Why can't Mahavira tolerate it?

Questioner: why can't mahavira tolerate it?

Mahavira will not tolerate it in the sense that he will not accept it, he will not respond to it, he will remain unmoving like a rock. He will refuse a woman's hug with his whole being. He will not say in words, "Don't touch me," but the woman will know it; she will feel as if she is hugging a piece of rock. A woman will not feel humiliation if you ask her not to touch you, but she will really feel hurt if you don't respond to her hug. Not that Mahavira has any disrespect for women, but the way he is he cannot do otherwise, he cannot take hugs and embraces from women. Therefore women have to keep a respectful distance from him; they can never be on intimate terms with him. There is a limit, a boundary line beyond which they cannot come near him. It…

Osho, I was brought up in Jain samskaras. I have never felt that my path is that of a lover. But when I go deeper into meditation I often find myself immersed in Krishna’s rasa-leela. Why does this happen? Indira has asked!

There is such an obstacle. Because the homes we are born into by chance do not necessarily carry conditionings that fit our soul’s work. Sometimes it happens that someone is born in a Jain household, but her inner disposition is closer to Meera than to Mahavira—then the trouble begins. The conditionings come from Mahavira, but inwardly her own feeling-nature is drawn to Meera. She won’t even know it. Because she is Jain, she will not even go to a Krishna temple. Jain scriptures say: by mistake even, do not enter a Hindu temple. Even if a mad elephant confronts you on the road and you could find refuge and be saved by slipping into a Hindu temple, still do not go. It is better to die crushed under the feet of a mad elephant than to take sanctuary in a Hindu temple. Hindus say exactly the same. There is no…

Osho, in this connection someone has asked: Mahavira was a champion of equality, yet why was the order of nuns neglected in his sangha?

The entire mind of woman is poetic—of dreams, of imagination. It is passive: it cannot do, it can only imagine. There are reasons for this too. In truth, a poet means a passive mind. He can sit and imagine; he cannot do anything. He can build palaces—but only in imagination! Palaces that can be built sitting—those he can build. The ones that require standing up, breaking stones, collecting bricks—that is not his capacity. He can build palaces of words, because that can be done sitting. More interesting still: in science one has to do—one discovers; the masculine mind discovers, uncovers what is covered. The poet does not discover; he simply sits silently. In fact, when a great poem descends into him, he is utterly passive, totally feminine. Something descends into him. Rabindranath says, “What did I sing? When I am not, O God, you sing through me. When I am…

Osho, when we talk about the sameness of all the Tirthankaras’ idols—why only the Tirthankaras? The same sameness of idols and form is there with Buddha and Mahavira too. The same with Christ and Rama and Krishna—there is the same sameness in all. Yet they were different individuals. Leave the others aside; let us talk only of Buddha and Mahavira. They were contemporaries. Why didn’t either of them say, “What I am, that is what Buddha is; the form I have is Buddha’s form”? And why didn’t Buddha say, “What I am is Mahavira’s form”?

Yet Mahavira and Buddha are one; Meera has her own contemplation and her own stream. Mahavira and Meera’s personalities are utterly opposite. If only Mahavira’s approach existed on earth, very few would reach the ultimate truth—because Meera-type people would be left out; they simply cannot attune to that. No resonance happens for them. Thus countless streams run, because there are countless kinds of people. And the effort is that not even a single person should be left without finding a stream suited to them. Therefore, there are innumerable streams—and there will be. As humanity grows, the streams will multiply. They should multiply—lest, for example, with Mahavira: his life-stream is entirely what we could call masculine. There is no method in it for the feminine. And the minds of man and woman are fundamentally different. The woman is a passive mind; her mind is receptive. The man’s mind is aggressive. Therefore,…

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,…