After you stop fighting everything, what’s left is just the real you—quiet, free, and aware.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Question: BELOVED OSHO, WHAT IS YOUR NOTION OF REBELLION AND OF A REBEL? A rebel is one who throws away the whole past because he wants to live his own life according to his own longings, according to his own nature -- not according to some Gautam Buddha, or according to some Jesus Christ, or Moses. The rebel is the only hope for the future of humanity. The rebel will destroy all religions, all nations, all races -- because they are all rotten, past, hindering the progress of human evolution. They are not allowing anybody to come to his full flowering: they don't want human beings on the earth -- they want sheep. Jesus continuously says, "I am your shepherd, and you are my sheep...." And I have always wondered that not even a single man stood up and said, "What kind of nonsense are you talking?
I frequently hear you speak about rebellion. The priests and nuns and relatives that shaped my training are now old and dried up. Most are dead. It seems worthless to rebel against those helpless old people.
I AM NOW THE PRIEST AND THE DOCTRINES. I FEEL THAT TO REBEL AGAINST ANYTHING OUTSIDE MYSELF IS A WASTE OF TIME AND JUST SIMPLY NOT TO THE POINT. THIS MAKES THE SITUATION MUCH MORE FRUSTRATING AND ENTANGLED. IT SEEMS THE SELF MUST REBEL AGAINST THE SELF. I ACCEPT THAT IT IS NOT THE ESSENTIAL SELF -- THE ORIGINAL FACE -- THAT HAS TO DO THE REBELLING. IT IS THE TRAINED SELF -- THE SUBTERFUGE. BUT THAT IS THE ONLY "SELF" I HAVE OR KNOW WITH WHICH TO DO THE REBELLING. HOW DOES THE SUBTERFUGE REBEL AGAINST THE SUBTERFUGE? For example, just sitting with your friends, by the way, you say, "That movie I went to yesterday was not worth seeing." You may have mentioned it just by the way, but then somebody says, "You are wrong. I have also seen the movie. It is one of the most beautiful…
Revolution is political; rebellion is spiritual. Revolution is of the crowd; rebellion is individual. All revolutions have failed. Whenever rebellion has been tried it has never failed, but very few people have tried it: a Buddha, a Jesus, a Zarathustra... very few people. But whenever it has been tried it has succeeded, it has never failed. Revolution is based in hatred; rebellion is based in love. You rebel out of love. Revolution is destructive, bound to be so, because out of hate nothing else can happen. Rebellion is creative, because love is the most creative energy. When you rebel out of love your rebellion has a grace to it, a beauty, a truth, which is not of the earth, which comes from the beyond. Sannyas is a rebellion. My whole teaching is of love and rebellion.
Osho, how can rebellion be receptive, feminine, yes-saying? It feels so much like a no to all these old things. Is it just awareness and love that is it?
REVOLUTION IS NO, REBELLION IS YES. Revolution is negative, rebellion is positive. Revolution says no to all that is wrong and should not be. Rebellion says yes to all that is beautiful, good. Revolution is past-oriented, rebellion is present-oriented. They are not synonymous. Revolution is destructive, rebellion is creative. Revolution can never be feminine, receptive, yes-saying. That is impossible. But rebellion is always feminine, always receptive, always yes-saying. I am talking about rebellion, I am not talking about revolution. Revolution is political, rebellion is spiritual. Revolution is of the crowd, rebellion is individual. You can be a rebel and you don't need anybody else to be with you -- you alone can be a rebel. But you alone cannot be a revolutionary; you will need a great organization, you will need a great army behind you. And the problem is -- one of the most significant things to be understood…
Question: BELOVED MASTER, WHAT ARE THE QUALITIES OF A REBEL? A rebel simply lives his life in the moment, with awareness, with no desire to dominate, either while he is living or when he is dead. He does not have any lust for power. He is a scientist of the soul -- that is the fourth dimension. Just as science uses doubt, skepticism, inquiry, he uses the same methods for his inner search. Science uses them for objective reality, he uses them for his subjectivity. But he does not condemn doubt, he does not condemn skepticism, he does not condemn disobedience, he does not condemn a nonbelieving approach to reality. He enters within his own being with a scientific mind. His religion is not superstitious -- it is scientific.