What is the significance of self-restraint and renunciation in the teachings of Mahavira and Buddha?

He has asked: Mahavira and Buddha speak of self-restraint and renunciation—so what is wrong with that?

Buddha said, “In the last village some people brought sweets. I told them, ‘My stomach is full.’ They took their trays back. I say the same to you: my belly is already full of your abuses. No hunger remains. Please take your trays back.” And Buddha added, “I feel pity for you. Those people who took their sweets back must have distributed them somewhere. But what will you do with these abuses? Because I refuse to accept them. You have the right to give; at least grant me this much right—to accept or not. I refuse to accept your abuses.” This man is not “restrained,” with anger surging inside while he grits his teeth, clenches his fist, and thinks, “I won’t let the anger out.” If he is such a person, no understanding has dawned. A man of restraint need not have understanding; but a man of understanding will have…

Mahavira made very deep experiments to increase extrasensory possibilities. If we begin to understand all of Mahavira’s sadhana from this, much will be revealed. If Mahavira lives for years without food—what is the reason? The reason is: he began to find a food within. If Mahavira sleeps on stone and needs no mattress—he has begun a new world of inner touch. If Mahavira can accept any kind of food—in reality he has birthed an inner taste. Now outer things are not so important. The inner over-imposes itself on outer things—overlays them, surrounds them. Therefore Mahavira does not appear shriveled—he appears expanded. There is no constriction in his personality. There is blossoming. He is joyous—not miserable like the so-called ascetics. This could not happen with Buddha. Consider this carefully; it is precious and easy to understand. The type was different. The same could not happen with Buddha.

Yesterday I pondered a little about Mahavira’s childhood. As I said, one who carries the consciousness of a Tirthankara has touched perfection and returned. This means that for Mahavira, in this life nothing remained to do; only to give. Nothing remained to attain; only to share. If this is understood, it has very deep implications. The first implication is that the ordinary notion about Mahavira—that he performed renunciation—collapses as meaningless. It is essential to understand clearly today that Mahavira never, even by mistake, did any renunciation. Renunciation was merely what appeared from the outside; Mahavira never did it. And what appears is not the truth, because what appears depends more on the onlookers than on what was actually seen. To minds stuffed with indulgence, any dropping of anything looks like renunciation.

Question: OSHO, WHAT IS RENUNCIATION? WHAT IS ITS PLACE IN YOUR RELIGION? So, one thing to be remembered: in this life there are momentary pleasures, fleeting experiences of happiness, sudden explosions of joy -- but you cannot catch hold of them. You cannot keep them in your safe deposit. You cannot make them permanent. Just because you cannot make them permanent, religions exploited you. It was a very cunning strategy. You want to make them permanent; your deepest desire is to remain happy for ever, not to know pain, sadness, anguish -- ever. Just always to be in paradise -- that is your desire. The religions exploited this. They said, "There is such a place, but you cannot get anything without paying for it." It looks perfectly mathematical, economical.

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…