Incarnations

Osho, in the Hindu sequence of avatars, beginning with Matsya and then the partial avatars like Rama, after the full avatar Krishna there still comes the Buddha avatar—and the prophecy of Kalki is also included. So, from the standpoint of chronology, why is Buddha not regarded as a full avatar? If there is any secret, from the perspective of evolution, as to why Krishna appears before Buddha, please tell us. And to what extent is it appropriate here to call the movement of time circular?

A partial avatar is just as much an avatar as a full one. In being an avatar there is no difference. Avatar simply means that the supreme consciousness has manifested. In how many dimensions it has manifested—that is another matter. So Krishna’s avatar is a full avatar in the sense that in all the dimensions of life, in all its facets, his touch is there. Buddha’s avatar, then, is not a full avatar. Kalki too will not be a full avatar. The descent will be complete—the process of descent, the coming down of consciousness, will indeed be complete—but it will not touch all the dimensions. There are reasons for this, many reasons. The current of time, the order of development—ordinarily one would expect the full avatar to come at the end; in the order of development, fullness should arrive last. But the evolutionary order is one thing; the avatar comes…

Questioner: the line of hindu incarnations begins with the fish and continues through rama, krishna, and buddha. Even the coming incarnation, to be known as kalki, is included in this series. But how is it that in this long line of incarnations krishna is said to be the complete incarnation of god, although buddha happened long after him? Why was buddha derived this honor? And what, from the viewpoint of evolution, is the secret of krishna preceding buddha? Is it so because the movement of time is circular?

Even a partial incarnation of God is as good as the complete one. It makes no difference as far as incarnation is concerned. An incarnation means that divine consciousness has become manifest. In how many dimensions it manifests itself is another matter. Krishna is a complete incarnation in the sense that divine energy has become manifest in all dimensions of his life. Buddha's incarnation is not that complete, nor is the coming incarnation of Kalki going to be. As far as the descent of divine energy is concerned, the process of descent is going to be complete in the case of every incarnation, but it may not touch every dimension of a man's life. And there are many reasons for it. In the ordinary process of evolution, completion should happen at the end. But incarnation is outside this process of evolution. Incarnation means descent from the beyond; it is not…

Osho, one view says that the Divine incarnates by taking a human body. Another view says that the ultimate flowering of the human being is into the Divine. Which of these is closer to the truth?

Jains and Buddhists gave man dignity—but created dangers. First: you must go alone, by your own hands. Hope dims. It is like trying to lift yourself by your own bootstraps. You must go by your own strength! And you know what your hands have achieved: you sought wealth—didn’t get it; status—didn’t get it; everywhere defeat and disappointment. And now to attain God? What you wanted most has never quite happened—and now this, which has neither clear address nor guarantee—will you seek it? Hard. And alone; with no support; Mahavira says: “asharana-bhava”—do not seek refuge, for there is none. Raise yourself—self-reliance. But do you have such trust in yourself? When the petty has not been fulfilled, how will you fulfill the vast? That is one danger. Second: if you happen to be one of the rare stubborn ones who persist—refining life and conduct until the fragrance of sainthood begins to arise—after…

Osho, what is an avatar?

All are avatars. Every person is an avatar. We begin to worship special avatars and forget the rest. Every person is an avatar. Either God is in everyone, or He is in no one. There cannot be any exclusive monopoly of Rama or Krishna or anyone—that they are avatars while A, B, C are not. Nor is that their claim; it is we who make that claim.