Is a vision of Krishna or Christ considered a spiritual experience?

Do you not consider a vision of krishna or of christ a spiritual experience?

No, this is not a spiritual experience. No vision is a spiritual experience because on that plane all experiences are psychological. As long as there is the vision or realization of someone else it cannot be the realization of the self. Even in such experiences you are still outside yourselves, you have still not come into your selves. That coming into one's self takes place when there are no outer experiences. When consciousness is not related to any object it settles spontaneously on the self. Only a consciousness without object can settle on the self. Outside myself I am surrounded by two worlds, the world of matter and the world of the mind. Both of these are outside me. Not only is matter outside, the mind is outside as well. Because the mind is inside the body it creates the illusion of being inner, but the mind is not within.…

Osho, something was left unsaid about Sri Aurobindo’s vision of Krishna. In Ahmedabad you said that his Krishna-vision could largely be a mental projection. So is Aurobindo’s Krishna-vision only a mental projection, or could it also be a mystic realization? A second question: If Arjuna is only a mere instrument, then he becomes just a machine. What happens to his individuality?

Aurobindo’s manner of saying is Hegelian. Like Hegel he is a system-maker. He says very little, uses big words, long words, takes very long detours. Expression must, of course, be intellectual; but when it is expression of realization, at the same time it keeps pointing beyond itself—it brings the news that the man has known something beyond words. But if everything fits within words, such news does not come. And after reading all of Aurobindo, the taste left in the mouth is only of words. Not a trace of the taste of experience is left. Sometimes a person may not speak at all, and his very presence can leave the taste of realization in your mouth. Sometimes someone may speak a lot, and yet only the taste of words remains; no taste of experience can remain. Expression will be intellectual, but when it is expression of realization it simultaneously transcends…

Osho, last night you mentioned the case of a man who saw visions of krishna and thought he was advanced, while you said he had not yet taken the first step. How does one know how far along one is? Are not visions and other psychic phenomena supposed to be indications of high spiritual development? If not, then what are some of the indications?

There can be visions, and they can be indicative of advanced states. But with one condition: the more advanced you are, the less you feel that you are advanced. The more you move towards being Enlightened, the less there is the ego which says, "I am enlightened." Spiritual advancement is a very humble progress. So one thing: visions can be indicative of higher states, but only if you feel more humble. If you begin to feel that you are advanced, that shows another thing: that those visions are not spiritual but simply projections of the mind. So this is the criterion. If you have really seen Krishna in visions, you will be no more if this is authentic. If really this is a realization, you will be effaced completely. You will say, "Krishna is and I am not." But if you are strengthened by this vision, you are not effaced.…

Questioner: a part of our previous question remains unanswered: it is about shree arvind seeing visions of krishna. You had once said at ahmedabad that such visions are mostly nothing more than mental projections. Is it a mental projection or a real mystical experience in the case of arvind?

Whoever says he has encountered Krishna in his physical form is a victim of mental projection; he is projecting his own mental images on the vast screen of universal consciousness and viewing the objective reality. It is like a movie projector projects fast moving pictures on all empty screen; there is really nothing on the screen except shadows. Such visions are not a spiritual experience, they are wholly psychic. They are, however, very gratifying; a Krishna devotee is bound to be overjoyed to see visions of one he has been desiring to see all his life. But remember, it is only a kind of happiness, not bliss. Nor can you call it an experience of truth. I don't mean to cay that Arvind's experience is not real, but he describes it in the way of a scholar, an intellectual. And this makes the experience appear to be one of mental…

Osho, even now many devotees and saints have direct visions of Krishna. For twenty-four hours I too see nothing but Krishna. So does the formless God take a form for devotees—is this true?

And when, through Islam, he came to the very experience he had attained through prayer and worship of Kali, he said, “Alright, this path too arrives at the same.” This path too takes one there. Those who walk on this path will reach the same place as those who walk by other paths. Then Ramakrishna conducted experiments in about six religions. And when through all of them he reached the same samadhi, he declared: The paths are different, but the mountain peak is one. From different paths—even paths that sometimes go in opposite directions—one arrives at that one peak. So do not be hasty. Be compassionate toward the other. Do not try to hurt the other. Keep only this one attention: that your whole energy is engaged in your own experiment. And slowly, slowly, your consciousness becomes one with your own feeling. There is only one art for bringing God…