According to Osho, the Upanishads are not 'scriptures' at all but anonymous, many-voiced poetic outpourings of realized beings—pure transmissions where the speaker is only a hollow flute for existence. By contrast, the Gita, Koran, and Bible are tied to single founders, became organized religions with priests, dogmas, and conflicts. Because the Upanishads are experiential, paradoxical, and ownerless, they resist institutionalization and remain uniquely pure.
The Upanishads are nameless songs from many awakened people, while books like the Gita, Koran, and Bible come from one teacher and became rule-books for religions.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Beloved Osho, what is the difference between the emptiness of the child before the formation of the ego and the awakened childlikeness of a buddha?
Whether you are for it or against it doesn't matter -- your concern shows where your ego is hanging. And I will include the capitalist in it also: his whole concern is how to gather money, hoard money -- because money has power over matter. You can purchase any material thing through money. You cannot purchase anything spiritual, you cannot purchase anything that has any intrinsic value; you can purchase only things. If you want to purchase love, you cannot purchase; but you can purchase sex. Sex is the material part of love. Through money, matter can be purchased, possessed. Now you will be surprised: I include the communist and the capitalist both in the same category, and they are enemies, just as I include Charvaka and Mahatma Gandhi in the same category, and they are enemies. They are enemies, but their concern is the same. The capitalist is trying…
Osho, I am not saying we shouldn’t read the Upanishads or the Gita, am I?
Why would I say that the Gita and the Upanishads should not be read! I would not even say that so‑called forbidden books should not be read. I would say: read those too. How could I be opposed to reading? How could I be opposed to learning? My point is only this: read them as books, not as scripture. Do not read them as sacred, holy texts; read them as books. They are people’s experiences—understand them. But remember, their experience does not become your experience by reading. Their realization, their knowing does not become your knowing by reading. If this is kept in mind, what harm is there in reading? By all means, read. It is beneficial. These are the memories of humankind; certainly look into them—but with utter impartiality. A Hindu can hardly read the Quran properly. A Muslim can hardly read the Gita properly. He cannot. As long…
Osho, is there really no benefit at all from the scriptures?
And then a unique thing happens—not only the Gita will bear witness, the Quran too will bear witness to you, and the Bible as well. For one who has understood the truth of life through meditation, all scriptures become witnesses together; then there is no contradiction among them. Then there is no difference of Hindu and Muslim, Christian and the rest. But if you have not heard the inner truth, have not seen it, have not read your inner book—the real book, whose pages lie yet unturned—and you read the Gita, you will become a Hindu, not religious; read the Quran, and you will become a Muslim, not religious. And to be religious is a far greater thing than to be a Muslim. We need freedom from Muslims, from Hindus, from Jains and Buddhists. If there were no Christians and Parsis in the world, the world would be better. The…
Osho, “Contemplation of the essence (tattva) is supreme; contemplation of scripture is middling; preoccupation with tantra is inferior; and wandering among holy places is worse than the worst. Without direct experience, the dull-witted person vainly delights in Brahman—like one pleased by tasting the fruit only as it appears reflected at the tip of a branch in the shade.” Please be gracious and explain the purport of these two aphorisms from the Maitreyi Upanishad.
Someone explain what this color of the tavern is: the cup’s fame rises because of the cupbearer’s glance. O tellers of the candle’s heat, you have not yet seen the moth’s dance. Seek the company of the intoxicated. If you want to see the dance, watch the moth, not the lecture. Where a Buddha is present, the tavern is alive. There wine-springs burst forth; there the drinkers gather. Once they gathered at the Kaaba—not for the stone of the Kaaba but for Muhammad’s presence. In Muhammad’s presence, even the stone of Kaaba intoxicated. The cupbearer’s eye—and the cup got the name! Thus tirthas are born; and for centuries people wander among them. The sutra speaks truly: Adhamā tantra-cintā ca tīrtha-bhrānty adhamā-dhamā. Anubhūtiṁ vinā mūḍho vṛthā brahmaṇi modate, pratibimbit-śākhāgra-phalāsvādana-modavat. A lovely image: “As one might, under a tree, savor the fruit that appears only in its shadow, reflected…” Sit beneath a…
Osho, regarding the Gita and the Ramayana, it is said about you that you have also refuted them—that you have criticized them. Or that you have said these books do not lead to knowledge, rather they increase ignorance. So please clarify what you mean by “ignorance” here.
One thing: I am not against the scriptures; I am against holding on to them—clinging. I am not saying, “Don’t read the Gita.” I am saying: don’t grab the Gita blindly. Our minds develop a clinging, a grip. That grip does not make us free; it makes us dependent, makes us prejudiced. The person who reads the Gita without clinging can also read the Quran with the same ease and joy. The one who clings to the Gita cannot read the Quran with the same joy. The one who clings to the Quran will not be able to read the Guru Granth with the same joy. My opposition is to clinging. I hold that in all the world’s scriptures, those who knew something have said something. Therefore, the person who clings to any one scripture is depriving himself of a vaster range of experience and moving toward ignorance. He needs…