Why should religion and state remain separate?

Question: BELOVED OSHO, WHY SHOULD RELIGION AND STATE REMAIN SEPARATE? Religion as such does not exist yet; hence, whatever is known as religion should remain separate from the state for the simple reason that it is not religion -- it is pseudo, fake. You cannot ask the same question in reference to science. Can you ask that science and state should remain separate? Nobody even thinks about science's separation for the simple reason that science exists, has come of age, has contributed immensely to human growth, welfare, health, longevity. In every possible way science has been a blessing. Hence, nobody will think of science remaining separate from the state. Religion has not been a blessing yet. It has been a curse. But remember, it is not religion. It is pseudo-religion. Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Judaism, Mohammedanism -- these are all cults.

Beloved Osho, prime minister rajiv gandhi is going to hold a national debate on the need for separating politics from religion. We would love to hear your vision on this question.

I am not a politician. I have never voted in my life and I am not going to vote -- ever -- because what is the point of choosing between two chimpanzees, just because they are holding different flags? just because they have different symbols? Chimpanzees are chimpanzees. They need a deep respect for religion, for religious people, because one thing is certain: religious people are not going to fight the elections -- no religious person is going to beg for votes. Basically, he has no desire to fulfill his ego and to cover up his inferiority complex. In his silence, in his peace, in his blissfulness, he has known the ultimate superiority. Now there is nothing more than that, nothing higher than that. He has become a temple; his god is within his being. The politician lives on war, lives on creating riots, lives on disturbance -- these are…

Question: OSHO, ISN'T ORGANIZATION A NECESSITY FOR A RELIGION TO SURVIVE? UNFORTUNATELY, it is. Religion needs some kind of organization, but the problem arises. Organization in itself is a political entity; organization does not need religion at all. To survive, religion needs organization. To survive, organization needs no religion at all. There is the crux of the whole problem. There have been in the past efforts to create religion without any organization, seeing that all the organizations somehow end up in being anti-religious. For example, the Catholic church -- it is a very solid organization but only an organization; there is no religion left. Religion is a disturbance as far as the hierarchy of the organization is concerned. Religion is a continuous trouble; religious people will be trouble.

Beloved Osho, you are against the pope so much -- is that because the roman catholic religion is the most organized religion?

Religion is something so high, and politics is so low that one thing has to be remembered: whenever there is a mixture of something lower with something higher, it is always the higher which becomes polluted -- not the lower. It is always the higher which loses its quality of being higher. The lower has nothing to lose; it cannot fall any more -- it has already fallen to its uttermost. Religion and politics should be separate. And the moment religion becomes organized, it becomes politics. Hence religion should not be organized at all; it should be everybody's private, personal, intimate search. At least some area of life should be left to the individual where he is totally free, without anybody else deciding for him, where he can open his wings like an eagle and fly across the sun -- no chains, no bondages, no hindrances. Religion blossoms only in…

Osho, until now religion and politics were regarded as mutually opposed dimensions. But today it seems clear that religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. Today in Bhuj, the mahant of the Swaminarayan sect, Hariswarupdasji, has labeled your entry into Kutch as “an attack on Kutch culture.” And a politician, Mr. Babubhai Shah, has called you “a hunter in the garb of a sadhu”! On this blackboard of religion and politics, your religiosity seems to stand out like white chalk.

Italian friends come. I put a mala around their necks and say, “Look at me,” and they instantly close their eyes! Only Italians do that, no one else. I was surprised: whenever I say, “Look at me,” they close their eyes. I ask them to look; they close their eyes. Something is amiss between us. Perhaps they are right—because to see me, closing the eyes is indeed a way. That is how women look: more loving, more inward. When a woman embraces someone, she closes her eyes. Therefore, women are not as keen about a man’s color, form, features as they are about his refinement. Women are touched by different things than men. A man looks at complexion, form, features—head to toe, hair color, skin tone, nose, eyes. A woman takes less interest in these; her interest is elsewhere. She sees how graceful the man is, how humble, how simple,…