According to Osho, Gandhi’s nonviolence is chiefly a moral-political strategy—outer, policy-driven, historically visible, and prone to compromise—whereas Mahavira’s nonviolence is religious: an inner transformation from which harmlessness flows effortlessly. In Gandhi, nonviolence is in action; in Mahavira, it is in being. Gandhi tried to act himself into saintliness; Mahavira’s awakened consciousness made violence impossible, leaving little ‘history’ but total integrity.
Like using manners versus having a kind heart: Gandhi used nonviolence as a tactic; Mahavira became so peaceful inside that hurting anyone simply couldn’t happen.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
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…
Osho, you said... then you will find that the devotee is God. The question arises: if one devotee prefers to be God and another wants to remain only a devotee, then which of the two is superior?
The one who wants to be God will not be able to be. And the one who wants to remain a devotee will become God. The question of superior or inferior does not arise, because only one of the two will happen. The one who does not want to be will be. The one who wants to be will be deprived. That very wanting is of the ego. But the matter is a little delicate. Sometimes humility too belongs to the ego. Beware that your humility may not be of the ego. Perhaps you are saying, “No, I don’t want to be,” because you know that those who refuse are the ones who attain. Then you are clever. Then your humility is adulterous. Your humility is not pure, not sacred, not virginal—it is like a prostitute. The one who wants to be God, whose ego says, “I must become God,”…
A friend has asked: Do you not believe in Gandhiji’s nonviolence? And if you do not believe in Gandhi’s nonviolence, does that mean your faith is in violence?
- Nonviolent means: from whose consciousness the urge to torment has dissolved—toward others and toward oneself. - Nonviolent means: from whose mind the desire to exert pressure has vanished—whether by the knife or by a fast. - Nonviolent means: one who is free of the desire to pressure anyone in any way. Because by exerting pressure we make ourselves superior to the other. And have you noticed? By showing a knife you do not become higher than the other, but by fasting you do. Nietzsche, jokingly, said something against Jesus. Jesus says, “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn the other.” Nietzsche said, “What greater insult to the other could there be? You did not even regard him as a man, as your equal. He slapped you; you offered the other cheek. In that instant you became a god, and he a worm of the earth.” Nietzsche joked that…
Osho, Krishna says “kill,” and Mahavira says that even the mere thought of violence is violence. Please tell us who is superior between the two?
In the smoke and dust, the hustle and bustle of the road, you will be lost: you won’t even have time to enter the temple or the mosque. If you want to pray, you must choose somewhere. But be mindful about the basis of your choice—choose because of “me,” not because of which of them is superior. Keep the relativity on your side. I cannot choose both together. My heart is not that vast yet. My vision is not so immense that I can hold both together. My house is not so spacious that I can host both as guests at once. Accept this compulsion and choose: the house is small; I can invite only one. The day you awaken, you will find both are two different faces of the same truth. But until then, you must decide. And decide very consciously. Do not leave this decision to your birth—“I…
Osho, what is the constructive, positive form of nonviolence? And why did Mahavira never offer anyone physical help?
From the very word ‘ahimsa’ comes the sense of the negative, the prohibitive, the “no.” It means: no violence. So the word itself is negative. Why did Mahavira choose that word? He could have chosen love. Love is a constructive, positive word. Ahimsa means: do not cause anyone pain. Love means: give someone happiness. Because ahimsa means “do not cause pain,” it is prohibitive. That is, if I simply do not hurt you, I become nonviolent. Love is an affirmative word: it means giving happiness. So if I merely refrain from hurting you, the matter is not complete; did I also give you joy? Only if I give joy is love fulfilled. Thus love is a constructive word. Jesus used love. Ahimsa is a negative word, and Mahavira used it. Therefore it needs to be understood very deeply. Why does Mahavira employ the formula “do not give pain to anyone”?…