What are the subtle similarities and differences between Mahavira’s dispassion, Christ’s holy indifference, Buddha’s disregard, and Krishna’s non-attachment?

Osho, Mahavira’s dispassion, Christ’s holy indifference, Buddha’s disregard, and Krishna’s non-attachment—what are their subtle similarities and differences? Please shed light on this.

In this, some similarities appear. Krishna will arrive at a peace like Buddha’s, because he has nothing to attain—whatever is, is already attained. At times he will appear dispassionate like Mahavira, for his joy knows no bounds. He will appear to proclaim God as Jesus does—but not because there is a God sitting in this world or the next: rather, because all is God. Krishna’s non-attachment is total surrender—“the disappearance of ‘I.’” To know that the “I” is not. Once this is known, whatever is happening is happening. There is nothing to be done about it. There is no possibility of our doing anything. Krishna sees himself as a wave in the ocean. Since there is no choosing, there is no attachment. If we understand correctly, non-attachment is not a state of mind; it is the dropping of all states of mind, the dropping of all positions—and becoming one with…

Questioner: what is the subtle difference, if any, between mahavira's transcendence of attachment, christ's holy indifference, buddha's indifference and krishna's non-attachment? And in what way are they the same?

There is a good deal of similarity between Christ's concept of neutrality, Buddha's idea of indifference, Mahavira's transcendence of attachment, and Krishna's non-attachment. These are the ways of looking at and meeting the world. But there are some basic differences too. While their end-points are similar, their approaches are very different. while their ultimate goal is the same, they differ much in the ways and means they use to achieve their ends. There is deep similarity between what Christ calls neutrality or non-alignment with the world at large, and what Buddha calls indifference to it. As the world is, with all its strange goings-on, its contradictions and conflicts, its struggles and trials, a seeker on the spiritual path will do well to keep a distance from it. But remember, neutrality can never be blissful; deep down it makes one sad and dull and drab. Therefore Jesus looks sad; even if…

Osho, what is the definition of God?

Words are very small. If you say God is light, then what of darkness? The scriptures have said that God is light. Suppose we accept this as a definition—then what about darkness? Where will darkness go? Darkness is too; in fact it is far more than light. Light sometimes is and sometimes is not; darkness is always, eternal. Where will you place darkness? If you say God is light, darkness is left out. If you say God is darkness, then light is left out. If you say God is both darkness and light, a contradiction arises: they cannot be together. Try to have both darkness and light in the same room. If you bring in light, darkness disappears; if you preserve darkness, you cannot have light. Then how can both be together? That becomes an impossibility. So you cannot say “both” either. Then the fourth device is to say: it…

Osho, is being attracted to Krishna not the same as being free of life’s other attractions?

One has to think a little. Here lies Krishna’s distinction. If you are attracted to Mahavira, you will have to be free of all the world’s attractions. If you go toward Mahavira, you will have to go against the world. That is Mahavira’s path. But with Krishna the matter is a little delicate and deep. Krishna says, if you want to come to me, you must seek me right within the attractions of the world; for I am present there too. There is no need to run away from there. Understand it like this. You relish food. If you listen to Mahavira, there will be a vow of non-taste (aswad-vrat). Then you must drop taste. Eat as a function, a necessity; do not savor. Put food into the body so that the body’s work may continue, but take no relish in it. Drop taste, continue eating. Let food become tasteless,…

Osho, Krishna is supremely enlightened and beyond the three gunas, yet he deceives, lies, and wages war. Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tzu, etc., do nothing of the sort. Kindly shed light on Krishna’s personality described above, in the context of the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas.

First, it is essential to understand that no comparison is possible between two enlightened ones. All comparisons are false. Every great being is unique; there is no second like him. In truth, even an ordinary person is unique. There is no other like you. The great one within you appears when you bring your own nature, your own destiny, to its fullness. You too are incomparable. There is no other person on earth exactly like you—neither today, nor ever before, nor ever after. Search the whole earth and you won’t find two identical leaves on a tree; not even two identical pebbles. And when your polish deepens and the supreme flowering of your life manifests, then you become like the summit of a Mount Everest. Even now you are unmatched; then you will be utterly unmatched. Now, perhaps, some accord with others is still possible; then there will be none.…