According to Osho, the Geeta’s authenticity doesn’t hinge on whether Krishna literally spoke it; what matters is the text’s intrinsic truth. The Geeta itself evidences the presence of a Krishna-like consciousness—just as the Ganges proves a source. Begin with the Geeta’s living message, not historical authorship; its spiritual clarity is the signature of the awakened one behind it.
Don’t worry who said it; the Geeta’s truth shows a wise source like Krishna must be behind it.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, will you regard the Gita as the authentic words of Krishna?
You ask whether I will regard the Gita as the authentic words of Krishna? If there has been a person like Krishna, then a discourse like the Gita would indeed be authentic. The question is not whether Krishna actually spoke it or not. The question is that if Krishna were to speak, he could only speak like this. And even if Krishna did not speak and Vyasa alone wrote the Gita, it doesn’t make much difference, because Vyasa could not write it unless there were a person like Krishna. In the end one has to say—let it be Vyasa who wrote it, it makes no difference—but Vyasa too would be speaking the Gita, no! What difference does it make? It makes no difference. Whether Krishna speaks, or Vyasa speaks, or A, B, C—someone else—speaks, to speak the Gita there must be someone within. This Gita doesn’t drop out of the…
Questioner: do you take the geeta as the authentic voice of krishna?
You ask if I take the GEETA to be the authentic voice of Krishna. If a person like Krishna has happened then the GEETA has to be authentic. It is not relevant if Krishna said it or not, what is relevant is that if a person like Krishna says something, he will only say something like the GEETA. Even if the GEETA is taken to be written by Vyasa, and not delivered by Krishna, it does not make a difference. A Vyasa cannot write the GEETA without a Krishna being there. Even if it is taken to have been said by Vyasa and not by Krishna, it is the GEETA that he spoke, and it remains the same. It is immaterial whether Krishna, Vyasa or some xyz is the author of the GEETA. Authorship is not important, what is important is the GEETA itself. It has not appeared from the…
Osho, the Gita has been the most read and heard in this land, and Krishna the most worshiped. Then how did song and celebration vanish from this country, and sannyas become filled with stench?
Reading the Gita does not bring song into one’s life. Reading the Gita is not the same as becoming suffused with song. That is where the mistake happened. Hearing these unique words from Krishna, Arjuna awakened. We thought there was some magic in the words. We thought the words contained certain keys. We thought: if these words opened the lock of Arjuna’s heart, they will open the locks of our hearts too. So the recitation of the Gita began. For five thousand years we have been reciting the Gita. No one’s lock opens. It seems there is no key in the words. Not only does the lock not open; by repeating the Gita the lock becomes more and more rusty. It does not open, and even the hope of opening breaks. There is a reason behind this delusion. The first time, the event truly happened: the lock opened. We saw…
Osho, in the Gita, what did Arjuna hear that made him turn within?
Krishna! Not what he was saying, but Krishna—what he was. That is why you can read the Gita and it will run off you like water off an upturned pot; you will remain untouched. The kind of revolution that happened to Arjuna will not happen to you. Because you have forgotten one thing: Krishna is not present. Arjuna was transformed by listening to Krishna. If he had been transformed by what Krishna said, then by reading the Gita you too would be transformed. Revolution happens in the presence of one like Krishna. A lit lamp can light an unlit lamp. The Gita contains what Krishna said. But what Krishna was—there is no way to collect that in the Gita; there is no way to put that in any book. That is why when the Master is present, his words are alive—not because of any special quality in the words, but…
Question: Osho, we wholly agree with you that we don’t need to know when Krishna was born or when he died. What we want to know is: How did Krishna live, what did he say, what is the secret of his life-story? Just a little while ago you said religion is not history; religion is eternal. Then when Krishna says in the Gita, chapter 3, verse 35, that one’s own dharma, even if without merit, is far superior to another’s; that to die in one’s own dharma is auspicious, while another’s dharma is fearsome—what does Krishna mean by dharma? The conventional, the personal—or that which is timeless, eternal, and belongs to all? Why did Krishna need to call dharma good and bad, “one’s own” and “another’s”? A delightful incident happened. A Picasso painting sold for three or four hundred thousand.