According to Osho, anarchy ends external authority, not discipline. With no one imposing rules, genuine discipline must arise from within—an inner order that crystallizes your being and heightens consciousness. Rebellion rightly refuses imposed obedience, but without self-discipline it decays into chaos. True anarchy unites rebellious freedom with personal responsibility: authority enslaves, inner discipline makes freedom harmonious.
Say no to bosses, but say yes to guiding yourself—freedom works only with your own steady self-discipline.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Beloved master, anarchy simply means absence of authority -- which is beautiful. But in common language it has the meaning of absence of discipline. Why that confusion? Could you speak about discipline, especially its relation to rebellion?
The reality is that in India, Punjabis are the only people.... They use turbans; that is part of their religion. The Sikh has to use it, otherwise he is not a Sikh. And they are the most unintelligent people in the whole country. The Bengalis are the people who don't use any hats, any caps, and they are the most intelligent people in the country. Not a single Punjabi has risen to world eminence for his intelligence. They have not achieved Nobel Prizes. But Bengalis have become world famous. They have achieved the Nobel Prize for science, the Nobel Prize for literature, and all other kinds of awards. I told the principal, "What this proves is that the turbans are preventing the intelligence of the poor Sikhs. The Bengalis, without any caps, any turbans, any hats, seem to have fresher minds, are more intelligent. They have created the best literature…
Osho, does Kropotkin’s anarchism contain some element of communism?
No. Kropotkin and the others have nothing to do with communism; in fact, they are its enemies. Because, in their view, communism cannot come without state power. To bring communism you need the apparatus of the state, a dictatorship—only then can you impose it. And they do not accept that any apparatus is needed. Hence there was opposition between them and communism. Anarchists and communists have been enemies; there is no common ground between them. Communism says that one day the state, developing further and further, will wither away. But anarchists say: the more the state develops, the stronger it becomes—how is it going to wither away? My position is very different. For me it is not very important whether there is a state or not, whether there is an external order or not. Man should become such that he can remain orderly even within disorder. Man should be like…
Osho, could you say something about what is going on in Delhi?
I’ll tell a little story. When Lanka’s former ruler Ravana was on his deathbed, Rama sent Lakshman to learn statecraft from him—saying, “Son, we may have won, but we have no experience of running the administration here; go and ask him how to run things.” Lakshman went there and said to Ravana, “You are dying now—tell us how to govern here.” Ravana said, “Half the politics I handled, half Kumbhakarna did. Had you gotten in touch with Kumbhakarna as well?” Lakshman said, “Yes—he said: eat to your heart’s content and then sprawl on the sofa with your eyes closed. This is the best method.” “Tell me,” Ravana asked, “are you going to unleash dictatorship, or will you run things by democracy? Which method will be suitable?” “What will go down well with the people?” “Nothing,” said Ravana. “When you impose dictatorship, the people will yearn for democracy; and when you…
Osho, in many ashrams around the country I have seen that the residents are assigned some mandatory practice they must do regularly. But it is surprising that here there seems to be no such practice or discipline. Kindly shed some light on this distinctiveness!
I am here; I am your discipline. When I am not, then you will need rules, order, discipline. When the Master is, governance is unnecessary. When the Master is not, governance is a substitute. You must have seen this in dead ashrams. This ashram is alive. For now it is alive. It will die someday—and then be sure: there will be rules and discipline. The moment I go, there will be rules and discipline, because you cannot live without them—you are such slaves! Even though I try in every way, again and again you start asking: some rules, some discipline! My whole effort is to make you understand that nothing is in your hands. What discipline? What rules? If you get up at five in the morning, will you attain knowing? What foolishness are you clinging to? Whether you get up at five or at four or at three, you…
Question: BELOVED OSHO, IS THERE ANY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GNOSTICISM AND ANARCHY? The word `anarchism' has tremendous implications. It means that the people are so inwardly disciplined that they don't need any government. They are so deeply in order within themselves that no order outside is needed. Anarchism is basically the transformation of the individual in such a way that the government becomes superfluous. He lives in the light of his consciousness, fully aware of what he is doing, fully aware of its consequences, aware that it is not his right to interfere with any individual's life, or to trespass -- even in very subtle matters like conversion. Making an effort to convert somebody to your ideology is a trespass of that individual's consciousness. Unless he invites you, it is aggression.