You can’t truly copy someone else’s path; you have to listen to your own inner voice to choose any path.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, does it then mean that this state called moksha—where the soul has gone and become absorbed in the whole existence—how can any relationship be established with that soul?
Hmm, hmm—this needs a bit of understanding. Let me explain it a little. Let me complete the whole point, then I will tell you. The twenty-three Tirthankaras for this very reason seem to have become completely non-historical. There is no other reason for their appearing non-historical; they were absolutely historical persons. But because even the final thread of connection with them in the spiritual realm has grown attenuated, no relationship can now be established with them. With Mahavira, a connection can still be established. And therefore, being the last, Mahavira has become the most important—in that current. A connection can still be established with Buddha. A connection can still be established with Jesus. A connection can still be established with Krishna. To us, twenty-five hundred years seem very long because our measure of time is very small. Once free of the body, twenty-five hundred years are as if a moment…
Osho, “Shrutih vividhāh, smritayash cha bhinnāh; na eko munir yasya vachah pramāṇam. Dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhāyām; mahājano yena gatah sa panthāh.” “That is to say, the revealed scriptures (shruti) are various, the remembered traditions (smriti) are also different, and not even the word of a single sage is final authority. The essence of dharma is subtle and hidden; therefore, to know it, only the path trodden by the great ones is the path.”
Osho, what is the mark of a mahājan (a great one)? What does it mean to walk on their path? Please be gracious and explain. Just yesterday I received a long letter from a Jain lady, evidently very learned; she has extracted the essence of Jain scriptures. She writes: “Your words seem very lovely, but why do you take the names of Krishna, Christ, Mohammed, Buddha along with a vitarag like Mahavira? Only the passionless one is God. Vitaragata is the sole criterion. On that touchstone, Ram and Krishna fail; even Buddha fails, for he at least uses clothing and a begging bowl—so much attachment, so much possession! Mahavira is sky-clad, bowl-less—hand-to-mouth; even a loincloth not retained. Digambar-hood is proof of vitaragata.” So she is troubled that I name Mohammed—who carries a sword—or Krishna, entangled in political strategies—or Ram, who goes to war—alongside Mahavira. To her this is all mere…
Osho, Jains believe that apart from the Jin-shasan all other dispensations are false; therefore one should not go to any other path. Even when told about awakened and accomplished beings, they do not turn toward them. Is it impossible to bring them to the right path?
How will you live in Mahavira’s time? How will you walk with Mahavira? How will you dwell in his shade? That tree is no more. If under a blazing noon your head is dripping with sweat you seek the shade of a tree that is; you do not sit under the shade of a tree that once was. You would be mad to sit in the shade of a vanished tree—there is neither tree nor shade; you will burn in the sun. If you thirst, you go to a lake that exists now; you don’t go to a lake that once was, however beautiful the ancient texts say it was—that will not quench thirst. If you hunger, you seek fresh food now. What is true for hunger and thirst is also true for truth. Seek truth now. Go to a lake that is present now. The danger is: you may…
Osho, you said... then you will find that the devotee is God. The question arises: if one devotee prefers to be God and another wants to remain only a devotee, then which of the two is superior?
The one who wants to be God will not be able to be. And the one who wants to remain a devotee will become God. The question of superior or inferior does not arise, because only one of the two will happen. The one who does not want to be will be. The one who wants to be will be deprived. That very wanting is of the ego. But the matter is a little delicate. Sometimes humility too belongs to the ego. Beware that your humility may not be of the ego. Perhaps you are saying, “No, I don’t want to be,” because you know that those who refuse are the ones who attain. Then you are clever. Then your humility is adulterous. Your humility is not pure, not sacred, not virginal—it is like a prostitute. The one who wants to be God, whose ego says, “I must become God,”…
Osho, Mahavira preached asharan—seek no refuge—and yet he also made disciples. Are these two not mutually contradictory?
They look contradictory; they are not. And whoever has been a truly awakened being in this world will always appear paradoxical. Life is paradoxical, so whoever mirrors life in its suchness will also appear paradoxical. Only the pundit is not paradoxical. The knower will always be paradoxical, because the knower does not prune life, he does not force a framework onto it. For him, life as it is, is accepted. He simply reflects life, and whatever is in life gets reflected in him. He functions as a mirror. Now Mahavira says, asharan—seek no refuge. Do not go into anyone’s shelter. Yet disciples come to Mahavira and say, “Siddhe sharanam pavajjhami.” O perfected one! We come to your refuge. “Arihante sharanam pavajjhami.” O victorious, realized one! We come to your refuge. Mahavira accepts them too. Then it seems all upside down: Mahavira says, “No refuge,” and yet those who seek refuge…