What is the relationship between the Gita and psychology?

Today psychology recognizes that the tendency to torture oneself is sick, diseased. It is not a symptom of a healthy mind. Krishna recognized this thousands of years ago. He tells Arjuna what modern psychology is saying today—that higher than the ascetic is the yogi. Why? Because the ascetic only indulges—in what we can call—superficial tricks and useless externals, and takes a relish in giving himself pain. And since a man who relishes giving himself pain is also given respect by others, why do others respect him? If a man stands on the street whipping himself, what reason have you to respect him? If you ask a deep knower of the mind, he will say: the reason is that you are a sadist and he is a masochist. He is enjoying tormenting himself, and you are enjoying someone being tormented.

Beloved Osho, what do you mean by "the psychology of the buddhas?" how is it different from the present psychology that prevails in the world?

It has to be understood; the people who came to Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychology, were all sick people -- obviously, otherwise why should they come to the psychoanalyst? They were seriously sick, their minds were falling apart. Sigmund Freud came in contact only with sick people -- that gave him the impression that man himself is sick. In a way he is logical because everybody he examined, everybody he analyzed, everybody he treated was sick. And these were high-class people, bourgeois -- professors, scientists, very rich people -- because a psychoanalyst's time is the costliest thing in the world today. All these people were basically living an insane life, but because everybody else is also living the same insane life you don't become aware of it. If Sigmund Freud denied that there is any possibility of a soul in man he cannot be blamed. He never came…

Osho, why does there seem to be so much conflict between the world and God?

It is as if someone were sleeping deeply in this garden. The cuckoo comes and sings, birds are chattering, the sun rises, breezes dance through the trees; but someone is fast asleep. The breezes touch him, the birds’ songs echo at his ears, the sun’s rays play on his face, but he knows nothing. Then someone comes and shakes him awake. His eyes open—the glory of the sun is revealed, the song of the passing breeze is heard, suddenly the cuckoo’s call, the fragrance of flowers. Do you think something new has happened? Everything was already there, just as it is. Only this man has become new—nothing else has changed. The same garden, the same sun, the same flowers, the same birds—everything the same; only a small difference: he was asleep; he is awake. The meaning of “world” is: you are asleep in God. The meaning of “God” is: you…

A friend has also asked me: Shankara made one interpretation; Ramanuja another; Vallabha a third; Nimbarka a fourth; Tilak a fifth; Gandhi did; Vinoba did—there have been a thousand well-known commentators on the Gita, and countless more unknown ones. He has asked me: the interpretation you are giving—how is it different from theirs?

There is a great difference. I have no sect. I don’t want to impose anything on the Gita. I don’t want to impose knowledge, nor devotion, nor action. I don’t want to impose anything at all on the whole Gita. Whoever tries to impose something on the whole Gita is being unjust to Krishna. What I want is to simply reveal, inch by inch, what the Gita itself says—without worrying that elsewhere, sooner or later, it may also say the opposite. I don’t want to set up any system, any framework. But it will be confusing; there will be a great confusion in what I say—the same kind of confusion that is in Krishna’s discourse. Because sometimes I will say knowledge is supreme—when the Gita declares knowledge supreme, I will say so. And when the Gita declares devotion supreme, I will say so. I will flow with the Gita; I…

We have learnt from you that freedom lies in the transcendence of the mind, and it is the knowledge and the understanding of the mind which brings about its transcendence. The major part of religion deals with the mind, and so does psychology. As modern psychology has successfully discovered and revealed the structure and process of the mind, would you call it a religion? Or a branch of religion? Or a parallel religion? How do psychology and religion differ from each other? Kindly point out whether psychology and religion can be helpful to each other.

The rabbi was completely taken aback. "But my dear Mr. Steinberg, that is impossible! Who has ever heard of a dog being Bar Mitzvahed? There has never in the history of the Jewish religion been any mention of such a thing. It would be a scandal. The temple would be a laughing-stock. My orders would be revoked, the sisterhood would be abandoned, the building campaign would be halted, the gentiles would be hysterical, and the board of directors would have my neck!" Steinberg was unmoved. Without so much as the bat of an eyelash, he addressed the rabbi again. "For the occasion, I am donating to the temple the amount -- in cash! -- of five thousand dollars." "Mr. Steinberg," the rabbi beamed, "why didn't you tell me in the first place the dog is Jewish?" When it comes to money then even a dog becomes Jewish. When it comes…