Osho - Psychoanalysis and Psychosynthesisis cannot solve man's problems

Question - Beloved Master, Cannot Psychoanalysis solve man's problems? Is religion really needed at all?

Osho - Neelima, psychoanalysis is a superficial thing -- helpful but very superficial. It only analyzes the surface rumblings of your mind. It is far better than scientology certainly, because at least it analyzes ACTUAL reality. It is concerned with the mind that you have got. It tries to penetrate into your unconscious, into the repressed part of your mind. It can help you, but it cannot solve all your problems because its reach is very limited. Hence, Freud could not satisfy, he could only touch a part of your mind. Adler touched another part of your mind -- he could not satisfy either. Jung touched still another part of your mind -- he could not satisfy, because parts are parts and the problem belongs to the whole.

Assagioli goes a little deeper than all these three. He drops psychoanalysis and starts calling his endeavor "psychosynthesis." That is a little better -- he synthesizes. Freud is a fanatic; he claims that whatsoever he is saying is the truth and the only truth and the whole truth. And anybody who is against it is against truth. There can be no other possibility -- this is the only way. The fanatic always claims, "This is the only way." The fanatic does not allow life its richness, its variety.

Osho - Psychoanalysis and Psychosynthesisis

And so is Adler. They were all basically disciples of Freud, although they rejected his knowledge. But they never could reject his basic fanaticism. They rejected what he said, but they never could reject the impression that he had left on their beings. Jung was also a follower, a disciple, then rebelled against him. But even in his rebellion he remained, deep down, the same person -- the same emphasis of claiming the whole, of knowing the whole.

Assagioli is far better, because he says all these three persons are talking sense but they are partial -- they have to be synthesized. A synthetic approach is needed which combines all the endeavors. But Assagioli commits a mistake which is very fundamental. You can dissect a man's body to know what is inside; once you have dissected it you will not find any soul -- that is not the way to find a soul. You will find hands and legs and head and eyes and heart and kidneys, and thousands of things you will find, and you can make a long list...but you will not find the soul. And naturally you will conclude there is no soul.

That's what was done by Freud, Adler and Jung. Then came Assagioli. He said, "This is not right. Dissection is not the way, analysis is not the way -- I will try synthesis." So he puts all those parts together again, stitches them together; does a good job of stitching, but still the man is not alive, the soul is not there. Once the soul has left, just by putting the body together you cannot bring it back. So now it is a corpse -- better than Freud, Adler and Jung, because they were only like the proverbial blind men, the five blind men, who had gone to see the elephant. Each was claiming, "My experience of the elephant IS the elephant." The one who had touched the leg of the elephant was saying that the elephant is nothing but a pillar...and so on and so forth. Freud, Jung and Adler are all blind, feeling parts of the elephant. And the elephant of life is really huge, enormous.

Now what Assagioli has done is that he has collected the opinions of the five blind men and he has put all those opinions together, and he says, "This is the right thing. I have made the synthesis, this is the truth." This is not the way to find the truth. By putting five blind men's opinions together, you don't arrive at the real elephant. The real elephant needs EYES to be seen.

Psychoanalysis is blind and so is psychosynthesis -- a little wiser but blind all the same. They cannot solve man's problems because man's basic problem is not psychological but spiritual, not psychological but existential. Man is not only the body; otherwise the physiologist would have solved all his problems. And man is not only a psyche; otherwise the psychologist would have solved his problems. Man is far more: man is an organic unity -- body, mind, soul...these three plus something mysterious: the fourth. The mystics in India have called it just the fourth -- TURIYA. They don't give it any name because no name can be given to it.

Body, mind, soul, these three are nameable. The body is available for objective observation. The mind is available for both objective and subjective observation -- you can observe it from the outside as behavior and from the inside as ideas, thoughts, imagination, memory, instinct, feeling, and so on and so forth. The soul is available only as a subjective experience. And beyond all these three is the fourth that keeps them all together: turiya -- the fourth, unnameable. That fourth has been called God, the fourth has been called nirvana, the fourth has been called enlightenment.

Man's problem is complex. If he were only the body, things would have been simple; science would have solved everything. If he were only the mind, psychology would have been enough. But he is a very complex phenomenon, four-dimensional. And unless you know the fourth, unless you enter the fourth, you don't know the man in his totality. And without knowing him in his totality, the problem cannot be solved. Psychoanalysis can give you a philosophic approach, but not an existential transformation.

During the last days of a psychiatrists' convention, one of the doctors present at the closing lecture noticed an attractive female Ph.D. being pawed by the man seated next to her.
"Is he bothering you?" the gallant observer asked the woman.
"Why should I be bothered?" she replied. "It is HIS problem."

Psychoanalysis, psychiatry, psychology, can give you a philosophical approach towards life. They can give you the quality of being distant from life's problems, but the problems are not solved. And the psychiatrist has not even solved his own problems -- how can he help others to solve theirs?

Even Sigmund Freud is not a buddha, is full of problems -- in fact more than the so-called human beings. He was very much afraid of death, too much afraid of death -- so much so that even the word 'death' was not uttered in front of him by his disciples, because once or twice, just hearing the word 'death' he had fainted. Just the word 'death' was enough! He would faint, he would become unconscious, he would fall down from his chair.
Freud brought sex into the light. He did a great work:he destroyed one taboo, the taboo that had remained for centuries. Sex was a taboo subject, not to be talked about. He brought it into the light. He did a great pioneer work -- he should be respected for it. But death was taboo to him; he could not even hear the word. There seems to be a connection.

This is MY observation: that there have been two kinds of societies in the world -- one society which makes sex taboo, then it is not afraid of death; and the other society which drops the taboo against sex, then it immediately becomes afraid of death. We have not yet been able to create a society in which neither sex nor death are taboos. My sannyasin has to do that. Why does it happen so?

For example, in India, sex is taboo -- you should not talk about it -- but death is not taboo. You can talk about it; in fact, all the religious teachers talk about death. They make people so much afraid of death, talking again and again and again about it. They create so much fear in people that out of fear people start becoming religious. All Indian scriptures are full of the description of death. Death seems to be one of the most talked about subjects in India -- not sex. Sex is taboo. Sex is life, and if you choose death you cannot choose sex -- either/or.

Freud did a great service to humanity; he brought sex from the dark corners of the soul into the open world. But immediately death became taboo; he himself became afraid of death. They are polar opposites, and the total man will be able to understand both.
And the total man, the whole man, is my definition of a holy man. He will be able to talk about sex, observe, analyze, dissect, go into it, meditate -- and he will be able to do the same with death. ...Because you are neither sex nor death: you are the witness of both. You are neither life nor death: you are a witness to both. This witnessing will bring you to the fourth -- turiya. And only when you enter the fourth do all problems disappear, dissolve. Before that, problems remain. You can become very very expert in analyzing problems -- that is not going to help.

A beautiful woman visits a psychoanalyst. "Take off your clothes," says the psychoanalyst as soon as she enters.
"But really I was...."
"I am telling you to take off your clothes," insists the shrink without giving her time to answer.
"But, doctor, I came because I have a problem and I thought...."
"Don't think. Take off your clothes and don't waste my time," insists the shrink even more rudely.
The astonished and embarrassed woman takes off her clothes and immediately the shrink jumps on her.
After half an hour, the shrink, zipping up his trousers, looks at the woman who still does not understand what is happening and more calmly says, "Well, now that I have solved my problem, let us see if I can solve yours."

Only a buddha can help you to solve your problems -- one who has no problems of his own. Religion cannot be dropped, can never be dropped. Religion is not something superficial and accidental: it is an intrinsic need, it is absolutely needed.

Neelima, you ask me, "Cannot psychoanalysis solve man's problems?" No. It can help you to understand your problems a little bit more, and by understanding your problems you can control your life in a certain way, to a certain extent. Psychoanalysis can help you to become a little more normal than you are; it can reduce your heated, excited abnormality to a little calmer and cooler space -- that's all. It can bring your temperature down a little, but it cannot solve. It can only help, it can console.

I have heard about a man who used to smoke three cigarettes at one time -- that was his obsession. Now, it was very embarrassing; people would look at him, what he was doing, and he would feel very shy and ashamed. But it was impossible, he couldn't help it, he had to do it that way; otherwise he would remain very dissatisfied.
He had tried every possible way, whatsoever was suggested to him. Nothing helped.
Then somebody suggested, "You go to a psychoanalyst."

After one year of psychoanalysis and thousands of dollars wasted, a friend asked him, "Did psychoanalysis help you?"
He said, "Certainly!"
But the man could not believe it, because he saw he was still smoking three cigarettes. So he asked, "But you are still smoking three cigarettes, so I don't understand how psychoanalysis has helped you."
He said, "Now I am no longer ashamed! My psychoanalyst has helped me to understand that this is just normal. What is wrong in it? A few people smoke one, I have heard of one person who smokes two, I smoke three! The difference is only of quantity -- and what is wrong in smoking three cigarettes? For one year my psychoanalyst has persistently said that there is nothing wrong in it; now I don't feel ashamed. In fact, I am the only person in the world who smokes three cigarettes simultaneously! Now I feel very superior."

Psychoanalysis can give you many consolations. It can help you rationalize, it can help you normalize, it can help you not to feel ashamed -- but it doesn't solve. It cannot. Problems are never solved if you remain at the same plane of existence. This is something very fundamental to be understood.

If you want to solve a problem you have to rise above the plane. It can't be solved on the same plane. The moment you reach a higher plane, the lower-plane problems simply disappear. That is the way of religion: to help you go higher and higher and higher. The moment you have reached the fourth state, turiya, all problems disappear, dissolve, lose meaning. Not that you have found solutions, no, not at all -- religion is not interested in solutions. No solution can ever solve a problem; it may help you to solve one problem, but it will create another. The solution itself may become the problem. You may become so much attached and dependent on the solution....

It happens almost every day in your life: you are ill, you take a certain medicine, it helps, and then you become dependent on the medicine; then you are addicted, then you cannot leave the medicine. Now the medicine has its own side effects -- now they start torturing you. Now for them you will need other medicines...and so on and so forth. There is no end to it.

No solution can really become a solution. Religion has a totally different approach. It does not give you a solution, it simply helps you to raise the level of your consciousness. Religion is consciousness-raising. It raises you higher than the problem, it gives you a bird's-eye view. Now you are standing on a hilltop looking at the valley...and the problems of the valley are simply meaningless. They don't have any significance for the man who is standing on the sunlit hilltop. They have simply lost all relevance.

Source - Osho Book "The Dhammapada, Vol2"

^Top Back to Osho Therapies