Will an intellectual and fact-based analysis of Mahavira’s life be acceptable to society?

Osho, will your intellectual and fact-based analysis of Mahavira’s life—as certified and settled by tradition—be acceptable to society?

First, there is no need for something to be acceptable to society. I do not even keep an eye on whether society accepts it or not. Nor is there any reason to think that what society accepts must therefore be right. What society accepts is only that which keeps society exactly as it is. Of course, whenever the idea arises that society should change—vision should change, thinking should change—rejection comes. Primarily, what I am saying is likely to be rejected—by society, not by the intelligent. But if what I am saying is intelligent, scientific, factual, essential, then that rejection will have to break. Rejection cannot win; it will have to lose. And if it is not factual, is unscientific, not essential, then rejection will win—and it should. So first, the question simply does not arise in my mind as to who will accept it and who will reject it. That…

Osho, Mahavira refused to take anyone’s support—that is right. But along with that, a question arises: just as it is important not to take support, it should be equally important not to give support. Yet his way of expressing himself, and then the whole structure of shravaks and shramans and all that—this amounts to giving support to others. So why was this aspect not considered: if I do not take support, who am I to give support to another?

They would say… Sicily is a small island to the south. The Sophists offered an example: a man came from Sicily and, on arriving in Athens, said, “In Sicily, everyone is a liar.” Someone stood up and asked him, “Where are you from?” He said, “I am from Sicily.” The man said, “Now we are in trouble! You say everyone in Sicily is a liar, and you are from Sicily; so you are a liar—what shall we do with your statement? And if we accept that everyone in Sicily is a liar, then at least one person in Sicily must be telling the truth, and your statement becomes false. If we do not accept that everyone in Sicily is a liar—if we take you to be lying—again we land in a difficulty.” Someone stood up and said, “What shall we do?” Perhaps the man himself had no idea what to…

It seems that though the society is at present rejecting you, by and by it will accept you.

SIDDHARTHA, why are you worried about the society, its rejecting me or accepting me? Forget about the society! It has always accepted people like me only when they are gone; it always accepts Buddhas when they are dead. It accepts only when Buddhas cannot do anything; it accepts only when Buddhas become just theories. The flame is gone; it is only a memory now. Then they accept -- not only accept, they worship. That's what they have been doing all the time and they will be doing all the time in the future too. Nothing has changed fundamentally. The unenlightened remain unenlightened. Why do they reject? They reject out of fear. Just listen to me: just now I was saying something about boredom. Now the ordinary person can't accept it, that one HAS to go into boredom. He will be afraid. He will say, "What nonsense is this man talking…

Osho, how could the iconoclast Mahavira accept himself as the twenty-fourth Tirthankara of the most ancient Jina tradition? Please explain!

Within this revolutionary tradition, Mahavira is the most glorious, the most brilliant. Therefore his words are worth understanding and contemplating. He must have been uniquely revolutionary; for the Jainas have two sects—Digambara and Shvetambara. The Digambaras hold that not a single word of Mahavira remains, no scripture remains. That too is part of the revolution. They say, no scripture is Mahavira’s word. The words we have are from the Shvetambara compilations. The Digambaras have no compilations. It is astonishing that the Digambaras did not preserve! But that too belongs to their deep revolt: if you preserve words, today or tomorrow they become scripture; preserve them, and soon they become Veda. Hence the Digambaras did not preserve Mahavira’s words. It is an extraordinary rebellion against scripture. They revere Mahavira, but preserved no texts—only what was passed personally from master to disciple; they did not write it down. Therefore, for the Digambaras,…

Osho, in Jainism the principles of ahimsa, aparigraha, anekantavada, co-existence, etc., have a special place. But today in a newspaper I read a statement about you by a Jain muni, Shri Bhadragupta Vijayji, and was surprised. This monk is calling people to sacrifice everything and organizing them in protest against your entry into Kutch. For those who profess aparigraha, why this attachment to the Kutch region? And within their anekantavada, why opposition to your vision of life? Does it befit a muni to incite people in this way?

What of a Jain muni’s claim on Kutch! But it makes no difference; if “my India” is possible, why not “my Kutch”? Then “my district, my tehsil, my village.” Then what trouble with “my house”? It’s the same thing. Then why such difficulty with “my wife” and “my children”? If “mine” must remain, what fault is the wife’s and the children’s that you ran away, leaving them? It’s not that the wife wasn’t from Kutch—she must have been a Kutch woman. The children too were Kutchis—they were born of two Kutchis. You left your wife—no shame at leaving a Kutch woman! You left your children—the little Kutchis—no shame! And still: “My Kutch”? But I understand. It is a flock of the blind—led by the blind. The blind lead the blind, and both fall into the well. They keep falling—day after day. But if it is “my own well,” why not…