Who is superior between Krishna's and Mahavira's perspectives on violence?

Synthesized from Source definition

Core Insight:

According to Osho, neither Krishna nor Mahavira is superior; comparison is ignorance. Both indicate the same truth from different angles: violence is rooted in the egoic sense of ‘I am the doer.’ Mahavira highlights intention; Krishna stresses surrender—becoming a hollow instrument of the Divine. When the ‘I’ dissolves, nonviolence flowers, whether one fights or renounces.

No one is better—both teach that the real harm is the ‘I’ that thinks it’s doing; drop that, and you won’t hurt anyone.

Why this matters practically

- Prevents sectarian superiority; centers practice on dissolving ego.
- Offers a clear compass: act from surrender and inner silence, not reactive intention.
- Turns daily work and conflicts into nonviolent service by dropping doership.

AI Confidence Score: 95% Read Original Discourse →

Who is superior between Krishna's and Mahavira's perspectives on violence?

Why this matters practically

Related Questions on Violence

What is violence as an expression of rebellion?

What is the underlying cause of communal riots?

What are the behaviors of animals in relation to violence?

What is the nature of violence?

What are the consequences of using dubious means instead of direct violence?

Is violence against animals justified from a human-utilitarian point of view?

What is the philosophical perspective on violence in the context of aggression?

What is Osho's perspective on violence against animals?

What is the nature of violence?

What does it mean to call violence a disease from the standpoint of psychic anatomy?