Ahimsa

Osho, is Mahavira’s ahimsa fully developed? Has there been no progressive evolution of ahimsa beyond Mahavira? In the Gita and the Bible there seem to be even subtler forms.

Ignorance has degrees; knowledge has none. Though we hand out “degrees in knowledge,” only ignorance admits of degrees. One person is less ignorant, another more ignorant—that is meaningful. But “less knowledgeable” and “more knowledgeable” is absurd. Knowledge does not come in quantities. Yes, ignorance can be more or less—and all we really mean by that is: the one with more information appears “less ignorant,” and the one with less information “more ignorant.” For knowledge itself cannot be more or less. Even among the ignorant, the difference is of information, not of knowing. One person returns from university with a heap of information; his brother, who remained in the village, did not gather such information. They meet: one seems knowing, the other ignorant. Both are ignorant. One carries a pile of facts; the other does not. At best we can say: this one is less ignorant, that one more. But this…

The meaning of both words? Yes, I’ll tell you. Mahavrata means, for example, total ahimsa—living in absolute nonviolence; total aparigraha, total non-attachment. Anuvrata means: to the extent of one’s capacity. One person says, “I will keep possessions up to five rupees”—that is an anuvrata. Another says, “I will remain naked; I will keep no possessions at all”—that is a mahavrata.

Another story may help. An emperor was deeply impressed by a renunciate who lay naked under a neem tree. The emperor’s reverence grew and one day he said, “Not here—come to my palace; why lie here below? Come to the palace.” He had thought the renunciate would refuse: “I cannot go to a palace; I am non-possessive.” The renunciate said, “As you wish.” He stood up, staff in hand. The emperor felt uneasy. He had expected a refusal. “As you wish—let’s go to the palace!” A doubt arose in the emperor’s mind: “I have made a mistake. The man looks like he was waiting for the palace; perhaps he was under the neem only in the hope someone would take him to a palace. He did not refuse even once! What kind of non-possessive man is this? A non-possessive one should have said, ‘Never—I cannot enter a palace. A palace…

Mahavira is not calling for self-violence. Therefore Mahavira is not merely calling for the abandonment of violence. Someone asked Mahavira: What is ahimsa? Mahavira said: The Self is ahimsa. He gave a most wondrous answer. No deeper answer has ever been given on this earth. Strange, it may even seem discordant. We ask: What is ahimsa? Mahavira says: The Self is ahimsa! What does it mean? It means: the person established in his Atman—that person attains ahimsa. And the person who is not established in his Atman can only restrain violence; he cannot attain ahimsa. To drop violence is one thing; to attain ahimsa is entirely another. Ahimsa is deeply positive, deeply creative. And because it is creative, I said—it is love. So Mahavira’s sadhana is divided into two words: truth and ahimsa. If truth is to be attained, Mahavira says: Abandon all and enter within.

This is Ahimsa. Ahimsa means the deepest absence. That is why I said: Buddha’s spirit of tathata is the spirit of Mahavira’s Ahimsa. Tathata means: whatsoever is, is acceptable. Ahimsa also means this: we shall not make even the slightest effort to transform. Whatever happens is right; whatever will happen is right. If life remains—good; if death comes—good. From what does our violence arise? From this: that what is happening is not what we want; we want what we want—then violence arises. What is violence? Therefore the more the craving for change increases in an age, the more violent the age becomes. The more man wants ‘such to happen’, the more violence will increase. If we open the depth of Mahavira’s Ahimsa, it means: we are content with what is. There is no question of violence; no change is to be made. If you slap me—fine.