Why do all the Buddhas say the same thing?

Osho, why do all the buddhas say the same thing?

TRUTH IS ONE. Even if it is said differently, it is the same truth. Languages may differ, metaphors may differ parables may differ, but if you really look a little deep, then al parables, all languages, all metaphors, culminate in one truth. TRUTH is one -- what can Buddhas do? Although each Buddha speaks in his own way, and his expression has HIS signature on it. His expression is just his and nobody else's. But still those who can see will always find that it is the same diamond -- maybe we have been shown only one aspect of it by Krishna, another aspect by Christ, still another by Mohammed, but those are aspects of the same diamond. The diamond is one, this universe is one -- and all the Buddhas have been saying the same thing, in different languages, in different ways. Those differences come from their individualities, not…

Osho, Gautam Buddha again and again says, “This is the reign of the buddhas.” You too often speak in the same way. So can one buddha speak on behalf of all buddhas? If yes, why then were there differences among the buddhas in the past?

So I am not telling you to accept theoretically that there is no difference—so that the Quran says exactly what the Vedas say, and the Dhammapada says exactly what the Bible says. I am not saying that. I am saying: as long as the mind is there, to see difference is a mistake; to see non-difference is also a mistake. The mind has no door to truth. Rise beyond the mind. Go beyond thinking. Be free of thought. In thoughtlessness, non-difference is seen. But remember: non-difference does not mean that Buddha uttered word for word what Mahavira said. The essence is one. Buddha’s examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus’ examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus comes from a different tradition. He heard different stories in childhood. He learned a different language, a different idiom. When he speaks, the Old Testament will echo in it. You will…

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, sages, buddhas, and devotees have seen the Divine in countless forms and the formless, and have given it many names in their own ways—including “the Nameless” and “neti-neti.” Is this diversity of vision dependent on the seer’s personality?

There is no diversity in vision; the diversity is in expression. What has been seen is one. Yes, what has been said is many. “Ekam sat viprā bahudhā vadanti”—Truth is one; the wise speak of it in many ways. The knowers have seen that One; they have spoken of it in many ways because there are many ways to speak. There are not many ways to see, for as long as a way of seeing remains, it will not be seen. Understand this. As long as a viewpoint remains, there is no vision. As long as you carry a viewpoint, a way of seeing, a pair of spectacles, you will color it; you will not see what is, you will see what you could see, what you wanted to see. You will project yourself onto it. The moment vision is free of viewpoint, vision happens. When you have no “eye”…

Osho, awakened ones, considering place, time, circumstance, and the era-appropriate psychology of people, have expressed the same truth in very different forms. To the point that they appear mutually quite disputatious and even contradictory. Is an absolute expression of the ultimate truths of life and existence not possible? Will the limits of the age and the condition of the people always continue to be imposed upon truth?

Expression will always be limited. Expression will always be relative. The speaker and the listener—both create the boundaries of expression. I will say only what can be said. You will understand only what can be understood. Truth is vast. If I go to see the ocean and you say to me, “On your way back, bring a little of the ocean,” I will not be able to bring the whole ocean. I may bring a little water from it. But in that water much will be missing. There will be no storm of the ocean, no waves. And that was the real ocean: that tumultuous roar and fierce thunder! Waves crashing against cliffs! Those surges rising and spreading for miles! That swell! None of that will be there. I will bring a vessel filled with a little ocean water. Still, there will be something! If you taste it, it will…