Is the story of Indra and Mahavira a parable or an actual conversation?

They grew sad, wept, prayed; then the three consulted and said to Buddha: we understand—you say it cannot be spoken. Never has it been spoken. Since always we have heard: it cannot be said. And even if you speak, none will understand. And even if someone understands, to live it will be hard. Still we pray: there are also those who stand exactly on the boundary—still in the world, yet at the last edge. Merely your speaking—that Buddha spoke, not what he spoke—your speaking alone, your very presence, will jolt them; they will leap. And if you speak to a hundred and even one leaps—that too is great compassion. Thus Buddha agreed. For this the Hindu mind felt hurt. Those who felt hurt did not understand. They thought: to place gods, Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, before Buddha—this story is not good.

Osho, Bhagwan Mahavira told Indra plainly that he had to fight the battle with karma himself, yet Indra still appointed a deity to watch over him. Is there any justification in this incident?

There are two points to understand here. First, the battle with karma, the battle with ignorance, has to be fought by oneself. Mahavira was not at all prepared to accept anyone as an ally in his struggle. To refuse help altogether is a value of the highest order. Even if a god himself offers assistance, Mahavira will not agree—because in his vision, in this search there can be no fellow traveler. Whoever waits for a companion will be deprived of the search. It is an utterly solitary quest. And only one who has the courage to be utterly alone can set out on it. The mind longs for someone to be with us—a guru, a friend, a guide, a helper. But until a person can be alone, not even an inch of progress is possible in the direction of inner discovery. The capacity to be alone—the courage to be alone—is…

Beloved Osho, I found the story you told us about mahavira when he went begging very odd. That he should stipulate how existence should present his daily food seemed to me like a trip, and not the attitude of someone totally available to, and accepting of, life's ways. Probably I have misunderstood the whole point. You have said we need not be in a hurry in our search; but around you I always feel such a great sense of how precious time is, so I want to use it to the maximum. And to me at the moment that means asking all and any questions I once might have held back, from fear of appearing stu

So I will not suggest to anybody to do what Mahavira used to do. But Mahavira has his own unique being. His real name was not Mahavira; mahavira means "a great warrior." His real name was Vardhmana, but nobody remembers his real name for the simple reason that his whole approach is that of a warrior, a fighter. Even with existence he is in a constant fight. He is saying, "I can live only if I am welcome. I don't want to live even a single moment more if I am not welcome." Deep down he was fighting, but his fighting had a beauty of its own. He was total in it -- that was its beauty. It was not a partial war, it was total. And the secret is, whatever is total transforms you; your let-go, if it is total, will transform you; your fight, if total, will transform…

Have all these gods and goddesses existed? They are. Not “have been,” they are. We can speak about this gradually; perhaps it would be appropriate to know a little in that regard too. Animals and birds are also present in Mahavira’s samosharan. They are present to listen. It seems astonishing that animals and birds would be present to listen. Human beings are present as well.

Two small maxims to keep in mind at the end: - If one has to communicate with an animal, one must become mute. Mute means that speech must be lost; it will not remain inside; the person will appear almost unconscious and inert. But only the body will be inert, the mind inert; within, consciousness will be fully awake, fully alert. - If one has to connect with human beings, there are two ways. With those who have passed through sadhana, a connection can be made without words—because through sadhana they can be brought to that state where the gods are; then they can understand in silence. As I said yesterday, the Buddha told Mahakashyapa, “I have given it to you, that which I could not give to others through words.” Or else, there is straightforward speech—say it directly to them, they will hear it, understand it. But they do…

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,…