Why did Vivekananda remain mechanical after surrendering to Ramakrishna while Arjuna became free after surrendering to Krishna?

Osho, you said that because Arjuna surrendered to Krishna he became free rather than mechanical. Then how is it that Vivekananda, even after surrendering to Ramakrishna, remained mechanical and did not become established in the Self? What is the reason?

There was a man in the ashram named Kalu. He lived near the Dakshineswar temple. A very simple, guileless man. As long as such simple people live around temples, temples are safe; the day clever people arrive, everything is spoiled. Kalu was very simple. He spent the whole day in worship because his room was crammed with gods and goddesses—not one or two, but a whole age’s worth. Whoever he found, he brought home. There was no space left in his room for himself; he slept outside. Whoever gets entangled with God will one day have to sleep outside—God takes up all the space inside. He was in such a fix: he had hundreds of gods, gods of all kinds. Wherever he found a deity, he brought it. If he began worship in the morning, evening would fall—he had to worship them all. Vivekananda told him many times, “Kalu, you…

Questioner: you said that arjuna was surrendered to krishna, and yet he was a free individual what have you to say about vivekananda who was similarly surrendered to ramakrishna? Why could he not be enlightened?

There are reasons for it. The relationship between Ramakrishna and Vivekananda is basically one of the master and the disciple; it is not the same relationship between Krishna and Arjuna. Secondly, Krishna is not trying to prepare Arjuna in a way so that he can take his message to the world at large; all his teachings are meant for Arjuna's growth and are exclusively addressed to him. On the other hand Ramakrishna wants Vivekananda to be his messenger to the whole world. Krishna is not aware that his dialogues with Arjuna are going to turn into the BHAGWAD GEETA. It is incidental that they turned out that way. It is Krishna's spontaneous discussions with Arjuna while the two of them were standing on the battlegrounds of Kurukshetra. He does not know that his sayings are going to be so significant that they will be discussed for centuries upon centuries to…

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.…

Questioner: you once said that buddha and mahavira were masochistic sannyasins. But in fact they came to sannyas from very affluent families; their sannyas was a follow up to their affluence. So how can you associate them with the sannyas of sorrow?

Gandhi found himself in such a dilemma when he wanted to discuss Krishna. In fact, he was more in agreement with Arjuna than with Krishna, How can Gandhi accept it when Krishna goads Arjuna into war? He could be rid of Krishna if he were clearly bad, but his badness is not that clear, because Krishna accepts both good and bad. He is good, utterly good, and he is also utterly bad -- and paradoxically, he is both together, and simultaneously. His goodness is crystal-clear, but his badness is also there. And it is difficult for Gandhi to accept him as bad. Under the circumstances there was no other course for Gandhi but to say that the war of Mahabharat was a parable, a myth, that it did not happen in reality. He cannot acknowledge the reality of the Mahabharat, because war is violence, war is evil to him. So…

Osho, all through the Gita Krishna appears supremely egotistical. Yet in your morning discourse you said that it is precisely because of egolessness that Krishna could say, “Abandon everything and come into my refuge; I alone am all,” and so on. But Buddha and Mahavira don’t speak like this. Are their egolessnesses different? What is the fundamental difference?

The final remembrance that dawns for Buddha and Mahavira is remembrance—not the fruit of practice. But we observe: “He circled the village twenty times; then he remembered.” Another went one time; he remembered. Another went not at all; he remembered. From outside we conclude: “He remembered after twenty rounds—let us also do twenty.” There is no causal link between Mahavira’s doing and his awakening. If there were, then Jesus could not awaken—he did none of what Mahavira did. Nor the Buddha—he didn’t do what Mahavira did. If water boils at one hundred degrees, then in Tibet, India, China, America—wherever—you will get steam at one hundred. That is causal law. Spiritual life is not causal. Therefore it can be free. Causality is bondage—each thing bound to what precedes and to what follows. If water becomes steam, it was bound by the laws of water; now by the laws of steam; if…