Is there an ongoing spiritual lineage in India similar to figures like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, or Aurobindo?

Osho, in India today, on the spiritual plane, is there any ongoing lineage of figures like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, or Aurobindo? In these past two or three hundred years, has there been anyone like that?

Yes. Here, in the past two–three centuries, the most influential figures have been Ramana and Krishnamurti. But no lineage could form behind Ramana, and behind Krishnamurti it will not form either. Krishnamurti is opposed to creating one. And behind Ramana it could not form. A man of that caliber was not found who could carry the matter forward or add something to it. Ramakrishna found Vivekananda. Vivekananda is a very powerful person, but not experienced. Because of his power he did set the wheel in motion, but there isn’t much life in that wheel, so it is not going to go far. Ramakrishna is deeply experienced, but he is not in the position of being a teacher, of being a Tirthankara. He cannot be a teacher. So for the first time... It happens many times that when someone cannot be a teacher, he places the work of teaching on another’s…

Who prepared the way for you?

Ramakrishna is succeeded by Vivekanand; he is not preceded by anybody. The Master comes first, then the disciple follows. This has its own benefits because the Master creates the whole climate, the Master creates the whole possibility of growth -- how the thing is to go. He gives language, pattern, direction, dimension. But there are defects because the Master is infinite and when the disciple comes he is very finite. Then the disciple has to choose, because he cannot move in all directions. The Master may be showing all the directions, he may be leading you towards infinity, but when the disciple comes he has to choose, he has to select, and then he forces his own pattern on it. Ramakrishna was succeeded by Vivekanand. Ramakrishna is one of the greatest flowerings that has ever happened; Vivekanand is the prophet. Ramakrishna is the messiah, but Vivekanand set the whole trend.…

Osho, in the lives of the Tirthankaras we do not see acharyas or monks from the previous Tirthankara’s tradition still present; yet in Mahavira’s time there were acharyas of Parshvanatha’s lineage—Kesi and others. That tradition continued even afterwards—what was the reason for this? A new Tirthankara is born when the ancient tradition is on the verge of extinction. When the acharyas were devotees of Parshvanatha, why was a new sangha established, or a new tirth founded? And how did the old one keep running as well?

First, understand this: a tradition forms only when the living has been lost. A tradition is the dry trace that remains in the absence of the living. A tradition can continue for millions of years and yet have no life in it. In truth, whatever is alive does not become a tradition while it is alive. A tradition is formed only when the living is gone, and what remains in our hands is merely the dead burden of the past—that is what makes a tradition. I have heard: In one household there was an old father and his small children. The father died, the mother died; the children were very young—born to him in his later years. When they grew up, they remembered that every day after eating their father would go to a wall niche and pick something up and put it back. After his death they thought, “This…

Question: Second question: Osho, you truly did disappoint me, because you did not adequately resolve my doubts. I concede that a sannyas like yours has never existed on earth before, but these ochre robes and your disciples wearing a mala with your locket around their necks—if this is not conditioning, then what is it? It looks like Indian culture. And the meditation and samadhi you describe—using slightly different words, from Ashtavakra to Krishnamurti all the enlightened beings have described the same, and speaking on them you too have agreed. This long lineage of enlightened ones is what I call the garland of lamps of Indian culture, in which you are the brilliantly shining lamp of the present. My request is: please do not take me as your critic, because I understand well that only what you are doing can bring welfare to all humankind.

Osho, the twenty-one-day ritual you have hinted at—was that practice or elemental realization in any way traditional? Because from your mode of expression it continually seems that you surely represent some teacher’s or Tirthankara’s method. Within this I also want to dare to ask: do you want to add a link to some established spiritual lineage, or, like Buddha, are you attempting to cut a new path through the mountains?

Nor is the issue one of tolerance. It is a matter of sky-like spaciousness, not tolerance. Not mere forbearance. Not that a Hindu “puts up with” a Muslim or a Christian “puts up with” a Jain. Forbearance already holds violence within it. I do not say the Quran and the Gita say the same thing. The Quran says something quite different; it has its own individual voice—that is its greatness. If it only repeated what the Gita says, it would be worth two pennies. The Bible says something else again, which neither the Gita nor the Quran says. Each has its own voice. Mahavira does not say what Buddha says; they say very different things. And yet from these differing statements one ultimately arrives at the same place. My emphasis is on the oneness of the destination, not on the oneness of the paths. My emphasis is that in the…