Why does Islam, despite being newer than Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, feel so old?

Osho, Hinduism is five thousand years old; Buddhism and Jainism are twenty-five hundred years old. Islam is only sixteen hundred years old; why, despite being so new, does it feel so old? Asked by our friend Firoz, who has come from Pakistan.

God said, “Wait. I will soon incarnate as Buddha and corrupt people. When people become corrupt, there will be such a rush to hell you will not be able to handle it.” Do you see this story? They did not cut off Buddha’s head—but how cleverly they did it. They killed him with words, with argument. They even acknowledged him as divine. They were so refined they could not outright deny him—the man was magnificent! Yet he stood contrary to their whole religion, to their rituals, to their sacrifices and oblations, to their punditry and priest-craft. The man was precious, yet he was their opposite. They could not deny that there was something significant in him, so they admitted he was an avatar of God—and then added this story through the back door: do not follow Buddha, or you will go to hell. Buddha is God’s avatar—see the trick? And…

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…

Osho, why am I afraid of your neo-sannyas? I do not feel even a little afraid of the old-style sannyas.

Does any Jain read the Gita? Could a Jain really understand it? Impossible. He would find himself opposed at every turn; anger would arise at every step. He would find arguments against Krishna immediately. For Krishna tells Arjuna, “Do whatsoever God wills.” The Jain will say, “And if God is making him renounce, why are you making him fight? How can you decide what God wants?” If Arjuna were truly a Jain, he would have thrown down the Gandiva bow and said, “All right. Now I shall do only what God makes me do. God says, ‘Take the peacock-feather whisk and the begging bowl; sit under a tree; do tapas.’ It is the voice of my inner self!” You know this “voice of conscience.” Delhi politicians have popularized—or polluted—the phrase. Whenever they need to come or go, suddenly their “inner voice” is heard! Krishna deluded him—that is how Jains will…

What you have talked about seems quite modern.

What I am saying is not modern. What I am saying is as much ancient as it is modern. What I am saying is the eternal truth. It has always been said, it has always been felt. Buddha felt the same, Christ felt the same, Krishna felt the same. But language becomes old, assertions become old. The Gita has become old, the Bible has become old, Buddhist scriptures have become old. Every age has to coin new words, new expressions. The truth remains the same; religion is eternal. It is neither old nor new. What I am saying is not modern. Only the way of expressing it is modern. All expressions become old. The modern, too, will become old. It has already become so. The moment we have talked about it, it has become part of the past; it has become old. The new always has to be invented. It…

And the fifth thing they said was, “Now Osho is speaking properly; he isn’t like before—he has improved a little!”

Absolutely wrong! I am getting worse. The question of improving does not arise. The more I experience all these fools, the sharper I keep my edge. Their necks have to be cut. I am driving the blade in deeper. My blow will grow deeper every day. Let no one remain in this mistake. And yet they go on explaining this to my disciples. Now this is most amusing: on the one hand they call me “Bhagwan Rajneesh,” and on the other they say I am improving! Is there anything left to improve in a Bhagwan? Does it mean that even after being God something still remains to be improved? Only “worsening” remains; there is nothing left to improve. And once you are a Bhagwan, even the fear of worsening is gone. Now, even if you send me to hell, it makes no difference. I will celebrate there too. There you…