According to Osho, no—it wasn’t Gandhi’s age. He leaned on two women even when young as a deliberate, symbolic protest against India’s tradition of viewing women as weak. Yet Osho calls it awkward and unnatural, exposing Gandhi’s poor grasp of male–female nature and, in practice, harming women by turning them into men instead of honoring their distinct strengths.
No; he did it to challenge tradition, but Osho says it felt wrong and didn’t truly help women.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Questioner: was it because he was old?
No, not because he was old. Even when ke was not old he walked that way. This gesture of Gandhi's is symbolic and significant. In this country where woman has always been leaning on man, where she is taken to be the weaker sex, where she is treated as a second-class citizen in society, Gandhi is the first person to go against this long-established tradition. Gandhi, by leaning on the shoulders of two women, declares that the woman is not the weaker sex, she is as strong as man and man can equally lean on her shoulders. It is a step against an old tradition; it is a protest. It is nothing more than a protest. However, Gandhi does not look right when he walks leaning on women, nor do the two women feel good about it. They must be feeling awkward, heavy and crushed under Gandhi's weight -- physical…
Osho, please shed detailed light on Sri Krishna’s rebellious and revolutionary contribution regarding sex. There are two supplementary questions; I will place them later.
This denial of the biological personality in the figures of Mahavira, Buddha, Jesus—this is part of their sadhana. In Krishna’s life, the sadhana is total acceptance—biological included: the sexual being, the erotic body, the erotic mind—all accepted. Krishna says: all is to be accepted; nothing is to be denied. In Krishna’s view, whoever denies is, in some sense, a little or much atheist. In truth, denial is atheism. In what measure one denies—someone says, I do not accept the body: then he is atheist toward the body. Someone says, I do not accept sex: atheist toward sex. Someone says, I do not accept God: atheist toward God. But non-acceptance is the style of atheism; acceptance is theism. Therefore I cannot call Mahavira, Buddha, or Jesus as theistic as I call Krishna. Total acceptance—no denial, no condemnation. Whatever is, has its place in existence. For this reason, if hundreds of thousands…
Osho! I have been listening to you for years, and I listened again yesterday. It seems that in general you honor women with deep compassion and appreciation. But when you speak of a woman in the role of a wife, you scold her and depict a very different image. Why is that?
An hour later, when he came out and walked back toward the ship with his friends, the friends began telling him what all they had done. They asked Gandhi what had happened. Poor fellow—what could he say! He kept it hidden. Later, years later, he wrote in his autobiography that nothing happened—nothing could have happened; he just sat there with eyes lowered. The woman took so much pity on him that she even returned his money. “Brother, take your money back. If the loss of the money grieves you, then at least take it back. And if you need anything, say so.” She felt such compassion: “What kind of man is this!” The ways women have always used in their behavior, rebellion, revenge—those are precisely what Gandhi used. He gave them sweet names—ahimsa, nonviolence; satyagraha, the force of truth. If a man gets angry, he will beat the woman; if…
Beloved Osho, have we failed you in any way, that you have to start speaking again?
The story is that Bodhidharma was determined to remain awake for twenty-four hours. But the body is the body, the eyelids get tired, and when they get tired the eyes close. He became so angry that he cut off his eyelids and threw them in the grass. Then his eyes could not be closed. It is a symbolic story. It did not happen, it cannot happen -- because I know Bodhidharma perfectly well.... He is the last person to do such a thing. But the story is significant, although it is just a story: those eyelids grew into a plant that became the tea plant. And because those were the eyelids of a man like Bodhidharma, the tea still carries the quality of awareness. That is the significance of the story. In every Buddhist monastery, the first thing is the tea. But in Gandhi's ashram, if somebody was caught drinking…
Osho, what is the first experience of samadhi like?
You will know only when it happens. It cannot be said; at most a few hints can be given. It is as if, in the dark, a lamp is suddenly lit. Or as if a dying patient, right at the edge of death, suddenly finds a medicine that works; life’s wave, life’s thrill spreads again—so it is. As if a corpse becomes alive—such is the first experience of samadhi. It is the taste of nectar. The experience of the ultimate music. But it will be only when it happens; and only then will you understand. You will not understand by my saying it. It is as with love. How can anyone explain it? To someone who has never loved, never known love, no matter how many explanations you offer—he will hear it all and still ask, “I haven’t understood; please explain a little more.” It is like explaining light to…