Is there a contradiction between non-action and action as emphasized by Lao Tzu and Krishna?

Another friend has asked a question similar to the first: Osho, Lao Tzu emphasizes non-action, and Krishna emphasizes action. Is there any contradiction between the two, or are they the same?

These are two poles. Lao Tzu does not say, “Don’t act.” He says: act, but as if you are not doing it—rather, it is happening. Just happening. As breathing goes on; don’t take it, don’t release it deliberately—let it flow. So with life. Slip into non-action; let whatever action happens, happen. Krishna says the same, from the other pole. He says: act—don’t run from action—but drop the doer. Drop the feeling, “I am the one who is doing.” The divine is the doer. In Lao Tzu’s vision there is no place for God as a separate agency, because even pointing that much creates duality. Lao Tzu says: even to say, “God is the doer,” changes nothing—you have simply relocated your ego into God. A doer remains—if not you, then God. Lao Tzu says: there is no doer at all; action is happening. This is a little difficult. It is easier…

He says: "lao tzu stresses inaction, whereas krishna lays stress on action. How do these two theories compare and contrast?

We all are capable of deceiving ourselves; we are great adepts at this art. We are very clever at deceiving ourselves. We will run away and then philosophise, "It is happening. I am not the doer. I am only the witness." If a man in the same mental state as Arjuna runs away, he is responsible for his actions. In fact, it is the sense of doer-ship that makes him think that he would be committing a sin by killing his near and dear ones. Therefore, he should run away. Krishna stops him from running away and explains to him that this feeling that 'I am doing' is wrong. If Arjuna had reached the stage where his ego had dropped, and then, if he had laid down his bow and arrow and walked away, Krishna would have been the last person to stop him. But then, that going would have…

Question: Osho, you have just given a very deep and quite extraordinary talk on karma, akarma, and vikarma. And during your stay in Kashmir too, when in the presence of Mahesh Yogi’s foreign disciples the subject of self-realization came up, you made them aware of akarma. There seems no confusion in that. But what Krishna says in the Gita does appear a bit confusing. In chapters four and five Krishna also emphasizes the state of akarma, yet because that akarma appears twofold it creates some confusion. Twofold in this way: first Krishna says that to have performed all actions and yet to be as if none have been done—that is yoga; and to be doing nothing at all and yet to be as if all actions have been done—that is sannyas. What is the essential meaning of this duality? Please shed some light.

Question: QUESTIONER: WE ARE GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR YOUR SUPERB EXPOSITION OF ACTION, INACTION AND NON-ACTION. YOU HAD EXPLAINED TO THE FOREIGN DISCIPLES OF MAHESH YOGI WHEN THEY MET YOU IN KASHMIR LAST YEAR ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INACTION IN ACHIEVING SELF-KNOWLEDGE, AND WE HAVE NOW NO CONFUSION ABOUT IT. BUT SOME CONFUSION SURELY ARISES FROM KRISHNA'S EXPOSITION OF INACTION IN THE GEETA. HE EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF INACTION, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE CONFUSING, BECAUSE IT HAS MORE THAN ONE MEANING. HE SAYS THAT A YOGI IS ONE WHO, HAVING ACTED DOES NOT THINK HE HAS ACTED, AND A SANNYASIN IS ONE WHO DOES NOT ACT AND YET ACTION HAPPENS. THERE IS YET ANOTHER SIDE TO THIS QUESTION WHICH SEEMS IMPORTANT. SHANKARACHARYA SAYS IN HIS COMMENTARIES ON THE GEETA, THAT A WISE MAN DOES NOT NEED TO ACT, BECAUSE ACTION BELONGS TO THE DOER.

Osho, Krishna is supremely enlightened and beyond the three gunas, yet he deceives, lies, and wages war. Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tzu, etc., do nothing of the sort. Kindly shed light on Krishna’s personality described above, in the context of the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas.

First, it is essential to understand that no comparison is possible between two enlightened ones. All comparisons are false. Every great being is unique; there is no second like him. In truth, even an ordinary person is unique. There is no other like you. The great one within you appears when you bring your own nature, your own destiny, to its fullness. You too are incomparable. There is no other person on earth exactly like you—neither today, nor ever before, nor ever after. Search the whole earth and you won’t find two identical leaves on a tree; not even two identical pebbles. And when your polish deepens and the supreme flowering of your life manifests, then you become like the summit of a Mount Everest. Even now you are unmatched; then you will be utterly unmatched. Now, perhaps, some accord with others is still possible; then there will be none.…