Does Krishna consider birth to be a bondage?

Osho, Sri Krishna says that the wise, by renouncing the fruits of action, are freed from the bondage of birth and attain the supreme state. So does Krishna consider birth to be a bondage? You, however, say that birth and the world themselves are nirvana.

Let me tell a small incident from the life of Mohammed. He is one of those few sannyasins I would like to see in the world. People bring him offerings every day—sweets, coins, something or other. By evening those who have come eat and drink; at dusk Mohammed tells his wife, “Now distribute everything, because evening has come.” Whatever there is is given away. By evening Mohammed becomes a fakir again. His wife would ask, “This isn’t right; it is proper to keep something for tomorrow.” Mohammed would say, “We will wait again tomorrow for whoever brings it today. And when today passes, tomorrow will pass too.” Then he would say to his wife, “Do you consider me an atheist, that I should make arrangements for tomorrow? Making arrangements for tomorrow is atheism. It announces a lack of trust in the cosmic energy, in the world-soul: the one who gave…

Questioner: krishna says a man of wisdom, who gives up attachment to the fruit of action, is released from the bondage of birth and death and becomes one with the ultimate. How is it that krishna believes that life is a bondage? You don't believe so, you say this very life is freedom, this very world the nirvana. Please explain.

Mohammed answers, "Looking at your face tonight I can see you are not calm and peaceful as you always are. For sure there is some money in the house. Those who are worried become acquisitive and acquisitive people become worried. It is a vicious circle, So take out what you have saved and distribute it so that I can die in peace. Remember, this is my last night. I don't want to spoil it and appear before God with a guilty conscience." His wife hurriedly takes out the five dinars from under her pillow, and says to Mohammed, "But there is no one out there to receive this money, it is midnight." Mohammed says, "Just call out and someone will come." And someone, a beggar really appears at the door. Mohammed says to his wife, "Just see, if someone comes to take in the dead of night, someone else can…

Osho, Shri Krishna says that through desirelessness and nonattachment, bondages are destroyed and the supreme state is attained. Please clarify its meaning and explain by what kind of practice or worship this attainment is made possible. For ordinary people, becoming directly desireless and nonattached does not seem possible.

First of all, one must understand the meaning of nonattachment. Nonattachment is among those few unfortunate words whose meaning has not been understood. People take nonattachment to mean dispassion or aversion (virakti). Nonattachment is not virakti. Virakti too is a kind of attachment—it is the name of attachment to the opposite. One person is attached to lust, to desire; another is attached to brahmacharya, the opposite of lust. One person is attached to wealth; another is attached to renouncing wealth. One person is attached to adorning the body; another is attached to making the body ugly. But the one who makes his body ugly will appear to be a renunciate, the one who renounces wealth will appear to be a renunciate, because their attachments are negative. Attachment has two forms: being attached in favor of something, or being attached in opposition to something. The one who is attached in opposition…

Osho, if even sattvic action binds, then why are its fruits said to be knowledge and dispassion?

Because knowledge and dispassion can also bind. Certainly, Krishna’s statement appears paradoxical. The fruit of sattvic action is knowledge and dispassion. And Krishna also says that sattvic action binds. But ordinarily the so‑called saints explain that dispassion liberates, knowledge liberates. So the fruits that Krishna points to are commonly understood as liberating. But remember, whatever arises from sattvic action also carries the possibility of binding. You can be bound even by knowledge. Hence the Upanishads say: whoever declares, “I am self‑realized,” understand that he is not self‑realized. Whoever says, “I have attained dispassion,” understand that his attachment has shifted to dispassion. Sannyas can become householdership; it is in your hands. And the life of a householder can become sannyas; it is in your hands. Ignorance can be liberating, and knowledge can become bondage; it is in your hands. The Upanishads say that the knower understands, “I know nothing.” Socrates says,…

Another friend has asked: if it is true that I come to rest in non-doing, settle into the Purusha, stop in the witnessing within my consciousness—then, as Krishna says, whatever conduct then occurs carries neither loss nor gain, no sin and no virtue. That friend has asked: when all my wanting has fallen, desire has dissolved, and when I have known my Purusha, then how will any conduct happen at all? When I have come to rest in my soul, how will any conduct happen?

This is worth thinking about. This question will arise, because all the conduct we know is born of desire. You walk because there is somewhere to reach. If someone says there is nowhere to reach—then walk as much as you like—you will say, Why would we walk? If walking has no meaning, no purpose, no reason, why walk? We are not mad to walk without cause when there is nowhere to get to—no urge, no desire, no destination. We act out of some craving. So the friend’s question is perfectly valid: when craving itself is gone, and it is understood that action is just an acting-out; when it is clearly seen that there is nothing to attain and nowhere to arrive—then what does Krishna mean by saying, “Let whatever conduct happen; then there will be neither rebirth nor any karmic result of conduct”? Why would conduct happen at all? This…