According to Osho, arrogance is largely a projection of the listener’s misunderstanding: when truth is declared plainly, the unenlightened mind calls it pride, while understanding sees simple fact. Truth itself is neither arrogant nor humble; those resisting it can find “arrogance” anywhere. Authentic realization speaks directly; judgments of arrogance or humility belong to egoic interpretation, not to truth.
Often, what seems like arrogance is just our misunderstanding when someone states a simple truth.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Why do your statements seem to me to be arrogant?
IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN SO. It will always be so. When Jesus said, "I and my father are one," do you think people thought he was a very humble man? When Jesus said, "I am the truth, the way, the door," do you think the rabbis came rushing and fell at his feet and said, "Such a humble man! Never seen before." They said, "This man is arrogant. This man is egoistic." And logically, they look right -- this looks like arrogance! When Krishna said to Arjuna, "SARVA DHARMA PARITYAJYA MAMEKAM SHARANAM VRAJA -- leave all the religions aside and come and fall unto my feet," do you think people thought this a humble statement? "Leave all religions aside and fall unto my feet!" This is pure arrogance. And you will be surprised. It is said that the first words of Gautam the Buddha were... the legend has it that…
Osho, what is the difference between surrender and blind imitation?
So be careful: the freedom you allow yourself, allow the other too. You have no right to judge another as blindly credulous or as a surrendered being. Drop that concern. You cannot judge anyway—how will you enter another’s heart? How will you know? Think only about yourself. See within whether, up to now, you have lived by blind belief or by surrender. Decide only there; leave worrying about others. Otherwise, all your judgments will be wrong. Jesus said: Judge not; do not set yourself up as a judge in relation to another. To the friend who has asked: if you are asking for yourself, good. Drop worrying about others. Look within and see: whatever I have been clinging to till now—have I ever staked my life to hold it? Have I meditated for it? Have I loved for it? Or am I just clutching what culture, society, civilization handed me?…
Osho, in every dimension of life it is difficult to bow before truth and easy to bow before lies. Why this topsy‑turvy?
Mukesh, that’s why friendship with untruth is easy: untruth never asks to transform you. Untruth says you already are what you should be—indeed, you are even better. It builds bridges of praise for you. It gives you great consolation. And how many lies we have fabricated! So many that if you start searching, you will be shaken. Truth is one; lies are endless. Just as health is one and diseases are many, so truth is one. And truth will not flatter you; it will not cajole you. Truth will seem bitter, because you have become addicted to the sweetness of lies. Lies come sugar‑coated. Truth is as it is—naked. Those addicted to lies will avert their eyes from truth; truth will not go down on their tongues. Truth will taste very astringent, very bitter. Remember, we live by habit. I have heard: on a road at high noon a man…
Ego is the ego’s affirmative proclamation. Humility is the ego’s negative, denying proclamation. Egolessness has no proclamation at all—not even of humility. That is why no one can really call Mahavira humble. It is very difficult to say so. You cannot call Mahavira humble, because only one who still has ego can be humble. Yes, he may suppress it, bend it, melt it, dissolve it. He may say, “I am dust beneath your feet.” But still, he is. That makes no real difference: there is not even a hair’s breadth of difference in the being of it. He will say, “I am not even the dust at your feet—I am lower than dust.” But the “I am” remains. The announcement of being continues. So we can understand the arrogant, who says, “I am everything.
The prime minister, kuo tzu I, of the tang dynasty, was an outstanding statesman, a distinguished general, and the most admired national hero of his day. But fame, power, wealth and success could not distract him from his keen interest and devotion to buddhism. Regarding himself as a plain and humble devoted buddhist, he often visited his favorite zen master to study under him.
HE AND THE ZEN MASTER SEEMED TO GET ALONG VERY WELL. THE FACT THAT HE WAS THE PRIME MINISTER SEEMED TO HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON THEIR ASSOCIATION. THERE WAS NO NOTICEABLE TRACE OF POLITENESS ON THE ZEN MASTER'S PART, OR OF VAIN LOFTINESS ON THE PART OF THE MINISTER; THE ASSOCIATION SEEMED TO BE THE PURELY RELIGIOUS ONE OF A REVERED MASTER AND AN OBEDIENT DISCIPLE. ONE DAY, HOWEVER, WHEN HE WAS PAYING HIS USUAL VISIT TO THE ZEN MASTER, HE ASKED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: YOUR REVERENCE, HOW DOES BUDDHISM EXPLAIN EGOTISM? THE ZEN MASTER'S FACE SUDDENLY TURNED BLUE, AND IN AN EXTREMELY HAUGHTY AND CONTEMPTUOUS MANNER HE SAID TO THE PREMIER: WHAT ARE YOU SAYING YOU NUMSKULL? THIS UNREASONABLE AND UNEXPECTED DEFIANCE SO HURT THE FEELINGS OF THE PRIME MINISTER THAT A SLIGHT SULLEN EXPRESSION OF ANGER BEGAN TO SHOW ON HIS FACE. THE ZEN MASTER THEN SMILED AND…