Code Words

Osho, why is it that Mahavira’s “Jin” has remained merely “Jain”?

And even the meanings we take from the scriptures require a great state of witnessing; only then will the flower of meaning bloom within you. Words you can get from scripture—but where will you get meaning? You will have to supply the meaning. A patient came to his doctor and said, “It’s very difficult; what you told me can’t be done.” The doctor said, “I didn’t tell you anything difficult. I only said: eat what your child eats. Where is the problem? For a few days, eat what your child eats; your body will come onto the right track.” He said, “I tried, but I couldn’t succeed.” The doctor said, “What nonsense! You couldn’t even do this much—that you eat what your child eats? If he drinks milk, drink milk. If he eats porridge, eat porridge. And eat in the same small quantity. You couldn’t even do that?” He said,…

Osho, Kastur Bhai has asked: Why did Mahavira speak in Prakrit and not in Sanskrit?

And I take one basic reason to be that Mahavira spoke in the language of the people. He likely had very little contact with pundits. It may be that thousands of pundits remained unfamiliar with what he was saying. For pundits have their own bourgeois snobbery, an aristocratic attitude; they are not common folk. They neither speak nor think in the language of the common. They are the extraordinary, the chosen few, and everything in their chosen world is apart from the ordinary. The common people are outside the mansion, outside the temple. Sometimes, out of pity, out of grace, they tell the common folk something—but the deep and serious discussion goes on inside the temple, where the illiterate and the ordinary are forbidden to enter. One of the greatest revolutions of Mahavira and Buddha is also this: they brought religion straight into the marketplace, right into the heart of…

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,…

Mahavira said: love! And if some devotee of Mahavira says that they will stone someone—it becomes a matter to ponder. Mahavira said: aparigraha, non-possessiveness! And if Mahavira’s devotees collect nothing but possessions—then it becomes a matter to ponder. Mahavira said: one’s own experience! And if someone makes Mahavira’s words themselves into Veda—it will be an error; it becomes a matter to ponder. Let me tell you: among the so-called followers of religion in the world, scarcely any are true disciples. Those whom you worship—you are their enemies; you are their adversaries! Nietzsche said a sentence: the first and the last Christian was hanged upon the cross—the first and the last Christian! He said: Christ was the first and the last Christian. After him, no Christian ever came to be. Let me remind you: after Mahavira, no Jain ever came to be.