According to Osho, the mind clings to theism or atheism to escape the hard work of inquiry, borrowing ready‑made certainties that console, give identity, and mask self‑distrust. Beliefs feel like ground underfoot. Remaining neutral means dropping all concepts and facing a vast, supportless not‑knowing—an inner “fire” and solitude. Yet only in this wave‑less emptiness does clear seeing and authentic trust arise.
We grab beliefs because they feel safe and give answers, but staying with no belief feels scary—like having no floor—even though that’s how we truly see.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, why is it that the moment we cling to some belief—whether theism or atheism—the mind feels so reassured? Why does it seem almost impossible for it to stand in the middle, dropping both?
There is no greater courage than to stand in existence without conclusions. By “without conclusions” I mean: no belief, no superstition. It means: we will see existence as it is, without bringing our notions in between. We will neither say “God is” nor “God is not.” We will neither say “the soul is” nor “the soul is not.” We will inquire. But inquiry is hard. Inquiry means you must pay a price. Who wants that bother? So we borrow beliefs on credit. We say, Mahavira knew, Buddha knew, Krishna knew—why should we get into the mess? We’ll cling to them, hold their feet, and pass through. That is not faith; it is only weakness. And the weak do not move. It is not trust to think we can walk to freedom by holding Buddha’s feet. If you have no trust in yourself, how will you trust Buddha? No real trust…
Osho, you have earlier said, “Live moment to moment, live in the present.” Now you are saying, “Return to the past.” What should we do?
So it is with the mind—there are ruts. The past means endless grooves. However much you understand, your intellect agrees, you make decisions, you resolve—at the moment of resolve you feel something is going to change. But not even an hour passes before your decision breaks. Then only self-condemnation is produced, nothing else. Your saints, your fakirs, your priests and pundits—most of the time they only succeed in producing self-condemnation in you, nothing else. Their words are logically correct. You cannot even say they are wrong; you have to admit they are right. In that admission you take a decision. But against what are you deciding? Inside are grooves carved since who knows when, deep tracks. Walking in them has become a habit. It is easy to walk in them. They will pull you again and again. The meaning of returning into the past is: these grooves must be erased.…
Question: A friend has asked: Osho, do you teach atheism? Would the man who wants to save people even from learning theism teach atheism? I teach neither theism nor atheism. I teach neither belief nor disbelief. I say: remain free of belief as well as disbelief, and search in freedom. Do not be bound by partisanship. Seek impartially—there are two sides. And remember, opposing sides are two faces of the same coin. There is not much difference between them. The theist and the atheist are two faces of the same coin. There isn’t much difference: one is the back of the same thing, the other its face. Reason is a very fragile realm. I am not saying, “Cling to belief.” The believer says, “We have reasons, arguments.” The disbeliever also says, “We have reasons, arguments. We say there is no God, no soul.” I am not speaking for either.
So am I asking you to disbelieve? No! There is no need to disbelieve either. But we think that if we don't believe something then we inevitably disbelieve it. This is an absolutely wrong idea. There is a state of mind which neither believes nor disbelieves.... Disbelief is a form of belief. When we say that we don't believe in god, what are we saying? We are saying that we believe in the non-existence of god. When we say, "I don't believe in the soul," then we are saying that we believe in the non-existence of the soul. Belief and disbelief are similar things, there is no difference between them. Belief is positive and disbelief is negative. Belief is a positive trust and disbelief is a negative trust, but both are trusts.
Osho, under the influence of atheistic and communist ideas I kept denying God and the principle of the self. Then I read your writings, my rational mind found no footing, and I came here. Now, from listening to you and meditating, a trust in the unknown has begun to arise and I feel like taking sannyas. Could it be that I have simply been hypnotized by the new environment?
Atheism is the precise preparation for theism. One who has not been an atheist has never been a theist. One who becomes a true atheist cannot remain without becoming a theist. Where atheism is complete, theism begins. So, first: don’t think that earlier you were an atheist and now you are going in the opposite direction. No—your atheism itself has brought you to me. This is my experience after working with thousands of people: those who consider themselves theists are almost hollow people. And with them it is very difficult. Their growth is very hard, because they have assumed themselves to be what they are not; they are clinging to a lie. It is like a sick person believing, “I am healthy.” How will you treat him? He won’t even let you touch him. He won’t let you take his pulse. He will say, “I am not ill.” Only if…