According to Osho, there is no real difference: Nagarjuna’s Shunyavada logically articulates the same truth Buddha conveyed wordlessly as avyakritopadesha—the positive no-thing-ness (shunya), like the empty sky, from which all things arise and into which they dissolve. The essence is identical; only the approach differs: Nagarjuna uses precise philosophy, Buddha transmits it through silence, presence, and direct insight (Flower Sermon).
They’re the same teaching about a living, empty space behind everything; Nagarjuna explains it with words, Buddha points to it by staying silent.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Beloved Osho, is there a difference between the 'shunyavada' of nagarjuna and 'avyakritopadesh', the unspoken and the undefinable teaching of lord buddha?
This is avyakritopadesh, this is the indefinable message. This is the origin of Zen Buddhism, the transmission. Something was transmitted by Buddha to Mahakashyapa, something which is nothing; on the visible plane nothing -- no word, no scripture, no theory -- but something has been transmitted. What? The Zen monks have been meditating on this for two thousand five hundred years: "What? What was transmitted? What exactly was given?" In fact, nothing has been given from Buddha to Mahakashyapa; Mahakashyapa has certainly understood something. He understood the silence, he understood the penetrating silence. He understood that moment of clarity, that moment of utter thoughtlessness. He became one, in that moment, with Buddha. That's what surrender is. Not that he was doing it: Buddha was silent and he was silent, and the silences met, and the two silences dissolved into each other. And two silences cannot remain separate, remember, because a…
Osho, Buddha insists on emptiness and Shankara on fullness. They each marshal weighty arguments and debates for their respective positions. They know the Truth, the Divine. Even so, why do they refute the other and extol their own? And you support both at once—why is that?
Death is just as divine. Night is as much God as day is. One aspect had been missed; there had been too much talk—only talk remained; the air was smoky with words; a web of words had been woven. A fresh expression was needed; the Divine was in search of a new word with which to knock again on the hearts still untouched by the stupidity of scholarship; to call again to those who are innocent, guileless, simple. Buddha caught hold of “emptiness.” It was a significant word. Consider: Buddha and Mahavira were born in the same era. Yet Buddha’s impact was unprecedented; Mahavira’s was not. Buddha’s thought spread across the world; its waves went to far horizons. Mahavira’s remained limited, reaching only a few. Both are equally wise. Both have the same experience. Both are mighty. One is not superior to the other, neither is behind. Then why did…
Osho, what is the difference between surrender and blind imitation?
So be careful: the freedom you allow yourself, allow the other too. You have no right to judge another as blindly credulous or as a surrendered being. Drop that concern. You cannot judge anyway—how will you enter another’s heart? How will you know? Think only about yourself. See within whether, up to now, you have lived by blind belief or by surrender. Decide only there; leave worrying about others. Otherwise, all your judgments will be wrong. Jesus said: Judge not; do not set yourself up as a judge in relation to another. To the friend who has asked: if you are asking for yourself, good. Drop worrying about others. Look within and see: whatever I have been clinging to till now—have I ever staked my life to hold it? Have I meditated for it? Have I loved for it? Or am I just clutching what culture, society, civilization handed me?…
Second point: however many ways the realized may have reached, however numerous the names of paths, the path is, in truth, one; there cannot be two. This needs to be understood—it’s a little subtle. If we are creating images, a thousand forms can be made. But if we are erasing images, there is only one way to erase. If you are building a house, architects can suggest thousands of ways. But if the house is to be demolished, no architect need be consulted; however the house is built, demolition is one. What difference can there be in breaking? To attain realization, Buddhahood, is a process of dissolving the world—not building something new. In building there are differences; in dissolving what differences can there be? Forms are different; the formless cannot be different.
Osho, Gautam Buddha again and again says, “This is the reign of the buddhas.” You too often speak in the same way. So can one buddha speak on behalf of all buddhas? If yes, why then were there differences among the buddhas in the past?
So I am not telling you to accept theoretically that there is no difference—so that the Quran says exactly what the Vedas say, and the Dhammapada says exactly what the Bible says. I am not saying that. I am saying: as long as the mind is there, to see difference is a mistake; to see non-difference is also a mistake. The mind has no door to truth. Rise beyond the mind. Go beyond thinking. Be free of thought. In thoughtlessness, non-difference is seen. But remember: non-difference does not mean that Buddha uttered word for word what Mahavira said. The essence is one. Buddha’s examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus’ examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus comes from a different tradition. He heard different stories in childhood. He learned a different language, a different idiom. When he speaks, the Old Testament will echo in it. You will…