According to Osho, philosophy arises when consciousness moves outward toward objects—the observed—and thinks about ‘the other.’ Real psychology begins when consciousness turns inward into pure subjectivity, witnessing without objects or thought. Religion transcends both in-and-out: all movement ceases, the subject–object split dissolves, and only oneness remains. Modern ‘psychology’ stays objective; true psychology is meditative inner knowing.
Thinking about things is philosophy; quietly watching your own being is real psychology; dropping both to just be, one with everything, is religion.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
What is the difference between waiting for godot and waiting for god?
It is as if the sun has risen in the morning and you are sitting in your room with closed doors and windows, in darkness. Open the doors, you become available to the sun. The sun was already available -- just the meeting happens. You cannot wait for God. All waiting is for Godot. Godot means the one who never comes, who CANNOT come, whose arrival is impossible. And the only impossible thing is that which has already happened -- how can it happen again? You are alive, and you are waiting for life, Now, this is ridiculous. The real man of religion does not think in terms of God. He thinks in terms of life or, even better, of living -- because life can again become an abstract idea. Living, moment-to-moment living. In that very living, one knows what God is, because one knows who one is. Your idea…
We have learnt from you that freedom lies in the transcendence of the mind, and it is the knowledge and the understanding of the mind which brings about its transcendence. The major part of religion deals with the mind, and so does psychology. As modern psychology has successfully discovered and revealed the structure and process of the mind, would you call it a religion? Or a branch of religion? Or a parallel religion? How do psychology and religion differ from each other? Kindly point out whether psychology and religion can be helpful to each other.
The rabbi was completely taken aback. "But my dear Mr. Steinberg, that is impossible! Who has ever heard of a dog being Bar Mitzvahed? There has never in the history of the Jewish religion been any mention of such a thing. It would be a scandal. The temple would be a laughing-stock. My orders would be revoked, the sisterhood would be abandoned, the building campaign would be halted, the gentiles would be hysterical, and the board of directors would have my neck!" Steinberg was unmoved. Without so much as the bat of an eyelash, he addressed the rabbi again. "For the occasion, I am donating to the temple the amount -- in cash! -- of five thousand dollars." "Mr. Steinberg," the rabbi beamed, "why didn't you tell me in the first place the dog is Jewish?" When it comes to money then even a dog becomes Jewish. When it comes…
Osho, why are you so much against philosophy?
And I can understand your question: this is how every child is being brought up, for centuries. Your question is relevant. You say, "I LOVE YOU. BUT IF YOU ARE NOT A PERSON, THEN HOW CAN I LOVE YOU?" We have been told that we can love only persons. The truth is just the opposite: you cannot love the person. Persons can only fight, persons can only be in conflict, because wherever two egos are, there is conflict, a CONSTANT war -- sometimes hot, sometimes cold, but the war continues. Sometimes the warriors are tired so they maintain a certain peace. Whenever they are back again and their energy is there again, they start fighting. You can see it happening with all kinds of lovers -- a continuous fight, a kind of intimate enmity, together and yet not together. Why is this fight there? -- because of two egos. Two…
Osho, is psychology not sufficient for the transformation of man? After the birth of psychology, what need remains for religion?
Naresh! Psychology is not even interested in transformation. Psychology is interested in adjustment. It wants you to be adjusted to the crowd—so that you don’t slip out of it, don’t fall apart, don’t become isolated, but remain a part of the herd. Its entire strategy ensures you never become an individual, only an organ of society. The moment someone starts drifting from the social stream, shows signs of privacy, of individuality, we rush him to a psychologist: “Adjust him. Bring him back. He’s beginning to stray; he’s started to make his own footpath—put him back on the highway!” Psychology is not at all interested in transformation. Transformation means revolution. And the first revolution is freedom from society—becoming an individual. The first revolution is to be centered in the self. The first revolution is to drop the herd mentality. Ordinarily man is like sheep: wherever the flock goes, he goes. Ask…
Question: BELOVED OSHO, WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF MIND IN RELIGION? But both philosophy and science are impotent as far as religion is concerned. Yes, theology they can create. Theology is nothing but philosophy about God. That's the meaning of the word theology. Theo means God; logy means logic -- logical thinking about God. Nothing can be more absurd. You don't know God, cognition has not supplied God. That's why science goes on succeeding, and theology goes on failing, because science has some grounds, through cognition, to enter objective reality. Theology has no way through cognition. So it simply remains thinking about a fiction. It thinks about God. You don't know God. How can you think about God? Before you start thinking, you must have some sort of experience. So theology is pseudo-religion -- pretending to be religion, but it is not religion. The third function psychology recognizes is feeling.