According to Osho, Krishna is called a complete incarnation because he is ‘zero’—utterly empty, choiceless, without any fixed somebody. Like the indivisible zero from which all numbers arise and to which they return, his zero‑personality contains everything. Refusing definition, he reveals rather than describes himself; being nobody, he can be everybody, acting spontaneously without bondage—hence purnavatara.
Krishna is complete because he became like zero—nothing to cling to or call himself—so he could be everything and respond freely.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, what are the reasons for calling Krishna a complete incarnation (purnavatara)? Please give some new reasons. And shed detailed light with reference to the sixty-four arts.
No, there is no other reason to call one “complete.” Whoever becomes zero becomes complete. Emptiness is the prelude to the complete. To be precise, the zero alone is the only complete. You cannot draw half a zero—not even in geometry. If you say, “I have drawn half a zero,” it is no longer a zero. There is no such thing as half a zero. The zero is always whole, entire. The incomplete has no meaning. How will you split zero into two parts? And if it can be split, how will you still call it zero? Zero is not cut, not divided; it is indivisible. From where division begins, number begins. That is why after zero we must start with one. One, two, three—this is the world of number. All numbers arise from zero and are lost back into zero. Zero alone is the complete. Who can be zero?…
Questioner: what are the reasons for calling krishna a complete incarnation of god? Kindly shed more light on this matter. Please explain in detail what is meant by saying that krishna possessed all the sixty-four arts that comprise a complete incarnation.
The Upanishads' definition of wholeness is, therefore, tight. It says, "From wholeness emerges wholeness, and if you take away wholeness from wholeness, wholeness still remains." If we take away thousands of Krishnas from Krishna, this man will still remain; more and more Krishnas can still be taken from him. There is no difficulty. Krishna will have no trouble whatsoever, because he can be anything. Mahavira cannot be born today. It will be utterly impossible for him to be born at the present time, because Mahavira reached wholeness in a particular situation, in a particular time. That dimension could be perfected only in that particular situation. In the same way Jesus cannot be born today. If today he comes at all, in the first place nobody will crucify him. No matter how much noise he makes, people will say, "Just ignore him." Jews have learned their lesson from their first mistake,…
Osho, yesterday you spoke in detail about introvert and extrovert personalities. I want one more thing clarified in this regard: What are the fundamental bases and causes of someone being introvert or extrovert? And are extroversion or introversion unchangeable? Are Krishna, by nature, introvert or extrovert?
The complete man stands beyond prediction; hence he is hard to understand. That is why there are many lovers of Krishna—and yet, in truth, those who accept him are as good as none. To accept Krishna wholly is very arduous. Those who “accept” also choose; they do not accept the whole Krishna. Some accept the child Krishna; they do not touch the youth. “Our Bala-Gopala is good,” they say—because the later Krishna appears dangerous. So they settle for the little Kanhaiya—that suffices for them. Their fear is their own. For the youth—what he does—frightens them. How can Surdas accept the youthful Krishna? He put out his eyes at the sight of women! How can youthful Krishna and Sur meet? Where Surdas, who, seeing the eyes lead to lust, put them out—and where Krishna, who can make the eyes dance and play the flute! Sur will say the later Krishna is…
Question: Osho, from Krishna’s personality, his flute, his Radha, his rasa-leela up to the Sudarshan Chakra, we’ve had the chance to learn so much. Today we are eager to hear, from your own lips, a new form of Krishna. We would like you to present your thoughts on Krishna’s sadhana, his philosophy, and the worship associated with him, so that we may come to know another aspect of Krishna. Krishna dispelled the delusion of only one Arjuna; here we are all Arjunas, all beset by delusion, and you alone are authorized to dispel the delusion of us all. In the last five days you described Krishna—the butter-thief and the dancer of the rasa—as the center of the fullness of vast life, or of the fullness of yoga.