How can one bind a diffused movement into a single sutra?

Osho, you talk of totality. You can’t have a diffused movement at the same time. This diffused movement—how would you try to bind it into a single sutra?

Think about it a little. In fact, what does organization mean? Organization means that people of one idea, people who imagine bringing about a certain kind of society, gather together. They gather and try to place a pattern of ideology upon society. My understanding is that it is dangerous to impose a very fixed pattern on society. Because society moves ahead every day; a fixed pattern is always left behind. It is like putting pajamas on a child. The child keeps growing day by day; the pajamas keep getting smaller day by day. Every day there is a need for the pajamas to be bigger. But those who organized the pajamas say, “This is the pajama we decided on; he must go on wearing this same pajama.” The child grows; the pajama becomes tight. All organizations—the more organized they are—the more fixed and dead they become. What is needed is…

Osho, why are these sutras prescribed in samayik? Have these sutras been prescribed since Mahavira’s time?

Sutras are made and imposed by followers; Mahavira has nothing to do with it. In fact, there is always this difficulty: what the followers do—this is a very tricky matter. They do whatever they can. And they put the whole apparatus in place. In that very arrangement, what was essential dies. And the poor followers, out of love, make these arrangements. They say, “Let everything be systematized.” People ask: What should we do? For how long? How should we do it? So, make some arrangement—otherwise how will people understand? How will the ordinary person understand? For the ordinary person they make the arrangement. In that arrangement, truth dies. And then the arrangement goes on, and it has no connection with truth. And, to begin with, people like Mahavira are hard to understand. Because what they are saying has such depth, and where we stand is so shallow—in fact, we stand…

Osho, Mahavira and Gautam Buddha were contemporaries. From your talks it becomes clear that the two were saying the same thing. Yet their disciples would argue and quarrel among themselves. After they were gone, there was even violence and war among their followers. But if Mahavira and Buddha had said that we are speaking of the same religion and the only difference is in method, then such hostility would not have grown and the harm that befell both religions would not have occurred. Kindly explain. Amrit Bodhidharma has asked:

If someone is enchanted by the design of the mosque, by its minarets, let him go to the mosque. But this has nothing to do with religion; it has to do with architecture, with aesthetic sense. You build your house one way, I build mine another—this creates no quarrel. I build my God’s house one way, you build yours another—why should that create quarrel? I build mine round, you build yours square—there is no quarrel. The purpose of a house is one: that I will live in this round house, you will live in that square one. We build houses to live in. There must be that much freedom—that whoever wishes should build as he likes; in old style or new; ancient design or an invented one; with a high roof or low; with a garden or without; with plants or with sand—a matter of taste! We do not quarrel…

Osho, the twenty-one-day ritual you have hinted at—was that practice or elemental realization in any way traditional? Because from your mode of expression it continually seems that you surely represent some teacher’s or Tirthankara’s method. Within this I also want to dare to ask: do you want to add a link to some established spiritual lineage, or, like Buddha, are you attempting to cut a new path through the mountains?

Nor is the issue one of tolerance. It is a matter of sky-like spaciousness, not tolerance. Not mere forbearance. Not that a Hindu “puts up with” a Muslim or a Christian “puts up with” a Jain. Forbearance already holds violence within it. I do not say the Quran and the Gita say the same thing. The Quran says something quite different; it has its own individual voice—that is its greatness. If it only repeated what the Gita says, it would be worth two pennies. The Bible says something else again, which neither the Gita nor the Quran says. Each has its own voice. Mahavira does not say what Buddha says; they say very different things. And yet from these differing statements one ultimately arrives at the same place. My emphasis is on the oneness of the destination, not on the oneness of the paths. My emphasis is that in the…

Osho, you say you don’t speak for the crowd, that you won’t speak merely to please them. But people are saying that whenever someone speaks against Gandhi or against the Congress, people like it, and that’s why such large crowds gather.

For all of India—more so for Gujarat, of course, but certainly for the whole of India. There isn’t much distance between us and him yet; the generation that lived close to him is still alive. And for India’s future, decisions will have to be taken in some relation to Gandhi—whether in support or in opposition. Gandhi will remain significant for the next hundred years in India—that’s my understanding—whether for or against is another matter. Therefore Gandhi should be thought about very clearly. That was one reason. Second, it seems to me that not only in India but outside India too, reflection on Gandhi has begun—sometimes it even seems that people outside India are thinking more. In this country, reflection has almost stopped. So Gandhi is just a beginning. I would say we should also try to reawaken reflection on Mahavira and the Buddha. But there is a great distance between…