Doesn't the iconoclast end up having his own image established in the popular mind?

Osho, all right—my first question is: doesn’t the iconoclast end up having his own image established in the popular mind—as an iconoclast?

If he is truly an iconoclast, he will try to save people even from his own image. But if he only wants to smash others’ idols and, deep down, relishes the idea that his own idol be installed, then such iconoclasts, by the back door, turn into idol‑worshipers and the initiators of idol‑worship. In my view, if the iconoclast is really an iconoclast, he will not let his own effigy be set up; he will keep up that struggle too. For his fight is not with someone’s particular idol; his fight is with the very making of idols. The moment an idol is made, it becomes opposed to truth. And the danger you point to is always there, because the statues of all the past iconoclasts have been made. Jesus is an iconoclast, and Buddha is an iconoclast. But so many images of Buddha were created that the very word…

Osho, right before our eyes you painted the images of Buddha, Mahavira, and Krishna in enchanting colors. You filled us with devotional awe for them. And now you are mercilessly dismantling those very images. Why are you doing both—creating idols and breaking them? Has the journey to the formless through these forms become impossible now, or are you forcing us to return to ourselves?

You too take your own meanings. And your meanings compelled me to change. So now I have begun to pull back the colors, because I want it to be clear that you must not fix your gaze on Buddha but on yourself. Too many garlands have already been heaped upon Krishna; too many heads have already bowed at the feet of Mahavira. But all that is the dead past. You have to recognize the principle of life within yourself. So, just as I once filled in colors, I have begun to remove them. Even while coloring, the purpose was the same. My purpose has not changed. My goal is exactly the same. But the method has changed. I colored so that you would look at yourself. If you could not, then now I am removing the colors so that the canvas becomes empty and you are forced to look at…

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, Somewhere you have said that you are an iconoclast, a breaker of illusions. It seems to me that beyond that you are a great breaker of concepts. Would you kindly say something about this?

Sahajanand! Whether idols, delusions, or concepts—these are all different facets of the mind. With these very bricks the prison of the mind is constructed. Only by removing the bricks one by one can you enter the state of no-mind. Whatever you believe, whatever you worship—everything will have to be taken away from you. It feels harsh. It hurts. Wounds happen. The cowardly run away; only the courageous can remain with me. And it is not a question of whether your concept is right or wrong. No concept is right. Concept means wrong. Concept means: you have believed what you have not known. What you have not experienced, not encountered, not realized—you have adopted it: out of fear, out of greed, out of conditioning, out of society, out of convenience, out of consolation. Because it was taught since childhood. Because it was repeated again and again. Because it has had centuries…

Osho, you told last night about the hindu system of creating a mud idol for worship, and after the worship, about its visarjan dispersion -- into the sea or a river. This happens on the outer physical plane. What is the psychological and inner meaning of this outer ritual? What is it that must be created inwardly? What is it that should be dispersed and when should it be dispersed? Secondly, please explain whether this dispersion is a gradual process or a sudden happening and whether it is an act of awareness or just a let-go?

LIFE is a learning and an unlearning also. One has to learn many things, and then one has to unlearn them -- and both are necessary. If you do not learn, you remain ignorant. If you learn and cling to it, you become knowledgeable but you remain unwise. If you can also unlearn that which you have learned, then you become wise. Wisdom has a childlike quality, but it is just "childlike" -- not exactly the same. The child is ignorant and the sage is wise. The child has yet to know and the sage has gone beyond. The child has no knowledge, the sage also has no knowledge. But in a child it is negative, in a sage that "no knowledge" has become positive. He has crossed beyond, he has transcended. So this is one of the basic principles of spiritual explosion: to unlearn, to go on unlearning, that…