Are ahimsa, aparigraha, asteya, and akam outcomes of apramad, or are they separate concepts?

A friend has asked: Osho, if in the mother’s womb man and woman create the opportunity for a soul to be born, does that mean souls are separate and there is no all-pervading Soul? He also asked: I have said many times that truth is one, God is one, the soul is one—then don’t these two statements seem contradictory, opposed?

These two statements are not opposed. The Divine is one; in truth the soul is one. But bodies are of two kinds. One is what we call the gross body, which we can see; the other is the subtle body, which we cannot see. When death happens, the gross body falls away, but the subtle body does not die. The soul abides within two bodies, a subtle body and a gross body. At death the gross body drops. This body made of earth and water, of bone, flesh and marrow, falls. What remains is an extremely subtle body—of thoughts, subtle sensations, subtle vibrations, subtle filaments. That filament-woven body begins the journey again with the soul and takes birth anew by entering a new gross body. When a new soul enters a mother’s womb, it means the subtle body has entered. At ordinary death only the gross body falls, not the…

A friend has asked: Osho, Gandhi has urged the practice of vows such as ahimsa (nonviolence), satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacharya (celibacy), and asangraha/aparigraha (non-possessiveness), and Patanjali too has emphasized them. So is it necessary to cultivate these before samadhi? Or can one reach samadhi without them?

Gandhi used to say continually, “I have no doctrine, no ideology. There is no such thing as Gandhism.” It sounded very humble. In Karachi there was a conference where Gandhi was speaking. Communists waved black flags and shouted, “Down with Gandhism!” Gandhi was at the microphone. Always, whenever anyone spoke of Gandhism, he would say, “There is no such thing.” But that day, when the slogan “Down with Gandhism!” was raised and the black flags waved, it suddenly burst out of his mouth, “Gandhi may die, but Gandhism is immortal!” What was hidden in the unconscious surfaced. It had been pushed down in some inner corner; hard to detect. We are not even aware of the corners of our own minds—what lurks where. It can slip out in an unguarded moment. It is necessary to understand Gandhi’s life very correctly. Gandhi’s life is a great failed experiment—a great experiment, and…

Osho, the principles Mahavira spoke of—such as nonviolence, truth, celibacy, non-possession, anekant—what can be their practical form?

A great mistake has been made here too. First, understand this: truth, nonviolence, celibacy, non-possession, non-stealing—these are not principles. Therefore, to ask for their direct practice is itself a mistake. They cannot be practiced directly. It is like someone wanting to gather straw: he must sow wheat in the field, not straw. And if some madman were to sow straw in order to produce straw, even the straw he had would rot in the soil and nothing would grow. Because straw is a by-product; it comes with wheat. When wheat grows, straw comes with it; if wheat does not grow, there is no way to grow only straw. Yes, when wheat grows, straw inevitably appears; it needs no separate attention. Nonviolence, non-possession, non-stealing—these are not principles; they are by-products, secondary offshoots. Wherever samadhi happens, these all arise on their own like straw. Anyone who sets out to produce them directly…

Question: Osho, I feel that whatever you have said so far gives rise to one particular question. And that question is that what you are saying is what, in Jain terminology, is called samyak darshan—right vision. And you are laying full emphasis on this—inner discernment, awareness. But samyak charitra—right conduct—is also its limb, and that conduct is expressed outwardly as well. Even though it issues from that very vision, it has its own form outwardly too. For example, if you take aparigraha (non‑possessiveness), the absence of attachment is its essence, the absence of moorchha is its essence; but outwardly it should also be manifest as a progressive limiting of external possessions—this, it seems to me, is the Jain view. On this basis arose the distinction between the small vows (anuvrata) and the great vows (mahavrata).

The night Mohammed was to die... His daily rule was, in the evening, whatever was brought as offerings—after supper, whatever remained—he distributed. Not even a single grain of rice remained in the house. On the night he was to die, he was ill, and physicians said he would die. His wife grew afraid. She hid away five dinars—five coins—that, perhaps in an untimely hour of the night, the illness might worsen and a physician might need to be called. At midnight Mohammed said: It seems to me that some possession has been made in my house. His wife asked: How did you know this? I have hidden five coins—but how did you know? Mohammed said: You seem so fearful to me that I suspected. A person so afraid cannot be aparigrahi.