According to Osho, the small numbers are deliberate: he ended the ‘fairground’ of thousands and created doors-within-doors so only those hungry for inner revolution can reach him. Crowds, he says, signal falsity and egoic power-hunger; the right rarely gathers multitudes. He prefers seekers ready to drop props—status, opinions, herd-support—so that, in their very strengthlessness, the Divine support can meet them.
Because Osho avoids showy crowds and welcomes only a few who truly want to change, not be entertained.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, why is it that a true master has only a few disciples, while around a false master a crowd of followers gathers?
Of the patients who come, by plain arithmetic at least fifty percent will recover anyway—perhaps more. Not all illnesses are fatal. Even a doctor does not really cure; he only supports. There is a saying in the West: if you catch a cold it gets well in seven days without medicine, and with medicine in one week. Medicine or no medicine is not the big issue. Illnesses mostly heal. A person does not die of every disease! It is a matter of time. Just keep sitting. In lawsuits too, after all two people are fighting—one will win. And often it happens that both parties come to the same false master—the one who will lose and the one who will win; one is bound to win. And the game goes on. Those fifty percent who succeed because of your blessings return with garlands, spread your fame, and bring along fifty more…
Osho, India is a land whose very life-breath is religion. One proof is that even the most insignificant gurus here do not keep their number of disciples below a hundred thousand. But it is surprising that a guru as radiant as the sun, like you, has so few Indian disciples. Kindly shed some light on this.
Ramanand Agnihotri! No country has religion as its life-breath! Not India, not China, not Japan, not Iran, not Pakistan—no country. Countries cannot be religion-breathed. Countries are political units; what could they possibly have to do with being religion-breathed! Do countries have any prana—any life-breath at all? If there is no life-breath, how will there be religion-breath? Individuals are religious, not countries. Not castes, not communities, not organizations—only individuals. That is the dignity of the individual. Did it never occur to you that first there must be life-breath? At the very least, there should be life—religious or irreligious—but life. Do countries have any life-breath? These are political fictions, political tricks. Just a while back, before 1947, Pakistan was India; now it is not. What will you say? Is Pakistan now religion-breathed or not? Before 1947 it was; now? Now it is not. Bangladesh earlier was religion-breathed because it was part of…
A friend has asked, “At Sathya Sai Baba’s gatherings there are thousands. At Pandurang Maharaj’s gatherings there are thousands. At Dongreji Maharaj’s gatherings there are thousands. Why are there so few people at your gatherings?”
I am surprised there are even this many! By my account, even this many should not be here. That what I am saying still resonates with so many is itself surprising. And it’s not that I never had a crowd around me. I did. I shut off every path that led to it. The thousands were here too, once. But I found that for thousands it could only be entertainment. There was no longing for revolution in their lives—just a fair, a spectacle. The urge for revolution is not in the crowd. I left the crowd. I’ve now arranged matters so that the crowd-type cannot reach me—doors within doors so that the crowd does not get in. Only those few who truly want transformation should find their way to me. I have no taste for the others. So the fact that even you few are here is a miracle. You’re…
Osho, why is there so much secrecy in the ashram?
The ashram is not a marketplace; it is not open to the crowd. Here I am available to those few who genuinely want to be transformed. Sightseers, passersby—there is no purpose in their coming here. The invitation is only for those who have truly come close to transformation, for that small number. Therefore there is privacy in every respect. And the privacy will increase. Because as I see that more of the unnecessary can be sifted out, I will sift them out—since they themselves gain nothing, and by their presence they do not let others gain either. I have remained open to all for a long time and have seen what happens. I found that the crowd of the pointless becomes so thick that the meaningful person gets no chance at all. The merely curious surround so much that the true inquirer is left standing at the back. The mumukshu—the…
Question: BELOVED OSHO, IT SEEMS THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF GURDJIEFF'S WORK WERE AS REVOLUTIONARY, AS THREATENING TO THE STATUS QUO, AS YOURS. MANY OF HIS METHODS WERE UNEQUIVOCALLY OUTRAGEOUS, YET IT SEEMS HE WAS NEVER REPORTED IN THE LOCAL RAGS AS RUNNING A CAMP FOR SLAVE LABOR, DISRUPTING PUBLIC TRANSPORT, BEING A MENACE ON THE ROADS OR BEING THE INSTIGATOR OF RIOTOUS BACCHANALIAN ORGIES. YOU SAID THE OTHER MORNING THAT GURDJIEFF FAILED BECAUSE OF THE THICK HUMAN SKULL. IS IT FOR THIS REASON THAT HE CHOSE TO WORK WITH A SMALL, SELECT GROUP OF PEOPLE -- RATHER THAN CHALLENGE THE ENTIRE WORLD AS YOU HAVE? AND IF YOU HAVE SUCCEEDED -- WHICH YOU HAVE -- WHERE HE DID NOT, IS THAT IN PART BECAUSE MAN WAS NOT IN QUITE SUCH A PITIFULLY DESPERATE STATE FIFTY YEARS AGO AS HE IS TODAY?