What is the contradiction in Osho's views on the Ramayana and Valmiki's attainment of Buddhahood?

Osho, you are quite opposed to the Ramayana story composed by Valmiki and to its characters like Rama and Sita, and on the other hand you say that Valmiki attained Buddhahood even by chanting "mara-mara." How is this contradiction? Is it possible that one enlightened man would produce a story that another enlightened man opposes?

Rishiraj Trivedi, first consider this: Balya, the Bhil, who could not even chant "Rama, Rama" properly--would he be able to write the Ramayana? A man who, while chanting "Rama, Rama," began chanting "mara, mara"--could such a person write the story of Rama? Is there any possibility? None is evident. He could not even remember "Rama" fully--just two syllables, the smallest of words--even that he forgot and started saying "mara, mara"--would such a person write the Ramayana? He was not educated. And even if he had written the Ramayana, whatever an unlettered, uncultured person writes will carry the imprint of all his lack of culture; his entire illiteracy would cast its shadow over it. So first of all, Balya the Bhil is such an uneducated man, a killer, that there is no likelihood of his composing the tale of Rama. Someone else must have written the story of Rama; yes, and…

Osho, Valmiki wrote the story of Rama’s life even before Rama was born. He, too, was God—so how did his life become bound to a predetermined sequence? This is a very well-asked question. It asks: Valmiki wrote Rama’s life even before Rama came to be.

It can be written. Rama’s life can be written. He was a man of maryada—of code and restraint. There is a joke hidden in this: when it is said that Valmiki wrote Rama’s life beforehand, it only means that Rama is the sort of person whose life can be written in advance—what he will do. He is a character. What he will do and what he will not do can be fixed beforehand. It isn’t that Valmiki literally wrote it earlier. There is a big joke hidden in this incident—and this country has made profound jokes that we fail to catch. What is hidden here is that Rama’s life is so bound that a poet like Valmiki could write it even before Rama lived. Such a serial existence. About Rama you can be certain what he will do. Even before he is born, it can be said what this man…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, THERE IS NOTHING TO ATTAIN ONLY IF THE PERSON TRULY POSSESSES THE FACULTY OF WISDOM AND WILL POWER WILL HE CONSENT TO STEP BACK AND REFLECT. YUNG CHIA ALSO SAID, "THE REAL NATURE OF IGNORANCE IS IDENTICAL TO THE NATURE OF ENLIGHTENMENT. ORIGINAL INHERENT NATURE IS THE NATURALLY REAL ENLIGHTENED ONE." IF YOU THINK LIKE THIS, SUDDENLY, IN THE PLACE WHERE THOUGHT CANNOT REACH, YOU WILL SEE THE BODY OF REALITY IN WHICH THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING -- THIS IS THE PLACE FOR YOU TO GET OUT OF BIRTH AND DEATH. WHAT I SAID BEFORE, THAT ONE CANNOT SEEK THE DHARMA, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO ATTAIN, WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT THERE is SOMETHING TO ATTAIN, IS JUST THIS PRINCIPLE.

Beloved Osho, meher baba speaks about two different kinds of enlightened masters. One he calls "man becoming god," the other he calls "god becoming man." gautam buddha belongs to the first -- slowly, through many lives, he has flowered into the state of buddhahood. Meher baba asserts that he belongs to the second, "god becoming man." I have not really understood what he means. Can you say something about this?

I have been to many courts unnecessarily because whenever I would say anything about Rama, somebody's heart would start having attacks; their religious feelings would be hurt. Their religious feelings are not hurt by the act of Rama. Their religious feelings are hurt but in a wrong situation; I am simply saying what is written in their scriptures. I cannot believe that Rama is an incarnation of God. And the same is the case with other incarnations. Their life proves that they have nothing to do with God. Gautam Buddha, or Mahavira, or Bodhidharma, or Nagarjuna -- these are evolving consciousnesses. They don't believe there is a God. Their experience is that you have to create a god within you, you have to become a womb, and you have the potential to become a god. And looking at Gautam Buddha -- just the way he sits, just the way he…

Osho, You have said that Maryada Purushottam Ram was not religious, because nowhere in his life does a spark of rebellion appear. Then what is the reason that his name has lived for thousands of years and has become synonymous with God?

Understand these three words clearly: - A villain (durjan) is one who goes against society’s values. - A gentleman (sajjan) is one who goes along with society’s values. - A saint (sant) is one who neither goes with nor against; he lives by his inner inspiration. Sometimes that inner inspiration will come out against, sometimes alongside—this is secondary. If it comes out against, so be it; if alongside, so be it. But Ram is a strict line-walker. He walks the beaten track. He places each step with caution. He tiptoes. A washerman says a word…and is the washerman’s word to count for so much?…and Sita is thrown out! As if an excuse were being sought! As if the words were put into the washerman’s mouth by himself! If one man’s remark can cause so much panic, then what of the fire-ordeal Sita had already undergone? Even that became useless! And…