According to Osho, Krishnamurti is virtually identical to Raman in transcendental experience, but lacks the broad, scholarly knowledge Arvind possesses. He chose Buddha because Buddha unites Arvind’s vast knowledge with Raman’s self-knowledge, providing a fuller contrast. Krishnamurti’s reason deconstructs reason and his teachings are voluminous yet reducible, whereas Raman speaks aphoristically like the Upanishads.
Buddha blends big learning like Arvind with deep awakening like Raman, while Krishnamurti is mostly like Raman, so Buddha makes a fuller comparison.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, you take Ramana so far as to Buddha. Please explain by placing him near Krishnamurti.
There is no such thing as near or far. Krishnamurti is exactly the kind of person Ramana is. As to why I weighed Ramana against Buddha and Aurobindo, there is a reason. Krishnamurti is a man of the same experience as Ramana, but he does not have the kind of erudition Aurobindo has. Yes, he is more outspoken than Ramana, more given to argument. But there is a great difference between Krishnamurti’s arguments and Aurobindo’s. Aurobindo is a logician; Krishnamurti is not. And if he uses logic, it is only to erase logic. If there is a sustained use of reasoning, it is solely to enter the trans-rational. But he is not very knowledgeable. That’s why I used a distant example. I brought in Buddha so that both sides become clear to you: Buddha’s experience is like Ramana’s, and his knowledge is like Aurobindo’s. Krishnamurti’s experience is like Ramana’s; his…
Osho, Krishna is supremely enlightened and beyond the three gunas, yet he deceives, lies, and wages war. Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tzu, etc., do nothing of the sort. Kindly shed light on Krishna’s personality described above, in the context of the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas.
First, it is essential to understand that no comparison is possible between two enlightened ones. All comparisons are false. Every great being is unique; there is no second like him. In truth, even an ordinary person is unique. There is no other like you. The great one within you appears when you bring your own nature, your own destiny, to its fullness. You too are incomparable. There is no other person on earth exactly like you—neither today, nor ever before, nor ever after. Search the whole earth and you won’t find two identical leaves on a tree; not even two identical pebbles. And when your polish deepens and the supreme flowering of your life manifests, then you become like the summit of a Mount Everest. Even now you are unmatched; then you will be utterly unmatched. Now, perhaps, some accord with others is still possible; then there will be none.…
Osho, the way you speak of Shri J. Krishnamurti with love and praise, he does not speak of you in the same way. Sometimes it feels as if he is about to say something different, but then he avoids it. As a result, your disciples go with great love to listen to Krishnamurti, but his followers do not come to you with an open heart. Please explain.
What Krishnamurti says is entirely right—one hundred percent right. But Krishnamurti’s way is very narrow. It is completely right, yet it is like a footpath. My way is a great royal road. On my path, Buddha, Krishna, Christ, Moses, Zarathustra, Bodhidharma, Lao Tzu—all are included. So I include Krishnamurti as well; no difficulty arises for me—my house is spacious. Krishnamurti lives in a small room. The room is perfectly fine; nothing is wrong with it. In my large house Krishnamurti’s room fits easily, but my large house cannot be contained in Krishnamurti’s room. Krishnamurti is Hinayanist; I am Mahayanist. Krishnamurti’s boat is a small dinghy—you know, in small villages at most one person sits and rows out to catch a fish. My vessel is big, a great ship—Mahayana. Come aboard from every direction, all kinds of people: those who follow every scripture, every doctrine—there is room for all. That’s why.…
Osho, why does there seem to be so much conflict between the world and God?
It is as if someone were sleeping deeply in this garden. The cuckoo comes and sings, birds are chattering, the sun rises, breezes dance through the trees; but someone is fast asleep. The breezes touch him, the birds’ songs echo at his ears, the sun’s rays play on his face, but he knows nothing. Then someone comes and shakes him awake. His eyes open—the glory of the sun is revealed, the song of the passing breeze is heard, suddenly the cuckoo’s call, the fragrance of flowers. Do you think something new has happened? Everything was already there, just as it is. Only this man has become new—nothing else has changed. The same garden, the same sun, the same flowers, the same birds—everything the same; only a small difference: he was asleep; he is awake. The meaning of “world” is: you are asleep in God. The meaning of “God” is: you…
Osho, Mahavira’s dispassion, Christ’s holy indifference, Buddha’s disregard, and Krishna’s non-attachment—what are their subtle similarities and differences? Please shed light on this.
In this, some similarities appear. Krishna will arrive at a peace like Buddha’s, because he has nothing to attain—whatever is, is already attained. At times he will appear dispassionate like Mahavira, for his joy knows no bounds. He will appear to proclaim God as Jesus does—but not because there is a God sitting in this world or the next: rather, because all is God. Krishna’s non-attachment is total surrender—“the disappearance of ‘I.’” To know that the “I” is not. Once this is known, whatever is happening is happening. There is nothing to be done about it. There is no possibility of our doing anything. Krishna sees himself as a wave in the ocean. Since there is no choosing, there is no attachment. If we understand correctly, non-attachment is not a state of mind; it is the dropping of all states of mind, the dropping of all positions—and becoming one with…