Is this view a new understanding for this age without a prevailing tradition, and are there others with similar insights?

So if one were to say that your view is a new kind of view for this age—one for which there is no prevailing tradition—would that be correct? Or can you give some other examples—are there others too who hold this kind of understanding?

No—what I am saying is not a tradition, but it isn’t new either. Keep both points in mind. In fact, what I am saying is this: whenever anyone has attained to religion, they have said exactly this. And whenever anyone attains, they will say exactly this. But it never becomes a tradition; those who make traditions are always others. If a Buddha is born or a Jesus is born, a tradition is built on their basis. But the builders are always different—people who have no experience of religion. The tradition-making society is another thing entirely. The original source is what I am pointing to. And if, after me, ten people try to make a tradition, it will be against me. So it is also my understanding that all religious traditions are, in fact, against those in whose names they were formed. Because the ones who construct them are very different…

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…

Osho, does the ritual of twenty-one days which you indicated you were doing in your previous birth belong to any particular tradition of meditation and self-experience? Because from your speeches, it appears that you are definitely representing the methods of some great teacher or teerthanker. In view of this, may I also dare to ask whether you wish to connect a spiritual link to some traditional chain, or like buddha are you attempting to cut a new path on some mountain?

The overall perspective which I have before me is this: that I would like to help every person to move according to his capacity, his stage of evolution, his culture -- according to what has already been assimilated in his blood. Then it will be much easier for him to achieve. Therefore, I have neither any religion of my own, nor any path of my own, because now one exclusive path or religion will not work for the future, and a religious sect means a path. Nowadays, such a religion is required which doesn't insist on a particular path, which can become the crossroads for all the paths, which can say that all paths belong to it and which can ask everyone to follow the path of his liking. Such a religion would emphasize that you will reach the same place from wherever you walk, that all roads lead to…

Osho, you are quoted as being here to proclaim a new tradition, not to perpetuate the old. Why is this, and how do you see the future?

First: the creation of a new tradition is the only way to perpetuate the old, the only way. The old has to become new again and again. Only then can it be perpetuated. It is like Buddha attaining enlightenment sitting under a Bodhi tree near Bodhgaya.... That tree has existed, not exactly the same tree, but again and again branches of the tree were planted -- three times it has happened. The old tree died and when the tree was dying a branch was planted. Then that tree also died, but before it died another branch was planted. It comes in the same conti-nuum. It is not the same tree in a sense, just as your son is not you in a sense, but it is the same tree in another sense -- just as your son is another you in a sense, your continuity. Each time the world consciousness…

Osho, in the classical tradition the sannyasin turns away from māyā and sensual enjoyment and orients himself toward God-realization; yoga and bhoga are known to be mutually opposed. But in your sannyas there is no emphasis on dispassion from enjoyment. Therefore, kindly clarify your conception of sannyas!

So first thing: religion is not tradition. Religion is ever ancient and ever new. It is a paradox. It has always been—and yet each time it must be discovered anew. When the sun of religion rises, it is private, personal, not collective. It does not become society’s property or legacy. If you do not trust Buddha, Buddha has no way to make you trust. Have you thought about this? If you say, “We doubt you: you claim God-experience, but how are we to believe it?” Buddha will shrug his shoulders: “What can be done? What happened is private, personal. There is no way to spread it out on the table before you. It happened within; there is no device to bring it out. It happened so deep that it cannot be exhibited for all to see.” That is why there have been so many perfectly awakened ones, yet atheism has…