According to Osho, Krishna did not need to pass through atheism to reach supreme theism; he stands at a depth where theism and atheism dissolve into the same reality. Profound theist equals profound atheist - only the language differs. Whether called God, nature, or 'what is,' truth is nondual (neti-neti). Debates are superficial; direct understanding embraces the whole.
Krishna doesn’t need to become an atheist, because he lives where “God” and “no God” are just different names for the same reality.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Questioner: did krishna have to pass through atheism in order to attain to the highest in theism?
I would like to close my talk with an anecdote. Mark Twain is the author of this joke. Once the people of this world decided to carry out an experiment. They hit upon the idea that if all the people of the world agree on a time to shout with one voice, the noise will reach the moon. And if there are people living on the moon, they will hear our shout. And if they make a similar effort we can hear their answering shout from the moon. Man has always been fascinated by the moon, and his desire to relate with that planet is as old as the earth. That is why every child on coming into the world begins to ask for the moon. So a decision was taken and a time appointed when all the inhabitants would speak together to the moon in one voice. They were…
Osho, through what atheism did Krishna pass to attain such profound theism?
I have heard that Mark Twain used to tell a joke. He would joke that once it was decided by all the people of the earth that if we all, together, shout loudly at the same instant, the sound could reach the moon. And if anyone were on the moon, they would hear and might answer together. Human eyes have been fixed on the moon for ages. The urge to connect with the moon is very old. A child is not even born and already begins to relate to the moon. So a special day was set for all the people of the earth, and at exactly twelve noon everyone would roar together—make a great “Hooo” sound, in unison. The sound would reach the moon; perhaps a reply might come; if anyone were there, they would hear. The day came. And at twelve, with great eagerness, people gathered on roads…
Osho, can an atheist become enlightened without becoming a theist?
So what will be the meaning of theist? There will be two meanings. One is the theism taught to children, in which we say, “God is above.” It looks as if there is a great engineer who is managing everything—or a great judge, ruling the world from there; punishing people; protecting the good, destroying the bad. Or it seems there is some dictator—the colossal figure of a Stalin or a Hitler—who does as he pleases. When He wants the leaves to tremble, He makes them tremble; when He doesn’t, they do not. The law is in His hands; He may save or He may kill. Everything is in His hands. All you can do is praise Him. This is children’s God. Children need it too. And don’t think only little children are children. Ninety percent of people remain childish until they die; their intelligence never matures. Then there is a…
Osho, all through the Gita Krishna appears supremely egotistical. Yet in your morning discourse you said that it is precisely because of egolessness that Krishna could say, “Abandon everything and come into my refuge; I alone am all,” and so on. But Buddha and Mahavira don’t speak like this. Are their egolessnesses different? What is the fundamental difference?
The final remembrance that dawns for Buddha and Mahavira is remembrance—not the fruit of practice. But we observe: “He circled the village twenty times; then he remembered.” Another went one time; he remembered. Another went not at all; he remembered. From outside we conclude: “He remembered after twenty rounds—let us also do twenty.” There is no causal link between Mahavira’s doing and his awakening. If there were, then Jesus could not awaken—he did none of what Mahavira did. Nor the Buddha—he didn’t do what Mahavira did. If water boils at one hundred degrees, then in Tibet, India, China, America—wherever—you will get steam at one hundred. That is causal law. Spiritual life is not causal. Therefore it can be free. Causality is bondage—each thing bound to what precedes and to what follows. If water becomes steam, it was bound by the laws of water; now by the laws of steam; if…
Questioner: you once said that buddha and mahavira were masochistic sannyasins. But in fact they came to sannyas from very affluent families; their sannyas was a follow up to their affluence. So how can you associate them with the sannyas of sorrow?
Gandhi found himself in such a dilemma when he wanted to discuss Krishna. In fact, he was more in agreement with Arjuna than with Krishna, How can Gandhi accept it when Krishna goads Arjuna into war? He could be rid of Krishna if he were clearly bad, but his badness is not that clear, because Krishna accepts both good and bad. He is good, utterly good, and he is also utterly bad -- and paradoxically, he is both together, and simultaneously. His goodness is crystal-clear, but his badness is also there. And it is difficult for Gandhi to accept him as bad. Under the circumstances there was no other course for Gandhi but to say that the war of Mahabharat was a parable, a myth, that it did not happen in reality. He cannot acknowledge the reality of the Mahabharat, because war is violence, war is evil to him. So…