Why is it mentioned that Mahavira conversed with Indra?

Then why is it mentioned in such a way that Mahavira conversed with Indra?

Some, like Plato, say poets are utterly false, and until poetry is erased from the world, falsehood will not be erased. There are such people. But there are others, deeper in their grasp, who say: if poetry is false, then what truth is left in life? Then life itself is futile. A young man tells his beloved, “Your face is like the moon.” This is factually fictitious—can anything be more un-factual? How can a woman’s face be like the moon? If you told Einstein, “We believe a woman’s face is like the moon,” he would say, “You have gone mad. The moon’s mass is so great that not one woman, not all the women on Earth together, could bear it. How could her face be the moon? And the moon is full of craters and pits. What nonsense is this—calling a woman ‘moon-like’!” Yet the lover will still insist, “Her…

Beloved Osho, it is said that shankara was a hindu vedantin, and you have said that shankara is a hidden buddhist. Please clarify this.

Two thousand five hundred years before Buddha, when the Upanishads were born, their grandeur was unique. Each and every word contained in them was luminous, every line was full of the divine! But that grandeur was lost by the time of Buddha -- the mirror was there but lots of dust had gathered on it. Now the mirror had become blind and nothing could be reflected in it. A big belief system had stood near the mirror. Even if Buddha tried to clean the mirror that creed would not let him do so, because what is called dust by Buddha is said to be religion by the masses. The communal mind does not know the mirror, it only knows the dust gathered on it and it thinks that this dust is the decoration, is the jewel. The communal mind cannot agree to the dust being wiped away; it thinks that…

They grew sad, wept, prayed; then the three consulted and said to Buddha: we understand—you say it cannot be spoken. Never has it been spoken. Since always we have heard: it cannot be said. And even if you speak, none will understand. And even if someone understands, to live it will be hard. Still we pray: there are also those who stand exactly on the boundary—still in the world, yet at the last edge. Merely your speaking—that Buddha spoke, not what he spoke—your speaking alone, your very presence, will jolt them; they will leap. And if you speak to a hundred and even one leaps—that too is great compassion. Thus Buddha agreed. For this the Hindu mind felt hurt. Those who felt hurt did not understand. They thought: to place gods, Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh, before Buddha—this story is not good.

Osho, what is the definition of God?

Words are very small. If you say God is light, then what of darkness? The scriptures have said that God is light. Suppose we accept this as a definition—then what about darkness? Where will darkness go? Darkness is too; in fact it is far more than light. Light sometimes is and sometimes is not; darkness is always, eternal. Where will you place darkness? If you say God is light, darkness is left out. If you say God is darkness, then light is left out. If you say God is both darkness and light, a contradiction arises: they cannot be together. Try to have both darkness and light in the same room. If you bring in light, darkness disappears; if you preserve darkness, you cannot have light. Then how can both be together? That becomes an impossibility. So you cannot say “both” either. Then the fourth device is to say: it…

Questioner: arvind had seen visions of krishna and been in contact with yogi lele. Is it that a final judgement on the experiments conducted at pondicherry will be made by future generations? What do you think of alice bailey who claims to receive messages? Where do the messages come from? And how? Do you too have such esoteric contacts with some masters?

Arvind sees visions of Krishna inside a prison, in the walls of the prison, in the prisoners' faces and in himself. But who is the one who knows that he sees visions of Krishna? If there is a knower then it is surely his own mental projection. If someone says he sees Krishna, it means the one who sees is not Krishna; he is bound to be different from Krishna. The oceanic, universal form of Krishna is something entirely different from Krishna the man who happened some five thousand years ago. But his universal form, which is universal subconsciousness, is eternal. And one who encounters the universal consciousness ceases to be an ego; he disappears as he is and turns into that universal intelligence itself. You can call it by the name of Krishna, Christ, or Buddha, or whatever you like. Names don't matter; the choice of name depends on…