According to Osho, yes—and that’s the point: authentic “anarchy” is the only true order. Cultivating the negative mind (via artful unconditioning) awakens inner discipline, naturalness, and spontaneous responsibility, replacing outer laws, coercion, and imposed morality. As inner awareness matures, so-called anarchy ceases to be chaos; love and joy self-regulate relationships and society. External rule breeds disorder; inner order manifests an evolved, free, harmonious community.
If people drop outside rules and trust their loving, aware nature, life organizes itself without force or chaos.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, the question will be complete if I add one more doubt: if the conception of such negative training for the individual and for society is presented as an art and as a line of practice, will it not lead to anarchy?
The lawmaker is a sadist. He gives value to law. He says, “If you want to marry, you will have to live together your whole life!” He imposes a condition. And living together a whole life can be so sorrowful that under that sorrow and burden the little joy of marriage and togetherness is crushed under a stone—but that doesn’t matter to him. He says, “Only if you will live together for life can you marry! Otherwise you cannot marry.” If you want to remain free, you cannot marry—so you will be saved from the possibility of love. And if you want to love, you must marry. That sadist—my own understanding is that all lawmakers are sadists. Whether it is Manu or anyone else, all are sadists. They devise every way to torment. But they hide their tormenting in such a way that it appears they are undertaking great measures…
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, are you in favor of negative education? By negative education we mean that one should keep analyzing oneself so that one can understand both poles.
When we hand over ready-made conclusions, we deprive him of the opportunity to think. We kill him. One to whom freedom is dear will teach coming generations negation, atheism, doubt. And I hold that if doubt is brought to completion, from doubt itself one arrives at the place where faith is born. If there is truth in life, I will certainly be able to deny the false—how could I deny the true? And when all that is false has been denied, truth remains—the truth that is. It remains when the false has been cut away—the remaining. That which I cannot deny, which I try in every way to deny and find it cannot be denied—when all denials fall and such a truth appears that there is no way but to accept it, which stands self-evidently accepted because all denials collide with it and return—no denial can cut it. By denial,…
Osho, the other day you said that some people are born buddhist. I must be one of them, because I always feel deeply in tune when you speak on buddha or ikkyu. This is my natural climate. But I remember that I also felt like that when you were speaking on jesus, yoga, tao, sufism... Please help me to find out which is my true nature.
SUGEETA, you are a natural Rajneesh freak. The last question I HEAR SO MANY STORIES ABOUT YOU, ALL CONTRADICTING EACH OTHER. EVEN ABOUT YOUR PHILOSOPHY, NO TWO DISCIPLES OF YOURS SEEM TO AGREE. WHY IS IT SO? I HAVE NO PHILOSOPHY AT ALL. So how can my disciples agree on anything? I have no dogma, no creed. My assertions are not philosophic, but poetic. My assertions are not about the truth, they are only devices to help you awake. For one disciple I create one device, for another another. How can they agree? They will agree only when both have become awakened; their awakening will be the agreement. But when two persons are awakened they have nothing to say. They may laugh -- their laughters may agree. Or they may cry out of joy -- their tears may agree. But statements can't agree. You must be new here. Don't be…
A friend has asked: Osho, the soul cannot be seen. Why is so much importance given to what cannot be seen? And why are you also speaking about this same unseen soul?
A tree is visible; its roots are not. The roots are hidden in the earth. But that does not reduce the value of the unseen roots. In fact, the visible tree depends entirely on those invisible roots. And whoever wastes time caring only for the tree and ignores the roots, his tree is bound to dry up. That tree will bear neither leaves nor flowers nor fruit. The life of the tree is hidden in its unseen roots. Whatever is truly important in life is hidden. What appears is only the outer shell. What remains unmanifest is the inner life-breath. The body is visible because it is the outer shell. What is within the body is not visible. But the value of what is unseen does not diminish for that reason. Rather, precisely because it is not visible, its search becomes all the more necessary. Let it not happen that…