What is the nature of communication with spiritual figures like Christ, Buddha, or Krishna?

You said that if we see visions of ram or that we are dancing with krishna, to remember it is only imagination. But the other night you said that if we were receptive we could communicate with christ, buddha or krishna right now. Is that communication also imagination when it happens, or there are meditative states in which christ or buddha is really there? A little difficult to be understood.

Then why call it Krishna? There will be no form. Why call it Jesus? These are simply symbols, linguistic symbols. You are acquainted with the word "Jesus", so when that presence fills you and you become part of it a vibrating part of it; when you become a drop in that ocean, how to express it? You know the most beautiful word for you may be "Jesus" or the most beautiful word may be "Buddha" or "Krishna" -- these words are fed in the mind, so you choose certain words to indicate that presence. But that presence is not an image; it is not a dream. It is not a vision at all. You can use Jesus, you can use Krishna, you can use Christ, or whatsoever, whatsoever name has appeal to you, whatsoever name has a love appeal for you. That's up to you. That word and that name…

Osho, in one talk you said that the soul of Sri Krishna can be realized, because nothing dies. Then what process must one go through to bring the vision of Krishna within the bounds of possibility? And please also tell us whether, through meditation on Krishna’s image, chanting Krishna’s name, and kirtan of Krishna’s name, one can move toward the fullness of worship.

There is a little process called post-hypnotic suggestion. If a person is put into deep trance—which is very easy—and in that deep trance he is told, “Look closely at this talisman; whenever it is placed on your chest you will again go into a trance,” then that suggestion settles into the depths of the unconscious. From then on, whenever that talisman is placed on his chest, he will immediately go into trance. And in trance, the unconscious faculties of our brain begin to function: what we cannot do in wakefulness, we often do in trance. We hear with far greater acuity, we see far more deeply. That talisman will not work on you, because no such deep suggestion has been planted in your unconscious. When people like Krishna, Mahavira, Buddha, and Christ depart from the earth, those who love them, who have longed for them, who have received much in…

Questioner: arvind had seen visions of krishna and been in contact with yogi lele. Is it that a final judgement on the experiments conducted at pondicherry will be made by future generations? What do you think of alice bailey who claims to receive messages? Where do the messages come from? And how? Do you too have such esoteric contacts with some masters?

Arvind sees visions of Krishna inside a prison, in the walls of the prison, in the prisoners' faces and in himself. But who is the one who knows that he sees visions of Krishna? If there is a knower then it is surely his own mental projection. If someone says he sees Krishna, it means the one who sees is not Krishna; he is bound to be different from Krishna. The oceanic, universal form of Krishna is something entirely different from Krishna the man who happened some five thousand years ago. But his universal form, which is universal subconsciousness, is eternal. And one who encounters the universal consciousness ceases to be an ego; he disappears as he is and turns into that universal intelligence itself. You can call it by the name of Krishna, Christ, or Buddha, or whatever you like. Names don't matter; the choice of name depends on…

Osho, something was left unsaid about Sri Aurobindo’s vision of Krishna. In Ahmedabad you said that his Krishna-vision could largely be a mental projection. So is Aurobindo’s Krishna-vision only a mental projection, or could it also be a mystic realization? A second question: If Arjuna is only a mere instrument, then he becomes just a machine. What happens to his individuality?

Aurobindo’s manner of saying is Hegelian. Like Hegel he is a system-maker. He says very little, uses big words, long words, takes very long detours. Expression must, of course, be intellectual; but when it is expression of realization, at the same time it keeps pointing beyond itself—it brings the news that the man has known something beyond words. But if everything fits within words, such news does not come. And after reading all of Aurobindo, the taste left in the mouth is only of words. Not a trace of the taste of experience is left. Sometimes a person may not speak at all, and his very presence can leave the taste of realization in your mouth. Sometimes someone may speak a lot, and yet only the taste of words remains; no taste of experience can remain. Expression will be intellectual, but when it is expression of realization it simultaneously transcends…

Question: BELOVED OSHO, CHOGYAM TRUNGPA WRITES IN ONE OF HIS BOOKS: "NOR IS IT HELPFUL TO CHOOSE SOMEONE FOR YOUR MASTER SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS FAMOUS -- SOMEONE WHO IS RENOWNED FOR HAVING PUBLISHED STACKS OF BOOKS AND CONVERTED THOUSANDS OR MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. INSTEAD, THE GUIDELINE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE ABLE TO ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE WITH THE PERSON DIRECTLY AND THOROUGHLY." THE KEY WORDS ARE "DIRECTLY" AND "THOROUGHLY." HOW DOES THIS WORK FROM THE SANNYASIN'S END, IN VIEW OF YOUR VIRTUALLY COMPLETE PHYSICAL INACCESSIBILITY? Krishna cannot fulfill it, Rama cannot fulfill it. Rama carries a bow and arrow, and they symbolize violence. Even Jesus cannot fulfill their criterion, because according to the Jainas you suffer only because of your past karmas.