How can we reconcile the teachings of Mahavira and Buddha on nonviolence with Krishna's teachings on violence?

Synthesized from Source definition

Core Insight:

According to Osho, reconciliation comes by dropping doctrinal clinging and listening in silence. Krishna addresses action in the Field (kshetra), where opposites like violence and nonviolence arise; Mahavira and Buddha offer responses within that realm. Liberation lies in the Knower (kshetrajna)—pure witnessing—untouched by action. From this awareness, appropriate action emerges spontaneously, and contradictions dissolve. First learn to sit, wait, and let the Master pour insight beyond opinions.

Be very still and drop fixed ideas; from the quiet watcher inside, the right response appears, and the fight between ‘violence’ and ‘nonviolence’ falls away.

Why this matters practically

- Helps you avoid moral dogmatism and hear what life actually requires now.
- Cultivates witnessing so you act wisely, not react from ideology.
- Encourages patient practice (just sitting) and guidance from a living master.

AI Confidence Score: 82% Read Original Discourse →

How can we reconcile the teachings of Mahavira and Buddha on nonviolence with Krishna's teachings on violence?

Why this matters practically

Related Questions on Nonviolence

What is the philosophy of nonviolence and the concept of turning the other cheek?

Did Mahavira's opposition trouble him, and what does it imply about nonviolence?

What is the constructive, positive form of nonviolence?

Was Mahavira's restraint due to fear of violence or an upsurge of nonviolence and compassion?

What is the difference between the nonviolence of Bhagwan Mahavira and that of Mahatma Gandhi?

Is violence a nature-given fact or a man-made concept?

What kind of nonviolent peace can arise from war?

What is the significance of nonviolence in relation to Gandhi's teachings?

What is the relationship between nonviolence and discipline in the context of personal freedom?