Is there a guru-disciple relationship between Krishna and Arjuna?

A friend has asked: Osho, the soul cannot be seen. Why is so much importance given to what cannot be seen? And why are you also speaking about this same unseen soul?

A tree is visible; its roots are not. The roots are hidden in the earth. But that does not reduce the value of the unseen roots. In fact, the visible tree depends entirely on those invisible roots. And whoever wastes time caring only for the tree and ignores the roots, his tree is bound to dry up. That tree will bear neither leaves nor flowers nor fruit. The life of the tree is hidden in its unseen roots. Whatever is truly important in life is hidden. What appears is only the outer shell. What remains unmanifest is the inner life-breath. The body is visible because it is the outer shell. What is within the body is not visible. But the value of what is unseen does not diminish for that reason. Rather, precisely because it is not visible, its search becomes all the more necessary. Let it not happen that…

Osho, you said that if even a little thirst has arisen and even a little courage, surrender to God. But how can a surrender done out of fear lead to fearlessness?

Resolve is the effort of a miserly mind. Surrender is a wholly different matter. Resolve stands near the ego. And now and then a rare person has reached by resolve. One can arrive by resolve too; but in the last moment he must drop his immense ego—and that is very difficult. Once in a while some Mahavira succeeds; that is why I say it is right to call Mahavira by that name—for hardly anyone ever succeeds on that journey. It is very difficult. Difficult because first you build up the ego, refine it; you take everything into your own hands. And in the final moment, when all has ripened, when the ego has been fashioned in its subtlest form, hard as a diamond—so that it can cut through all things and nothing can cut through it—at that very moment you must surrender. At that moment you have to let go…

Question: Osho, it seems to me that, while explaining “svadharme nidhanam śreyaḥ,” Krishna pressured Arjuna. Arjuna was overstepping his kṣatriyahood and perhaps wanted to become a brāhmin. When he experienced despondency, when compassion arose in him, he was moving into his own dharma; Krishna stopped him and tried to bring him back into kṣatriyahood. That is how it seems to me. And there is a second point: you said Krishna sets Arjuna free, he doesn’t press him down. But at the beginning of the Gita Arjuna becomes a disciple and says, “śiṣyas te ’haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam.” Later, after the whole current of the Gita has flowed by, at its completion we hear Arjuna say, “kariṣye vacanaṁ tava.” Doesn’t this give the hint that Krishna established a kind of guru-dom over Arjuna, under whose influence or pressure Arjuna had to say, “kariṣye vacanaṁ tava”?

Questioner: it seems that krishna is trying to suppress arjuna when he says, "it is better to die in one's own nature than to live in an alien one. " perhaps arjuna is trying to transcend his warrior's nature and become a brahmin. When he is overwhelmed with grief and compassion, he is just trying to achieve his self-nature, his true nature, but krishna pulls him back.

SECONDLY, YOU SAY THAT KRISHNA DOES NOT DOMINATE ARJUNA; ON THE CONTRARY, HE FREES HIM. BUT AS THE GEETA BEGINS ARJUNA TELLS KRISHNA, "I AM YOUR DISCIPLE AND I SURRENDER TO YOU, " AND WHEN IT ENDS ARJUNA SAYS AGAIN, "I WILL DO YOUR BIDDING." DOES IT NOT SUGGEST THAT KRISHNA HAS BEEN TRYING TO IMPOSE HIMSELF ON ARJUNA AS HIS MASTER? In this context a few things should be rightly understood. If one knows Arjuna, even in passing, he can not say he is not a warrior. He is indeed a warrior; it is his distinct individuality -- and his sadness, his grief is a momentary thing. He is not sad because he is going to kill some people, he is sad because he is going to have to kill his own family and relatives. If they were not his own people, Arjuna would have killed them like flies.…

Osho, in the Mahabharata Krishna urges Arjuna to fight. But I have heard that once Krishna himself went to face Arjuna in battle. What was that incident?

And in the larger meanings of life, this is worth contemplating. If I have an enemy, with the death of the enemy something in me also dies. Not only does the enemy die—something in me dies as well. My being, too, is with the enemy’s being. It is not only that with the death of a friend something is lost within me; with the loss of an enemy also something is lost within me. So the enemy, too, is a part of my personality. Therefore to be overly hostile toward the enemy is meaningless. In some deep sense the enemy is also a friend. And the friend, in some deep sense, is also an enemy. Why? Because in truth—as I have been saying to you continually these past days—the polarities into which we divide life, making poles, are true only in our words and theories. In the direct depth of…