Masters act differently because everyone is one-of-a-kind, and at the highest peak that uniqueness shows up in different styles—so don’t compare one to judge another.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, why are there so many confusions in philosophy?
There is no confusion in darshan; in shastra there will be confusion. Shastra itself means confusion. Shastra means: doctrines, arguments, words. Darshan is simple and direct. Darshan means vision—the capacity to see—the eye. When the eye is empty, void of ego, free of thought, when the mind does not interfere, what happens then is darshan. To see what is, just as it is—that is darshan. Remember the difference between darshan and darshan-shastra. Darshan-shastra is not darshan; darshan-shastra is speculation, intellectual tussle. Darshan is vision, experience. In philosophy there will be entanglement. In philosophy a single question will carry a thousand questions, and from each answer a thousand more will arise. And in philosophy no question ever gets resolved. In five thousand years of history, philosophers have not solved a single question. For five thousand years they have asked many questions, but not given a single answer. They cannot. A philosopher…
One of the sannyasins has asked a question: WHAT IS MISSING IN COMMUNISM?
If you really want celibate people, then they need a brain operation. The center of sex should be removed. But then you will be simply impotent -- not celibate. Karl Marx was right, that such religions should be finished. They are against humanity. They protect poverty and they protect the rich. They are against revolution, they are against any change -- obviously, he was right to call them the opium of the people, the hope of the hopeless. If Christianity and Judaism were the only religions, then the Soviet Union would not have any need, any urge to find the inner world! But just think about it. You cannot have the outside world without having the inside world; they exist together like two sides of the coin. And there are scientific methods available. Zen is the most scientific method to inquire into your consciousness. It takes you beyond mind into…
Osho, a master can always know the spiritual state of a seeker longing for liberation, but how can the seeker know whether the master has attained truth or not? And if the disciple ever feels he has lost the gamble in his choice, can he go to another master? Please clarify your view.
The scripture says: eat once a day—so they eat once. Two garments—so two garments. Don’t travel after sunset—so they don’t. Don’t drink water at night—so they refrain. Rise before dawn—so they rise. They rehearse what the scripture prescribes; through this, they match your idea and seem suitable. If your conception springs from the same scripture, the match is exact. Hence the odd spectacle: the guru of one sect does not seem like a guru at all to another sect. But to his sect he appears the supreme guru. Their conceptions match. Understand the trick. You study the same shastra… Consider an actress who came to see me: “What do you say about the Bhrigu Samhita?” I asked why. She said, “In Delhi they read my Bhrigu. I noted what they said of my past lives, and future too. Some things about this life were true. Others aren’t yet, but the…
Beloved Osho, I heard you saying that enlightenment is the transcendence of mind -- conscious, unconscious, sub-conscious -- and that one dissolves into the ocean of life, into the universe, into nothingness. I also hear you talking about the individuality of human beings. How can the individuality of an enlightened person manifest itself if he is dissolved in the whole?
The ordinary, unconscious human being has no individuality; he has only a personality. Personality is that which is given by others to you -- by the parents, by the teachers, by the priest, by the society -- whatever they have said about you. And you have been desiring to be respectable, to be respected, so you have been doing things which are appreciated, and the society goes on rewarding you, respecting you more and more. This is their method of creating a personality. But personality is very thin, skin-deep. It is not your nature. The child is born without a personality, but he is born with a potential individuality. The potential individuality simply means his uniqueness from anybody else -- he is different. So first, remember that individuality is not personality. When you drop personality, you discover your individuality -- and only the individual can become enlightened. The false cannot…
Osho, by not creating a guru–disciple relationship, Krishnamurti didn’t create trouble for himself; whereas here, by creating such a relationship you seem to get nothing but trouble. Is there a difference in the compassion of enlightened ones? If there is no difference, then, Osho, why did you choose such an inconvenient path?
Mukesh! These are not things one chooses. No one chooses them. It isn’t that Krishnamurti chose as he did, or that I chose as I did. As long as the chooser is there, neither Krishnamurti can be, nor can I be. As long as the chooser is there, Buddhahood does not happen. When the chooser bids farewell, the descending of Buddhahood happens. Then whatever happens, happens; however it happens, so it happens—choicelessly. The leaves of a tree are green—they have not chosen. A rose is red—it has not chosen. One flower is white, another is yellow; one is filled with this fragrance, another with that. Neither champa has chosen, nor chameli (jasmine), nor juhi (jasmine). Choice is not the point at all. Juhi is juhi, Krishnamurti is Krishnamurti, I am I, Maluk is Maluk, Dadu is Dadu, Doolan is Doolan. If it were a matter of choice, it would only…