What is the significance of the lineage of sages and saints in relation to enlightenment?

Osho, it seems that whereas the sages and enlightened ones of ancient India came from affluent and high lineages, the medieval saints were born mostly among the poor and the backward classes. Would you kindly shed some light on this historical fact?

It did happen. The reason was India’s varna system. India has suffered under the varna system; even now it is not free of it. That is why the earliest tradition of saints in India was Brahmin. The rishis and seers—of the Vedas and Upanishads—were Brahmins. There was a belief that only the highest class was worthy and eligible to enter the realm of religion. Because of this belief, thousands, millions, hundreds of millions were deprived of a living relationship with the Divine. Whoever is human is qualified to attain God. Being human itself confers that qualification. Beyond being human, no other qualification is needed. It is not necessary to be a Brahmin. But the prevailing notion in this country was that only a Brahmin is so pure that he can move toward God; hence he is called “Brahmin”—one who can go toward Brahman. The rest—Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra—were cut off;…

Question: Second question: Osho, you truly did disappoint me, because you did not adequately resolve my doubts. I concede that a sannyas like yours has never existed on earth before, but these ochre robes and your disciples wearing a mala with your locket around their necks—if this is not conditioning, then what is it? It looks like Indian culture. And the meditation and samadhi you describe—using slightly different words, from Ashtavakra to Krishnamurti all the enlightened beings have described the same, and speaking on them you too have agreed. This long lineage of enlightened ones is what I call the garland of lamps of Indian culture, in which you are the brilliantly shining lamp of the present. My request is: please do not take me as your critic, because I understand well that only what you are doing can bring welfare to all humankind.

Osho, what is the most significant thing about enlightenment?

People want definite answers to believe in: this way or that. Either be a Catholic or be a communist, but be clear. People want clarity because they are so confused, and this man brings all these seven categories; now their confusion is worse, they are even more confounded. First you were at least aware that you were confused. Now you will not be aware to which category you belong: yes, no, yes -- no both, neither yes nor no, or indescribable. Mahavira could not create a world religion for the simple reason that perhaps he had the deepest penetration into reality. If you ask about his enlightenment, he will answer in seven sentences. You will not be able to come to any conclusion -- and I feel this is something tremendously valuable. Why this urge to come to a conclusion? If existence is a continuum, an ongoing process -- never…

Osho, in India today, on the spiritual plane, is there any ongoing lineage of figures like Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, or Aurobindo? In these past two or three hundred years, has there been anyone like that?

Yes. Here, in the past two–three centuries, the most influential figures have been Ramana and Krishnamurti. But no lineage could form behind Ramana, and behind Krishnamurti it will not form either. Krishnamurti is opposed to creating one. And behind Ramana it could not form. A man of that caliber was not found who could carry the matter forward or add something to it. Ramakrishna found Vivekananda. Vivekananda is a very powerful person, but not experienced. Because of his power he did set the wheel in motion, but there isn’t much life in that wheel, so it is not going to go far. Ramakrishna is deeply experienced, but he is not in the position of being a teacher, of being a Tirthankara. He cannot be a teacher. So for the first time... It happens many times that when someone cannot be a teacher, he places the work of teaching on another’s…

Beloved Osho, the longing for a better life, for a utopia, has been constantly in man's mind since he became aware of his consciousness. On the other hand he became more and more afraid of all his irrational powers. Can you please comment?

That's why marriage was created; otherwise it was easier for man not to have any marriage, because marriage was simply a responsibility -- of children, of a wife. When the woman is pregnant, then you have to feed her.... And there was no need to take all that responsibility. The woman was taking the whole responsibility. But the man wanted some immortality, and that his property should be possessed by his own blood. And the woman wanted some protection -- she was vulnerable. While she was pregnant, she could not work, she could not go hunting; she had to depend on somebody. So it was in the interest of both to have a contract that they would remain together, would not betray in any sense, because the whole thing was to keep the blood pure. So Marx's idea was that when communism comes, and property becomes collective, marriage becomes meaningless…