According to Osho, mahavrata is not a bigger quantity of renunciation but the inner breakthrough where unconsciousness and the very mind of possessiveness drop; then non-attachment flows naturally. Anuvrata is practiced restraint while the mind still clings—fighting oneself in steps. Outward acts may look alike, but the test is: does it happen by itself, or by effort? True renunciation is a living capacity to let go.
Mahavrata is when the “mine, mine” feeling is gone so you let go naturally; anuvrata is when you still want to hold but practice letting go.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
The meaning of both words? Yes, I’ll tell you. Mahavrata means, for example, total ahimsa—living in absolute nonviolence; total aparigraha, total non-attachment. Anuvrata means: to the extent of one’s capacity. One person says, “I will keep possessions up to five rupees”—that is an anuvrata. Another says, “I will remain naked; I will keep no possessions at all”—that is a mahavrata.
Another story may help. An emperor was deeply impressed by a renunciate who lay naked under a neem tree. The emperor’s reverence grew and one day he said, “Not here—come to my palace; why lie here below? Come to the palace.” He had thought the renunciate would refuse: “I cannot go to a palace; I am non-possessive.” The renunciate said, “As you wish.” He stood up, staff in hand. The emperor felt uneasy. He had expected a refusal. “As you wish—let’s go to the palace!” A doubt arose in the emperor’s mind: “I have made a mistake. The man looks like he was waiting for the palace; perhaps he was under the neem only in the hope someone would take him to a palace. He did not refuse even once! What kind of non-possessive man is this? A non-possessive one should have said, ‘Never—I cannot enter a palace. A palace…
And if you go to a temple or mosque and swear: O Master, bless me, from now on I will always add two and two as four — it is clear you are deranged. And whoever blesses you is further gone than you. Your mind is broken. You suspect you will add two and two as five. To fight that suspicion you are making prior arrangements. You know your inner state that when I add, two and two will become five. 'No-no, swear, arrange in advance!' Then within you, you know two and two will become five, therefore take a vow and create a block so two and two will be four. But this is not knowledge; this is greed. The greedy man becomes vowed; the man of understanding is avratī. This does not mean there is no revolution in his life — only in his life does revolution happen!
Osho, you said that when awakening comes one should be aware of unconsciousness; there is no need to fight the various branches. Avrat alone is not enough; along with it, awakening is also necessary. So my point is: if awakening comes, then avrat will come on its own, won’t it?
No, no. Avrat is what we already are. That is, a vrati is one who lives by binding himself in rules; an avrati is one who does not live by binding himself in rules. We are already avrati, understand? There is no question of bringing it. We are already avrati. Some among us are vrati—temple-goers, mosque-goers, those who perform worship and rituals, who live by rules and religion—they are vrati; the rest are avrati. The vrati should become aware with regard to their vows; the avrati with regard to their non-vow. One has to become aware of exactly what one is doing. Then, with awakening, that which the vrati is trying to bring through vows will come. It will come—on its own.
Question: Third question: Osho, is renunciation a big thing or a small one? It depends on the person. If you renounce with understanding, it’s a very small matter. If you renounce out of unawareness, then it is a big thing—a very big thing. Understanding means you have seen that wealth has no real value. Then renunciation is a tiny thing. It was trash—you dropped it; so what did you really leave? You won’t sing its praises, won’t have others praise you, won’t hanker for it. You won’t go around saying, “I gave up millions.” There was nothing there; you saw it, so you let it go. It was refuse—you discarded it; pebbles and stones—you dropped them.
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…