According to Osho, Mahavira’s nakedness was not a matter of character but an expression of his realized vision—his knowing. Clothes obstruct the body’s subtle exchange with the cosmos; fabrics filter or trap vibrations. Nakedness enables direct attunement and communication with existence, like an antenna in the open. Thus, copying his nudity as a moral pose is meaningless without the inner realization it serves.
He was naked to better ‘talk’ with the universe, not to make a moral point, because clothes get in the way.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, was Mahavira’s nakedness a part of his character or of his vision?
There are many facets. In fact—as I said last night—Mahavira had to do many things that don’t occur to us. If they did occur to us, we would immediately see what belongs to what. His nakedness is a part of Mahavira’s knowing—of his realization—not of his character. It is a part of his knowing because, as I said, if one is to relate to this vast cosmos, this mute existence, then even clothing becomes an obstacle. Clothes are such a great hindrance we scarcely even suspect it. And the newer the fabrics, the greater the hindrance. The latest materials sever your body completely from the surrounding environment; very little comes in, very little goes out. Different fabrics do different things. Cotton separates in one way, silk in another, wool in yet another. Newer fabrics—those with plastic or glass-like components—break the contact in still other ways. So for one who wants…
Even after the sadhana ended, for six months the signs of womanhood remained. People would be amazed—what has happened? If such a thing is possible, then anyone who saw him in those days could have written—he was a woman. My own understanding is—this person may have begun as a woman when entering the world of sadhana; but the path chosen was masculine, and it transformed everything—personality and body. And now we also know scientifically that the body can change through intense states of mind, and totally through total states. Those who seized the fact wrote—she was a woman. Those who saw the transformation—wrote he was a man. To clutch fact blindly is dangerous. One must have an eye for truth; facts change every day. That you are a man or woman is a fact, not a truth. Truth is that which does not change.
There can be no prestige higher than God’s; but in the shelter of the search for truth, if even God stands in the way, He too must be set aside. In the research Mahavira undertook into truth, many things stood as screens. The prestige of the Veda was there—and in this land the Veda was no less prestigious than God. It was the word of God. One should say, it was more prestigious than God. Even if God Himself were to return and speak against the Veda, God would be rejected and the Veda accepted—the Veda was the supreme word. Mahavira rejected the Veda, for he said that only experience can be supreme; words cannot be supreme. And all the prestigious traditions—Mahavira struck at them. The brahmin was prestigious; Mahavira changed the whole definition of brahmin.
Osho, at the beginning of the new discourse series ‘Saheb Mil Saheb Bhaye’ we welcome you, bow to you, and request you to tell us why the Divine is called ‘Saheb’ (Master).
Man sleeps even deeper than that. Disturb his sleep and he becomes enraged. You want someone to sing lullabies, to deepen your slumber; to teach you “how to sleep better.” Your priests oblige—they increase your darkness, and you are pleased. The Master disturbs you—hence you are upset. He reminds you of your supreme nature: Saheb mil Saheb bhaye. He says: Meet the Master—be the Master. You are the Master; just awaken, and you will be it now. Why does man refuse even the declaration of his godliness? The reason is simple: accept it and you must change your life at once. If you are standing on the street blowing smoke, then remember “Saheb mil Saheb bhaye”—how will it look? The Master smoking a bidi? Gambling, drinking—and the Master drinking? The Master contesting an election? The Master, hands folded before each voter begging for votes! You will feel ashamed: what kind…
Osho, how could the iconoclast Mahavira accept himself as the twenty-fourth Tirthankara of the most ancient Jina tradition? Please explain!
Within this revolutionary tradition, Mahavira is the most glorious, the most brilliant. Therefore his words are worth understanding and contemplating. He must have been uniquely revolutionary; for the Jainas have two sects—Digambara and Shvetambara. The Digambaras hold that not a single word of Mahavira remains, no scripture remains. That too is part of the revolution. They say, no scripture is Mahavira’s word. The words we have are from the Shvetambara compilations. The Digambaras have no compilations. It is astonishing that the Digambaras did not preserve! But that too belongs to their deep revolt: if you preserve words, today or tomorrow they become scripture; preserve them, and soon they become Veda. Hence the Digambaras did not preserve Mahavira’s words. It is an extraordinary rebellion against scripture. They revere Mahavira, but preserved no texts—only what was passed personally from master to disciple; they did not write it down. Therefore, for the Digambaras,…