Krishna’s ‘I’ means everything and everyone together, not a separate person bragging; it’s just how language points to oneness.
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks to this question — each links to the complete discourse.
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…Read the full discourse →
Questioner: throughout the geeta krishna appears to be utterly egoistic, but this morning you said it was because of his egolessness that krishna asked arjuna to surrender to him, giving up everything else. But buddha and mahavira don't say this to their disciples. So is there a difference between their kinds of egolessness? If so, what is the basic difference between them?
If water is heated to the boiling point it turns into vapor, so there is a causal connection between vapor and heating. But the spiritual life is not subject to the law of cause and effect. And that is why spiritual life can be absolutely free. Freedom is not possible within the chain of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect is a kind of bondage: every effect is tied in with its cause. Cause and effect are dependent on each other one cannot be without the other. And as a cause turns into an effect, so an effect turns into a cause for some other effect. So everything is bound up with everything else, and-there is no end to it. It is a kind of cause-and-effect continuum. When water turns into vapor it becomes subject to the law of vapor as it was subject to the law…Read the full discourse →
Osho, attachment arises from the illusion called ego; please clarify more clearly the origin of ego.
The weak pray; they look religious. The truly religious has such trust—but for that trust, great strength is needed. “Fine, it is in His hand; He knows. If the sword is His, and if He must cut my neck, let Him—it must be for some good.” Only the strong surrender; the egoist is always weak. You will say, “Wrong—egoists look strong.” A psychological truth: Adler found that the more inferior a man feels, the more egoistic he becomes. One who has real power has no need of ego; his power shows—no announcement required. The sun does not announce its coming; it comes and all know—flowers open, birds sing, people wake, trees stir, winds blow, waves rise. A fake sun would bring a band to announce itself because its mere presence would announce nothing. Our ego hides inner weakness; it arranges externals. It knows it is weak; in itself, nothing will…Read the full discourse →
Osho, in chapter ten of the Gita Krishna says: among horses I am Ucchaihshrava; among elephants, Airavata; among cows, Kamadhenu; among serpents, Vasuki; among animals, the lion; among birds, Garuda; among rivers, the Ganga; among seasons, the spring, and so on. In other words, he seems to be trying to present himself as the best in everything. Then does he not represent the lower classes? Was the lowly and the ordinary not also a form of Krishna? Why did he not mention the low and the commonplace?
We have a word: Ishvara. Ishvara arises from aishvarya. When you manifest in your full aishvarya—your plenitude of powers—you become Ishvara. Ishvara is nothing but the flowering of aishvarya. But we never reflect on this. Ishvara means precisely this: Kamadhenu among cows, Airavata among elephants, spring among seasons. Whenever someone manifests in the fullness of his aishvarya, he becomes Ishvara. The meaning of Ishvara is: one in whom there is no gap between potentiality and actuality; in whom there is no difference between what is possible and what is real; whose possibility has become wholly actual—that one is Ishvara. Whoever still has a distance between possibility and actuality is journeying toward Ishvara. What is hidden within me—on the day it is fully revealed, that day I attain my Ishvara. But for now, what is within me emerges only bit by bit; it cannot become full spring. It keeps moving toward…Read the full discourse →
You say, "surrender to me." does this not show that you are full of ego?
Sure! I am the greatest egoist you can ever find. My ego is so vast that you all are included in it. It is so vast that trees and animals and rocks are included in it. It is so vast that stars and the moon and sun are included in it. It is so vast that the past, present, and future are included in it. Hence I say to you, "Surrender to me." Krishna says to Arjuna in the Geeta: "SARVA DHARMAN PARITYAJYA MAMEKAM SHARANAM VRAJ" -- "Leave all your religions and come to my feet." He is also the same type of egoist as I am. Buddha says, "Come to me, and I will deliver you." He is also the same type of egoist. And Jesus says, "I have come into the world to deliver everybody." What pure egos! Yes, you are right, sir. I am a great egoist.…Read the full discourse →