Don’t copy saints; they show you can wake up too—find your own way to the same quiet center inside.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
"last night you said that a krishna, a christ, a buddha, they are the climax of human possibility and growth, and then you said that yogic and tantric psychology put no ideal before man and that to have an ideal is a mistake according to tantra. In this reference please explain what is the difference between an inspiration and an ideal. What is the significance of inspiration in a seeker's life? Please tell whether even being inspired by a great man is a mistake on the path of a meditator."
In a Jesus, in a Meera, in Chaitanya, just a possibility is revealed, the future is revealed. You need not be whatsoever you are. Something more is possible. So Buddha is just a symbol of the future. Don't imitate him; rather, let his life, his being, the phenomenon that is happening, become a new thirst in you, that is all. You must not be content with yourself as you are right now. Let Buddha become a discontent in you, a thirst to transcend, to go beyond, to move into the unknown. When you reach to the peak of your own being, you will know what happened to Buddha under the bodhi tree or what happened to Jesus on the cross or what happened to Meera when she was dancing in the streets. You will know, but your expression will be your own. You are not going to be a Meera…
Osho, you and Shri Krishnamurti seem very opposed to having ideals in life. It is true that ideals create a great deal of hypocrisy. But if we look from the other end, the danger appears that without the challenge of ideals, growth will become impossible. There will be no difference between human and animal. So is the mistake in choosing the wrong ideals? Would you be gracious enough to say something on this?
By “ideal” you mean: distant stars in the sky… to become this, to become that. In that race of becoming you forget how you are. What is, gets forgotten; what should be, fixes your gaze. But what is—that alone is real. A man has tuberculosis—that is the reality. He “should” be healthy, he should be a wrestler like Muhammad Ali or Gama—that is an ideal. So he hangs Gama’s picture at home, does a daily arati to it. And he has TB—rotting within—while his eyes are fixed on Gama’s picture! What will come of it? Will TB vanish? The truth is: because of it, the very means of release from TB is lost. Your eye is not on TB; it is stuck on Gama’s picture. Your eye should have been on TB—then something could be done, treatment could happen. A man is burning with anger and sits with the ideal…
Osho, you said that all ideals are wrong. But is the ideal of attaining one’s destination, one’s destiny, equally wrong?
An ideal is wrong; it makes no difference what you make an ideal of. “Ideal” means: it will happen in the future. “Ideal” means: tomorrow. “Ideal” means: it is not available today. An ideal is postponement—for the future. What is your destiny does not need to be made into an ideal; it is bound to happen—it has, in a way, already happened. Destiny means your intrinsic nature. That which is wholly available to you in this moment is your destiny. All ideals are anti-destiny. The very meaning of an ideal is that you want to be what, in your heart of hearts, you know you cannot be. A rose becomes a rose; a lotus becomes a lotus. Nowhere in the lotus’s heart is there an ideal, “I must become a lotus.” If the lotus tried to become a lotus, it would go mad—and fail. What you are, you already are—from…
Carrying Christ in your head is absolutely meaningless. And that's what Christians are doing, and others are doing the same: Hindus carrying Krishna in the head, Buddhists carrying Buddha in the head. And these are not things of the head, these are not thoughts. These are deep, deep experiences, profound feelings. They can happen only in the heart. And when they happen in the heart you don't become a Christian, you become a Christ. You don't become a Buddhist, you become a Buddha. It is ugly to be a Buddhist or a Christian. When you can be a Buddha or a Christ, why settle for being a Christian or a Buddhist? That is settling for something plastic, something pseudo. Christ is a state of consciousness, just as Buddha is a state of consciousness.
What is wrong, in imitating the great ideals taught down the centuries?
It is not a question of great ideals or petty ideals, it is a question of imitating. What you imitate is immaterial; the important thing is that you imitate. If you imitate you become a carbon copy. If you imitate you have betrayed your authentic being. If you imitate you are no more your being, you are no more your soul, you are no more yourself. You have committed suicide -- and this suicide is far more suicidal than when you destroy your physical body. This is destroying your very psychology. Imitation means you will not live according to your own spontaneity, you will live according to somebody else as your image; you will follow somebody else's character, behavior, way of life. You will have to impose. What will you do if you want to follow Christ; if you want to imitate Christ, what will you do? You will act…