According to Osho, a reaction is the ego’s mechanical interference—the “I” trying to come into it—arising from habit and past conditioning. When the doer drops, action becomes simple, effortless grace: just hearing and conveying, nothing personal. Reaction is effortful, second-hand, borrowed; response is fresh, choiceless presence. There is nothing more to it than allowing grace to move without the ‘I’.
A reaction is your past jumping in; a response is letting life move through you without the “me.”
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…
Osho, you have said that an uncivilized man can change his face with effort, but a civilized, educated man can change faces with ease—meaning this ease of changing faces is a gift of civilization. In this context of shifting faces, I want to ask: what subtle distinction do you make between reactions and response? What are the keys to freedom from reactions and the attainment of responses? Please explain briefly.
A joke circulates about Bertrand Russell. “Joke” is the right word, because who knows whether it really happened. I’ve heard that at the time of his death the words “O God!” came out of his mouth. A priest was standing nearby—very astonished. He had approached full of fear, because Bertrand Russell did not believe in God; how then to ask him for repentance, for a final confession? He stood there, apprehensive. But when, at the last moment, “O God” came from Russell’s mouth, his courage rose. He asked, “Do you believe in God?” Russell opened his eyes and said, “Who are you?” “I’m a priest,” he replied, “standing here fearfully. I had come to have you repent, but I thought you don’t believe. It’s good you do—then make your confession.” Russell said, “It is not proper to send a guest away empty-handed; so I will repent.” And he said, “O…
Osho, do you feel that biological or physical diseases are also reactions to sociological or psychological backgrounds?
Sir, one more contradiction I am coming across is about free will and destiny. People say they are suffering because of old karmas, and others go completely opposite to that. It is very confusing whether there is anything like destiny or free will—whether there are past karmas or something else will happen in the future. This contradiction is, I think, a vital one in society today. Both are true, and there is no real contradiction between them. A contradiction appears—on the surface it is there—but inwardly there is none. I remember: a man once went to Caliph Ali and asked the same question—“Is man free in his actions, or is he bound? Is it destiny, or is it freedom? Are we doing what we must, or are we doing what we choose?” Ali looked at him for a while and said, “Do one thing: lift one foot and stand on…
Generally we react, we retaliate. If someone abuses us, we w ant to abuse him back. We do not want to abuse. Something causes us to abuse and we become slaves of someone. If I was to make you angry only a slight push is required to arouse it. The thing which can be produced in us by others is a sign of slavery. Reaction is slavery. Someone praises us we are greatly pleased. Someone censures us we feel dejected and lost. We by ourselves are nothing at all, we are what the opinion is about us. To know what the people say about us, we preserve the newspaper cuttings with us. It should be considered a matter of great grace, we do not stick them on our clothes. All the time we are simply reacting. We do that, which others cause us to do. We are not individuals.
If one is in the situation of muso's disciple -- wishing to terminate a samurai for daring to assault the master -- should one do it with concrete totality, and meditate after- wards, or suppress the ego-based impulse, or is there a third alternative?
The first thing, and the most basic to be understood, is that whatsoever you do, it should not be a reaction. If it is an act then there is no problem. If Muso's disciple had acted out of his spontaneity, Muso would have certainly blessed him, but he started saying, that he would like to do this, he cannot allow this man to live any more, he has insulted his master.... If he had acted rather than brooding about it, rather than bringing the mind in; if he had acted with no-mind, the master would have certainly blessed him. Action is always good; reaction always bad. So try first to understand this term 'reaction'. It means you are acting unconsciously. Somebody is manipulating you. Somebody says something, does something, and you react. The real master of the situation is somebody else. Somebody comes and insults you and you react, you…