Is there something different in enlightenments?

Beloved Osho,

BUDDHA HAD MANY ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE AROUND HIM, YET HE FELT SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR THIS ONE ENLIGHTENED PERSON. IS THERE SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ENLIGHTENMENTS? There were other enlightened persons, but the key could not be given to them; it had to be given to Mahakashyap, because he had an inner desire to help -- his past karmas. He could become a tirthankara; he could become a perfect master. And he did well. Buddha's choice was perfectly right -- because there was one other of Buddha's disciples who could have been given the key. His name was Subhuti. He was as silent as Mahakashyap, even more. It will be difficult for you -- how silence, how perfection, can be more -- but it is possible. It is beyond ordinary arithmetic. You can be perfect, and you can be even still more perfect, because perfection has growth, it goes on growing infinitely. Subhuti…

And then he renounced the world. Rather than becoming a wrestler, he became a meditator. And when he became enlightened, he dropped the cloths. He had only one cloth that he used to cover his body. And after his enlightenment, as he was coming down the hill, a beggar asked him something, because it is too cold and he has nothing. And Mahavira looked at himself, he has only one shawl, so he made two pieces out of one shawl and gave half to the beggar, and half he kept himself. It was not enough to cover the body now. And as he was just descending from the hill into the valley, a rose bush caught hold in its thorns, the one piece of the shawl. He looked back and he laughed, and he said, "This is too much.

Question: BELOVED OSHO, ENLIGHTENMENT: THE KEY SOME TAKE SITTING WORDLESSLY WITH EYES SHUT BENEATH THE BLACK MOUNTAIN, INSIDE THE GHOST CAVE, AND CONSIDER IT AS THE SCENE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PRIMORDIAL BUDDHA, THE SCENE BEFORE THEIR PARENTS WERE BORN -- THEY ALSO CALL IT "SILENT YET EVER ILLUMINATING," AND CONSIDER IT CH'AN. THIS LOT DON'T SEEK SUBTLE WONDROUS ENLIGHTENMENT: THEY CONSIDER ENLIGHTENMENT AS FALLING INTO THE SECONDARY. THEY THINK THAT ENLIGHTENMENT DECEIVES PEOPLE, THAT ENLIGHTENMENT IS A FABRICATION. SINCE THEY'VE NEVER AWAKENED THEMSELVES, THEY DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE HAS AWAKENED. THERE'S A KIND ACTING AS TEACHERS SPREADING FALSE TALK WHO TELL STUDENTS, "JUST PRESERVE STILLNESS." ASKED, "WHAT THING IS THIS, PRESERVING? WHO IS THE STILL ONE?" THEY SAY, "THE STILL ONE IS THE BASIS.

Beloved Osho, I heard you saying that enlightenment is the transcendence of mind -- conscious, unconscious, sub-conscious -- and that one dissolves into the ocean of life, into the universe, into nothingness. I also hear you talking about the individuality of human beings. How can the individuality of an enlightened person manifest itself if he is dissolved in the whole?

The ordinary, unconscious human being has no individuality; he has only a personality. Personality is that which is given by others to you -- by the parents, by the teachers, by the priest, by the society -- whatever they have said about you. And you have been desiring to be respectable, to be respected, so you have been doing things which are appreciated, and the society goes on rewarding you, respecting you more and more. This is their method of creating a personality. But personality is very thin, skin-deep. It is not your nature. The child is born without a personality, but he is born with a potential individuality. The potential individuality simply means his uniqueness from anybody else -- he is different. So first, remember that individuality is not personality. When you drop personality, you discover your individuality -- and only the individual can become enlightened. The false cannot…

Osho, by not creating a guru–disciple relationship, Krishnamurti didn’t create trouble for himself; whereas here, by creating such a relationship you seem to get nothing but trouble. Is there a difference in the compassion of enlightened ones? If there is no difference, then, Osho, why did you choose such an inconvenient path?

Mukesh! These are not things one chooses. No one chooses them. It isn’t that Krishnamurti chose as he did, or that I chose as I did. As long as the chooser is there, neither Krishnamurti can be, nor can I be. As long as the chooser is there, Buddhahood does not happen. When the chooser bids farewell, the descending of Buddhahood happens. Then whatever happens, happens; however it happens, so it happens—choicelessly. The leaves of a tree are green—they have not chosen. A rose is red—it has not chosen. One flower is white, another is yellow; one is filled with this fragrance, another with that. Neither champa has chosen, nor chameli (jasmine), nor juhi (jasmine). Choice is not the point at all. Juhi is juhi, Krishnamurti is Krishnamurti, I am I, Maluk is Maluk, Dadu is Dadu, Doolan is Doolan. If it were a matter of choice, it would only…