Did the Jaina religion start with the first Tirthankara or with Mahavira, and what is the meaning of the word 'Jaina'?

Beloved Osho, mahavira was the twenty-fourth tirthankara of the jaina religion. Did the jaina religion start with the very first tirthankara or with mahavira? And what is the meaning of the word `jaina'?

And they became really rich, so rich that even kings had to borrow money from them. Nobody was a beggar, nobody was uneducated. And because they were such a small minority, attacked by all kinds of philosophies, they had to protect themselves; they sharpened their intellect. They created better arguments than anybody else, because for others it was a luxury to argue, but for Jainas it was a question of life and death. They had to win the argument; otherwise they were finished. So they have developed logical systems, great philosophies, which should be made available to the whole world. But the world cares only about numbers, and they are a non-converting religion, so the question of creating great numbers like the Catholics is not possible. They are non-converting because, according to them -- and I accept the idea -- the very effort to convert somebody is ugly. You can…

Osho, before Mahavira there were twenty-three Tirthankaras. Then Mahavira’s family members must have been followers of someone—Mahavira himself was not a follower of anyone—so were they followers of Parshvanath or of someone else? How did it happen that Mahavira, who forged his own path and was not anyone’s disciple, ended up with a path that coincided with Parshvanath’s path, or with that tradition? Because that path already existed! And the name “Jain” for the sect is associated with Mahavira; before him, what were those people called?

There are two or three things to understand here. First, only with Mahavira did a stream of thought become a sect. Before Mahavira there was indeed a current of thought, but it had no separate existence from the Aryan tradition. It was a current that arose within the Aryan tradition. Its name was Shramana. It was not called “Jain” yet. And there was a reason for calling it “Shramana,” as I have said earlier. I have told you that the Brahmin current does not put faith in attaining the ultimate through effort, through sadhana, through tapas. The ultimate is to be attained in an attitude of extreme humility, in prayer, in utter meekness—where we are completely helpless, where we can do nothing; the doer is That alone. In this perfect poverty—what Jesus called “poverty of the spirit”—one who is so humble and indigent in spirit that he says, “What can…

Osho, how could the iconoclast Mahavira accept himself as the twenty-fourth Tirthankara of the most ancient Jina tradition? Please explain!

Within this revolutionary tradition, Mahavira is the most glorious, the most brilliant. Therefore his words are worth understanding and contemplating. He must have been uniquely revolutionary; for the Jainas have two sects—Digambara and Shvetambara. The Digambaras hold that not a single word of Mahavira remains, no scripture remains. That too is part of the revolution. They say, no scripture is Mahavira’s word. The words we have are from the Shvetambara compilations. The Digambaras have no compilations. It is astonishing that the Digambaras did not preserve! But that too belongs to their deep revolt: if you preserve words, today or tomorrow they become scripture; preserve them, and soon they become Veda. Hence the Digambaras did not preserve Mahavira’s words. It is an extraordinary rebellion against scripture. They revere Mahavira, but preserved no texts—only what was passed personally from master to disciple; they did not write it down. Therefore, for the Digambaras,…

Osho, why is it that Mahavira’s “Jin” has remained merely “Jain”?

And even the meanings we take from the scriptures require a great state of witnessing; only then will the flower of meaning bloom within you. Words you can get from scripture—but where will you get meaning? You will have to supply the meaning. A patient came to his doctor and said, “It’s very difficult; what you told me can’t be done.” The doctor said, “I didn’t tell you anything difficult. I only said: eat what your child eats. Where is the problem? For a few days, eat what your child eats; your body will come onto the right track.” He said, “I tried, but I couldn’t succeed.” The doctor said, “What nonsense! You couldn’t even do this much—that you eat what your child eats? If he drinks milk, drink milk. If he eats porridge, eat porridge. And eat in the same small quantity. You couldn’t even do that?” He said,…

Osho, in Jainism the principles of ahimsa, aparigraha, anekantavada, co-existence, etc., have a special place. But today in a newspaper I read a statement about you by a Jain muni, Shri Bhadragupta Vijayji, and was surprised. This monk is calling people to sacrifice everything and organizing them in protest against your entry into Kutch. For those who profess aparigraha, why this attachment to the Kutch region? And within their anekantavada, why opposition to your vision of life? Does it befit a muni to incite people in this way?

What of a Jain muni’s claim on Kutch! But it makes no difference; if “my India” is possible, why not “my Kutch”? Then “my district, my tehsil, my village.” Then what trouble with “my house”? It’s the same thing. Then why such difficulty with “my wife” and “my children”? If “mine” must remain, what fault is the wife’s and the children’s that you ran away, leaving them? It’s not that the wife wasn’t from Kutch—she must have been a Kutch woman. The children too were Kutchis—they were born of two Kutchis. You left your wife—no shame at leaving a Kutch woman! You left your children—the little Kutchis—no shame! And still: “My Kutch”? But I understand. It is a flock of the blind—led by the blind. The blind lead the blind, and both fall into the well. They keep falling—day after day. But if it is “my own well,” why not…