Buddha vs Osho

Osho, Gautam Buddha again and again says, “This is the reign of the buddhas.” You too often speak in the same way. So can one buddha speak on behalf of all buddhas? If yes, why then were there differences among the buddhas in the past?

So I am not telling you to accept theoretically that there is no difference—so that the Quran says exactly what the Vedas say, and the Dhammapada says exactly what the Bible says. I am not saying that. I am saying: as long as the mind is there, to see difference is a mistake; to see non-difference is also a mistake. The mind has no door to truth. Rise beyond the mind. Go beyond thinking. Be free of thought. In thoughtlessness, non-difference is seen. But remember: non-difference does not mean that Buddha uttered word for word what Mahavira said. The essence is one. Buddha’s examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus’ examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus comes from a different tradition. He heard different stories in childhood. He learned a different language, a different idiom. When he speaks, the Old Testament will echo in it. You will…

Osho, Mahavira’s dispassion, Christ’s holy indifference, Buddha’s disregard, and Krishna’s non-attachment—what are their subtle similarities and differences? Please shed light on this.

In this, some similarities appear. Krishna will arrive at a peace like Buddha’s, because he has nothing to attain—whatever is, is already attained. At times he will appear dispassionate like Mahavira, for his joy knows no bounds. He will appear to proclaim God as Jesus does—but not because there is a God sitting in this world or the next: rather, because all is God. Krishna’s non-attachment is total surrender—“the disappearance of ‘I.’” To know that the “I” is not. Once this is known, whatever is happening is happening. There is nothing to be done about it. There is no possibility of our doing anything. Krishna sees himself as a wave in the ocean. Since there is no choosing, there is no attachment. If we understand correctly, non-attachment is not a state of mind; it is the dropping of all states of mind, the dropping of all positions—and becoming one with…

Beloved Osho, when I came to greece to see you, everything reflected more and more of the zorba. Now, being here in india, everything around you is reflecting more of the buddha. Osho, does this depend on being in greece or india?

In Harapur, seven thousand years ago, they had bathrooms attached to their bedrooms, they had bathtubs, and they had a very special arrangement for circulation of water in the city. The hot and cold water in your bathroom is not a new thing; it was available in Harapur, in Mohenjo daro. They had swimming pools. It must have been a very highly cultured society. At the time of Gautam Buddha, just twenty-five centuries ago, even then the West was not very evolved. And you can see it. We did not crucify Gautam Buddha, and the West crucified Jesus Christ five hundred years after Gautam Buddha. And what Jesus was saying was nothing compared to Gautam Buddha. Gautam Buddha was saying that there is no God; still, nobody thought of crucifying him. Jesus Christ was not saying anything against Judaism; on the contrary, he was simply saying that he was their…

Osho, Buddha insists on emptiness and Shankara on fullness. They each marshal weighty arguments and debates for their respective positions. They know the Truth, the Divine. Even so, why do they refute the other and extol their own? And you support both at once—why is that?

Death is just as divine. Night is as much God as day is. One aspect had been missed; there had been too much talk—only talk remained; the air was smoky with words; a web of words had been woven. A fresh expression was needed; the Divine was in search of a new word with which to knock again on the hearts still untouched by the stupidity of scholarship; to call again to those who are innocent, guileless, simple. Buddha caught hold of “emptiness.” It was a significant word. Consider: Buddha and Mahavira were born in the same era. Yet Buddha’s impact was unprecedented; Mahavira’s was not. Buddha’s thought spread across the world; its waves went to far horizons. Mahavira’s remained limited, reaching only a few. Both are equally wise. Both have the same experience. Both are mighty. One is not superior to the other, neither is behind. Then why did…

And the same is true about the followers of Buddha and Mahavira. They laugh at the stupidity of other religions that believe in God, because the whole idea is absurd. It is just fantasy, imagination, nothing else; it is a projection. But to me, both are true together. My understanding is not rooted in one pole; my understanding is fluid. I have tasted truth from both sides: I have loved totally and I have meditated totally. And this is my experience, that a person is whole only when he has known both. Otherwise he remains half, something remains missing in him. Buddha is half -- so is Jesus. Jesus knows what love is, Buddha knows what meditation is, but if they meet, it will be impossible for them to communicate with each other. They will not understand each other's language.