, I agree to it—because there is no other way. I have found anger just as I have found my eyes, just as I have found my hands—I have found anger like that too. There is anger. I neither suppress it nor try to remove it. It is there; I accept it. And the…
Osho, you have earlier said, “Live moment to moment, live in the present.” Now you are saying, “Return to the past.” What should we do?
So it is with the mind—there are ruts. The past means endless grooves. However much you understand, your intellect agrees, you make decisions, you resolve—at the moment of resolve you feel something is going to change. But not even an hour passes before your decision breaks. Then only self-condemnation is produced, nothing else. Your saints, your fakirs, your priests and pundits—most of the time they only succeed in producing self-condemnation in you, nothing else. Their words are logically correct. You cannot even say they are wrong; you have to admit they are right. In that admission you take a decision. But against what are you deciding? Inside are grooves carved since who knows when, deep tracks. Walking in them has become a habit. It is easy to walk in them. They will pull you again and again. The meaning of returning into the past is: these grooves must be erased.…
Osho, what is the definition of God?
Words are very small. If you say God is light, then what of darkness? The scriptures have said that God is light. Suppose we accept this as a definition—then what about darkness? Where will darkness go? Darkness is too; in fact it is far more than light. Light sometimes is and sometimes is not; darkness is always, eternal. Where will you place darkness? If you say God is light, darkness is left out. If you say God is darkness, then light is left out. If you say God is both darkness and light, a contradiction arises: they cannot be together. Try to have both darkness and light in the same room. If you bring in light, darkness disappears; if you preserve darkness, you cannot have light. Then how can both be together? That becomes an impossibility. So you cannot say “both” either. Then the fourth device is to say: it…
You say, Osho, don’t try to be something, to become, to attempt “becoming”—just be, just being. Please explain in detail how this is to be attained.
The very moment you ask how to practice it, you miss the understanding. Because “to practice” already means the effort to become something has begun. When I say, remain as you are, just as you are, the question of practice does not arise. Practice means you have started trying to be what you are not. So you have not understood. Any practice implies discontent; there is no fulfillment in being as you are. The mind says, let something more happen. A little money—let’s gather more. A little knowledge—accumulate more. A little renunciation—become a great renunciate. A slight taste of meditation—let’s manufacture the taste of samadhi. It is all the same; there is no difference. The issue is neither money nor meditation; the issue is the demand for “more.” So whether you ask for wealth you remain worldly, and even if you ask for meditation you remain worldly. Wherever there is…
He said, “You are right.” And I said, “For the same ego you now say you want to be free of anger, because anger hurts your ego. So behind anger is ego, and behind becoming non-angry too is ego. Whenever you are angry, your image falls; your ego does not like that. You want people to worship you as a saint, to touch your feet. Because of your anger all that gets disturbed. Who will touch your feet? Who will bow to you? So now you want to be free of anger. But the root remains the same. The ego because of which you were angry—that very ego now wants to become a saint. Understand this—and drop choosing. I say to you, you are angry: agree—fine, I am angry. And the consequences of anger will be—let them be. No one will respect you—fine; why should they? Someone will insult you—fine.