What is the significance of Mahavira in Jainism?

Osho, how could the iconoclast Mahavira accept himself as the twenty-fourth Tirthankara of the most ancient Jina tradition? Please explain!

Within this revolutionary tradition, Mahavira is the most glorious, the most brilliant. Therefore his words are worth understanding and contemplating. He must have been uniquely revolutionary; for the Jainas have two sects—Digambara and Shvetambara. The Digambaras hold that not a single word of Mahavira remains, no scripture remains. That too is part of the revolution. They say, no scripture is Mahavira’s word. The words we have are from the Shvetambara compilations. The Digambaras have no compilations. It is astonishing that the Digambaras did not preserve! But that too belongs to their deep revolt: if you preserve words, today or tomorrow they become scripture; preserve them, and soon they become Veda. Hence the Digambaras did not preserve Mahavira’s words. It is an extraordinary rebellion against scripture. They revere Mahavira, but preserved no texts—only what was passed personally from master to disciple; they did not write it down. Therefore, for the Digambaras,…

Osho, before Mahavira there were twenty-three Tirthankaras. Then Mahavira’s family members must have been followers of someone—Mahavira himself was not a follower of anyone—so were they followers of Parshvanath or of someone else? How did it happen that Mahavira, who forged his own path and was not anyone’s disciple, ended up with a path that coincided with Parshvanath’s path, or with that tradition? Because that path already existed! And the name “Jain” for the sect is associated with Mahavira; before him, what were those people called?

There are two or three things to understand here. First, only with Mahavira did a stream of thought become a sect. Before Mahavira there was indeed a current of thought, but it had no separate existence from the Aryan tradition. It was a current that arose within the Aryan tradition. Its name was Shramana. It was not called “Jain” yet. And there was a reason for calling it “Shramana,” as I have said earlier. I have told you that the Brahmin current does not put faith in attaining the ultimate through effort, through sadhana, through tapas. The ultimate is to be attained in an attitude of extreme humility, in prayer, in utter meekness—where we are completely helpless, where we can do nothing; the doer is That alone. In this perfect poverty—what Jesus called “poverty of the spirit”—one who is so humble and indigent in spirit that he says, “What can…

Osho, Mahavira refused to take anyone’s support—that is right. But along with that, a question arises: just as it is important not to take support, it should be equally important not to give support. Yet his way of expressing himself, and then the whole structure of shravaks and shramans and all that—this amounts to giving support to others. So why was this aspect not considered: if I do not take support, who am I to give support to another?

They would say… Sicily is a small island to the south. The Sophists offered an example: a man came from Sicily and, on arriving in Athens, said, “In Sicily, everyone is a liar.” Someone stood up and asked him, “Where are you from?” He said, “I am from Sicily.” The man said, “Now we are in trouble! You say everyone in Sicily is a liar, and you are from Sicily; so you are a liar—what shall we do with your statement? And if we accept that everyone in Sicily is a liar, then at least one person in Sicily must be telling the truth, and your statement becomes false. If we do not accept that everyone in Sicily is a liar—if we take you to be lying—again we land in a difficulty.” Someone stood up and said, “What shall we do?” Perhaps the man himself had no idea what to…

Beloved Osho, mahavira was the twenty-fourth tirthankara of the jaina religion. Did the jaina religion start with the very first tirthankara or with mahavira? And what is the meaning of the word `jaina'?

And they became really rich, so rich that even kings had to borrow money from them. Nobody was a beggar, nobody was uneducated. And because they were such a small minority, attacked by all kinds of philosophies, they had to protect themselves; they sharpened their intellect. They created better arguments than anybody else, because for others it was a luxury to argue, but for Jainas it was a question of life and death. They had to win the argument; otherwise they were finished. So they have developed logical systems, great philosophies, which should be made available to the whole world. But the world cares only about numbers, and they are a non-converting religion, so the question of creating great numbers like the Catholics is not possible. They are non-converting because, according to them -- and I accept the idea -- the very effort to convert somebody is ugly. You can…

Hence it was difficult to make a sect. If one went to Goshalak, Mahavira’s rival, Goshalak would say: Mahavira is wrong, I am right. If the same man came to Mahavira, he would say: Goshalak may be right. If you were there, whom would you follow—Goshalak or Mahavira? You would go behind Goshalak—at least he is definite, clear; he knows. This Mahavira says: Goshalak may be right—he himself is not certain. Why tie our boat to him and sink! Who knows where he is going—perhaps, perhaps not! Therefore, only an extremely intelligent kind of person could come to Mahavira—those who are non-insistent about truth, who could see Mahavira’s courage. But as time passes, those who come later do not come through understanding; they come by birth; they become insistent; and their insistence is dangerous. A very renowned Jain scholar came to meet me.