You are the Imperishable, the supreme to be known; you are the ultimate abode of this universe.
You are the Immutable, the guardian of the eternal Law; you are the Eternal
the Person—so I deem.।। 18।।
Beginningless, endless, without a middle; of infinite valor, with innumerable arms, the moon and sun your eyes.
I behold you with mouths of blazing fire, by your own radiance burning this universe.।। 19।।
This span between heaven and earth is pervaded by you alone, and all the quarters too.
Beholding your wondrous and terrible form, the three worlds are trembling,
O Great-souled One.।। 20।।
These hosts of gods indeed enter you; some, afraid, with folded palms, extol you.
Saying “May it be well!”, the companies of great seers and perfected ones hymn you with abundant praises.।। 21।।
The Rudras, Adityas, Vasus, and the Sadhyas; the Visvedevas, the Ashvins, the Maruts, and the Ushmapas.
The hosts of Gandharvas, Yakshas, Asuras, and Siddhas gaze upon you,
and all are filled with wonder.।। 22।।
Geeta Darshan #4
Chapter Summary
Osho examines whether the Bhagavad Gita's origin lies in Vyasa's authorship or in a living event between Krishna and Arjuna. He contrasts the Western-critical position—treating the Gita as literary fiction born of Vyasa's genius—with the Indian-traditional view that insists the dialogue actually occurred and carries inner, historical truth. If one reduces the Gita to literature, Vyasa becomes the creator and the others mere characters; if one accepts it as real, Krishna and Arjuna are the source, Sanjaya is the witness who captures it, and Vyasa is the scribe who compiles it. Osho highlights the fourfold transmission—event, perception, report, and compilation—arguing each plane has its own reality and necessity, and that authenticity lies in recognizing these layers. On authorship: Osho clarifies that 'author' in the classical sense may simply mean recorder, so Vyasa's greatness is in preserving, not fabricating, the teaching. On Sanjaya's role: Sanjaya functions as the immediate seer and teller—without his mediation the living exchange would have been lost to time. On history versus literature: the choice between seeing the Gita as fiction or fact changes who is primary, but Osho insists the deeper, inner happening is what's most spiritually significant. On Vyasa's prolific output: the multiplicity of texts bearing Vyasa's name is explained by his role as compiler across traditions rather than implausible solitary authorship.
Read this discourse in:
More languages:
Checking…
Sutra (Original)
त्वमक्षरं परमं वेदितव्यं त्वमस्य विश्वस्य परं निधानम्।
त्वमव्ययः शाश्वतधर्मगोप्ता सनातनस्त्वं
पुरुषो मतो मे।। 18।।
अनादिमध्यान्तमनन्तवीर्यमनन्तबाहुं शशिसूर्यनेत्रम्।
पश्यामि त्वां दीप्तहुताशवक्त्रं स्वतेजसा विश्वमिदं तपन्तम्।। 19।।
द्यावापृथिव्योरिदमन्तरं हि व्याप्तं त्वयैकेन दिशश्च सर्वाः।
दृष्ट्वाद्भुतं रूपमुग्रं तवेदं लोकत्रयं प्रव्यथितं
महात्मन्।। 20।।
अमी हि त्वां सुरसंघा विशन्ति केचिद्भीताः प्राञ्जलयो गृणन्ति।
स्वस्तीत्युक्त्वा महर्षिसिद्धसंघाः स्तुवन्ति त्वां स्तुतिभिः पुष्कलाभि।। 21।।
रुद्रादित्या वसवो ये च साध्या विश्वेऽश्विनौ मरुतश्चोष्मपाश्च।
गन्धर्वयक्षासुरसिद्धसंघा वीक्षन्ते त्वां
विस्मिताश्चैव सर्वे।। 22।।
त्वमव्ययः शाश्वतधर्मगोप्ता सनातनस्त्वं
पुरुषो मतो मे।। 18।।
अनादिमध्यान्तमनन्तवीर्यमनन्तबाहुं शशिसूर्यनेत्रम्।
पश्यामि त्वां दीप्तहुताशवक्त्रं स्वतेजसा विश्वमिदं तपन्तम्।। 19।।
द्यावापृथिव्योरिदमन्तरं हि व्याप्तं त्वयैकेन दिशश्च सर्वाः।
दृष्ट्वाद्भुतं रूपमुग्रं तवेदं लोकत्रयं प्रव्यथितं
महात्मन्।। 20।।
अमी हि त्वां सुरसंघा विशन्ति केचिद्भीताः प्राञ्जलयो गृणन्ति।
स्वस्तीत्युक्त्वा महर्षिसिद्धसंघाः स्तुवन्ति त्वां स्तुतिभिः पुष्कलाभि।। 21।।
रुद्रादित्या वसवो ये च साध्या विश्वेऽश्विनौ मरुतश्चोष्मपाश्च।
गन्धर्वयक्षासुरसिद्धसंघा वीक्षन्ते त्वां
विस्मिताश्चैव सर्वे।। 22।।
Transliteration:
tvamakṣaraṃ paramaṃ veditavyaṃ tvamasya viśvasya paraṃ nidhānam|
tvamavyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā sanātanastvaṃ
puruṣo mato me|| 18||
anādimadhyāntamanantavīryamanantabāhuṃ śaśisūryanetram|
paśyāmi tvāṃ dīptahutāśavaktraṃ svatejasā viśvamidaṃ tapantam|| 19||
dyāvāpṛthivyoridamantaraṃ hi vyāptaṃ tvayaikena diśaśca sarvāḥ|
dṛṣṭvādbhutaṃ rūpamugraṃ tavedaṃ lokatrayaṃ pravyathitaṃ
mahātman|| 20||
amī hi tvāṃ surasaṃghā viśanti kecidbhītāḥ prāñjalayo gṛṇanti|
svastītyuktvā maharṣisiddhasaṃghāḥ stuvanti tvāṃ stutibhiḥ puṣkalābhi|| 21||
rudrādityā vasavo ye ca sādhyā viśve'śvinau marutaścoṣmapāśca|
gandharvayakṣāsurasiddhasaṃghā vīkṣante tvāṃ
vismitāścaiva sarve|| 22||
tvamakṣaraṃ paramaṃ veditavyaṃ tvamasya viśvasya paraṃ nidhānam|
tvamavyayaḥ śāśvatadharmagoptā sanātanastvaṃ
puruṣo mato me|| 18||
anādimadhyāntamanantavīryamanantabāhuṃ śaśisūryanetram|
paśyāmi tvāṃ dīptahutāśavaktraṃ svatejasā viśvamidaṃ tapantam|| 19||
dyāvāpṛthivyoridamantaraṃ hi vyāptaṃ tvayaikena diśaśca sarvāḥ|
dṛṣṭvādbhutaṃ rūpamugraṃ tavedaṃ lokatrayaṃ pravyathitaṃ
mahātman|| 20||
amī hi tvāṃ surasaṃghā viśanti kecidbhītāḥ prāñjalayo gṛṇanti|
svastītyuktvā maharṣisiddhasaṃghāḥ stuvanti tvāṃ stutibhiḥ puṣkalābhi|| 21||
rudrādityā vasavo ye ca sādhyā viśve'śvinau marutaścoṣmapāśca|
gandharvayakṣāsurasiddhasaṃghā vīkṣante tvāṃ
vismitāścaiva sarve|| 22||
Translation (Meaning)
Questions in this Discourse
A friend has asked: Osho, you have said that the Gita became available to us through the conjunction of four persons—Krishna, Arjuna, Sanjaya, and Dhritarashtra. But the Gita is a section of the Shrimad Bhagavat, and the Shrimad Bhagavat was written by Maharshi Vyasa. So who is its original source—Maharshi Vyasa or Sanjaya?
A few points are worth considering in this regard.
First: there are those who regard the Shrimad Bhagavat or the Gita as only literature, not historical events; who do not accept that what occurred between Krishna and Arjuna actually happened; who also do not accept that Sanjaya reported any real event, or that Dhritarashtra is a real person; rather, they believe that all four are characters in the great literature composed by Vyasa.
For those who think so, Vyasa’s genius becomes the original, foundational source, and the rest are merely characters. Then it is all a play of Vyasa’s talent. Just as the characters in Sartre’s novels or in Dostoevsky’s stories, so too in this epic all the characters are born of Vyasa’s genius.
This is not the view of the Indian tradition. Nor would those who understand dharma be willing to accept it. Then the situation becomes exactly the reverse. Vyasa remains only the one who records. The event takes place between Krishna and Arjuna. The one who catches hold of that event is Sanjaya. That act of capturing happens between Sanjaya and Dhritarashtra. But the work of setting it down in writing occurs between us and Vyasa. That is the third plane. What happened, Sanjaya has spoken. What Sanjaya spoke to Dhritarashtra, Vyasa has collected and recorded.
If it is merely literature, then Vyasa is the creator, and Krishna, Arjuna, Sanjaya, Dhritarashtra—all are toys in his hands. If it is a real happening, if it is history—not only outwardly visible to the eyes but also something that happens within—then Vyasa remains only the recorder. He is merely a scribe. And in the old sense that is exactly what “author” meant: one who is writing it down.
There is a deep relationship between us and Vyasa. For what Sanjaya has said, he said to Dhritarashtra. Had it remained only spoken, it would have been lost. For us, Vyasa has compiled it. For us, Vyasa is the closest. But the original event took place between Krishna and Arjuna; and the task of catching that event in words happened between Sanjaya and Dhritarashtra. And something is also happening between us and Vyasa—the gathering together of those words.
And that is why many texts bear the name of Vyasa. Those who proceed according to the canons of Western research find it very difficult: how could one and the same person, one Vyasa, have written so many works!
First: there are those who regard the Shrimad Bhagavat or the Gita as only literature, not historical events; who do not accept that what occurred between Krishna and Arjuna actually happened; who also do not accept that Sanjaya reported any real event, or that Dhritarashtra is a real person; rather, they believe that all four are characters in the great literature composed by Vyasa.
For those who think so, Vyasa’s genius becomes the original, foundational source, and the rest are merely characters. Then it is all a play of Vyasa’s talent. Just as the characters in Sartre’s novels or in Dostoevsky’s stories, so too in this epic all the characters are born of Vyasa’s genius.
This is not the view of the Indian tradition. Nor would those who understand dharma be willing to accept it. Then the situation becomes exactly the reverse. Vyasa remains only the one who records. The event takes place between Krishna and Arjuna. The one who catches hold of that event is Sanjaya. That act of capturing happens between Sanjaya and Dhritarashtra. But the work of setting it down in writing occurs between us and Vyasa. That is the third plane. What happened, Sanjaya has spoken. What Sanjaya spoke to Dhritarashtra, Vyasa has collected and recorded.
If it is merely literature, then Vyasa is the creator, and Krishna, Arjuna, Sanjaya, Dhritarashtra—all are toys in his hands. If it is a real happening, if it is history—not only outwardly visible to the eyes but also something that happens within—then Vyasa remains only the recorder. He is merely a scribe. And in the old sense that is exactly what “author” meant: one who is writing it down.
There is a deep relationship between us and Vyasa. For what Sanjaya has said, he said to Dhritarashtra. Had it remained only spoken, it would have been lost. For us, Vyasa has compiled it. For us, Vyasa is the closest. But the original event took place between Krishna and Arjuna; and the task of catching that event in words happened between Sanjaya and Dhritarashtra. And something is also happening between us and Vyasa—the gathering together of those words.
And that is why many texts bear the name of Vyasa. Those who proceed according to the canons of Western research find it very difficult: how could one and the same person, one Vyasa, have written so many works!