What is the purpose of the ego?

Beloved Osho, why is there an ego? It seems so absolutely meaningless, and not necessary at all -- non-existent actually. Do you know?

I do not know, because I don't have any ego. To know it one has to have it. I have looked within myself, searched within myself; I have not found it anywhere. And your question is strange. You say, "The ego is non-existent." Then why are you asking questions about things which don't exist? No, it is not non-existent for you, hence the question. Don't try to deceive yourself. You say, "It is meaningless, it serves no purpose." That is not right. It serves great purpose. The purpose of the ego is to give you a false self -- because the society, the religion, the country, the race in which you are born, does not want you to know your real self. That is dangerous, because the person who finds his real self is a rebel -- and all the religions teach obedience. What was the fault of Adam and…

Osho, what is the fundamental anguish of human life?

There is only one anguish: that a human being cannot become what he was born to be. There is only one anguish: that the seed remains a seed and does not bloom like a flower; that it cannot scatter its fragrance to the infinite winds; cannot converse with the moon and stars; cannot offer its colors to the sky; cannot be expressed. If the poem within the poet cannot be revealed—anguish. If the painter cannot paint—anguish. If the dancer cannot dance—if chains lie on his feet—anguish. Anguish means only this: that what we are meant to be—our innate nature and destiny—does not come to fruition, and we are forced to be something else. Then anguish is born. Then melancholy gathers over life. And all those countless people you see burdened with sorrow, living in a kind of hell—the reason is only this: each has come carrying the seed of becoming…

Osho, it is surprising that among animals there is hardly any hypocrisy or deceit, and among indigenous people it is also very little, whereas in the so-called educated and civilized society it is at its peak. Has humanity’s long and arduous journey from barbarism to civilization then gone in vain? And in that case, is the tribal order preferable?

Animals are without falseness, without hypocrisy—not because they have achieved something, but because they are incapable. They cannot be hypocrites; there is no way for them to be. They have no facility for being bad, no possibility of falling. But precisely because an animal cannot fall, it also cannot ascend to divinity. One who cannot fall cannot rise. And where there is no possibility of sin, there is no possibility of the divine either. The animal is in a kind of stupor; it does as nature makes it do. Its journey is mechanical. It has no free will. Therefore an animal cannot do evil, but it cannot do good either. It simply does what nature impels. It has no individuality of its own. Hence an animal can be neither wicked nor virtuous, neither a great sinner nor a great saint. An animal remains an animal. The animal is born complete.…

Beloved master, what is the ego? It seems a complementary question to "who am I?" and as much a koan.

The ego is just the opposite of your real self. The ego is not you. The ego is the deception created by the society so that you can continue playing with the toy and never ask about the real thing. That's why my insistence that unless you drop the ego, you will never come to know yourself. When you were born you had your authentic self. Then they started creating a false self: you are Christian, you are Catholic, you are white, you are German and you are the chosen race of God, you are supposed to rule over the world, and so on and so forth. They create a false idea who you are. They give you a name and around the name they create ambitions, conditionings. And by and by -- because it takes almost one-third of your life -- they work on your ego through the school,…

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…