Why are there only twenty-four in the chain?

Osho, why are there only twenty-four in the chain? Why not twenty-five, why not thirty?

Yes, there is a reason. The reason—it has nothing to do with numbers. In fact, there can be twenty-five, twenty-six, twenty-seven; there can be any number. It is not related to that. But when, in a chain, a person of great genius is born—in one chain; for example, in the chain of the twenty-four Tirthankaras, Mahavira is the most brilliant—he is so brilliant that the people around him feel that now there is no need for anyone else in that chain. The ultimate has become available to us. What was to be known has been known; what was to be recognized has been recognized; what was to be said has been said. And the follower is always afraid. He is afraid that if you keep the doors open for further genius, genius is always rebellious and always throws things into disorder; it is anarchic. So the follower becomes frightened; for…

A friend has asked whether in Jainism there can be only twenty-four Tirthankaras, not more?

All religions, sooner or later, shut their doors. Because if the door remains open, the religion can never become old. And if the door remains open, it can never become a fixed label; it will remain a living process. Then such storms and upheavals will keep happening that you will never feel assured. So all religions close their doors—some sooner, some later. And remember, when they close the doors, they do it at the moment when their highest peak has been reached. In Mahavira the Jain vision touched its highest peak. Then those who came after felt: now close the doors. Enough. The highest peak has been touched—now, shut the doors! Now there will be no more Tirthankaras. Because if Tirthankaras keep coming, it means religion will keep happening afresh. A new Tirthankara will say new things. Mahavira also said many new things that Parshvanath had not said. Mahavira said…

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, does it then mean that this state called moksha—where the soul has gone and become absorbed in the whole existence—how can any relationship be established with that soul?

Hmm, hmm—this needs a bit of understanding. Let me explain it a little. Let me complete the whole point, then I will tell you. The twenty-three Tirthankaras for this very reason seem to have become completely non-historical. There is no other reason for their appearing non-historical; they were absolutely historical persons. But because even the final thread of connection with them in the spiritual realm has grown attenuated, no relationship can now be established with them. With Mahavira, a connection can still be established. And therefore, being the last, Mahavira has become the most important—in that current. A connection can still be established with Buddha. A connection can still be established with Jesus. A connection can still be established with Krishna. To us, twenty-five hundred years seem very long because our measure of time is very small. Once free of the body, twenty-five hundred years are as if a moment…

Osho, the twenty-one-day ritual you have hinted at—was that practice or elemental realization in any way traditional? Because from your mode of expression it continually seems that you surely represent some teacher’s or Tirthankara’s method. Within this I also want to dare to ask: do you want to add a link to some established spiritual lineage, or, like Buddha, are you attempting to cut a new path through the mountains?

Nor is the issue one of tolerance. It is a matter of sky-like spaciousness, not tolerance. Not mere forbearance. Not that a Hindu “puts up with” a Muslim or a Christian “puts up with” a Jain. Forbearance already holds violence within it. I do not say the Quran and the Gita say the same thing. The Quran says something quite different; it has its own individual voice—that is its greatness. If it only repeated what the Gita says, it would be worth two pennies. The Bible says something else again, which neither the Gita nor the Quran says. Each has its own voice. Mahavira does not say what Buddha says; they say very different things. And yet from these differing statements one ultimately arrives at the same place. My emphasis is on the oneness of the destination, not on the oneness of the paths. My emphasis is that in the…