Krishna and Rama

Osho, from the Puranic stories it appears that Krishna comes taking the form of Rama, and Rama comes taking the form of Krishna. Are these two persons the same? Please clarify their relationship.

This relationship can be understood by grasping two or three points. Those who have inquired into the process of creation have always found that it depends on three things—it is threefold. Even when science probed the atom, it discovered that, when broken down to its depth, it splits into three. Our latest scientific achievement also says the atom breaks into electron, proton, and neutron. Those who gained deep religious insight also viewed existence by dividing it into three parts. Vishnu is one of those three. Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh—these three words are names, given by religion, to the three aspects of the creative process. And they have clear meanings. Brahma is the birth-giver, the creator, the creative force. Shankar, Shiva—Mahesh—is the force of dissolution, destruction, the end. Vishnu stands between the two—the sustainer, the one who maintains. There is death, there is birth, and in between stretches life. Whatever has a…

Questioner: we gather from mythological sources that krishna incarnates himself as rama, and rama incarnates himself as krishna. So it seems that both of them are the same entity. Please comment.

The process of the creation of the universe, according to those who study it in depth, is threefold. Investigation into the structure of matter, as done by science in recent times, also says that the atom has three components: it can be divided into electron, positron and neutron. Those who were endowed with deep insight in the world of religion discovered long ago that the process of creation can be divided into three parts: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the sustainer; Mahesh, the destroyer. There is birth at the beginning, there is death at the end, and in between them lies the small span of life. That which begins must come to its end, and between the two poles there is a brief stretch of the journey which we call life. Vishnu is in the middle of the two, between Brahma and Mahesh or Shiva. Vishnu sustains life. He is the…

Osho, this morning you compared Rama and Krishna, and also Meera and Hanuman. Our tradition holds Rama and Krishna, Meera and Hanuman, as equivalent. It does not carry the feeling that any is inferior or superior. It may be that Hanuman’s uniqueness is to be exactly what he is, and Rama’s uniqueness is to be exactly what he is—and that among us there are some for whom the very uniqueness of Hanuman and Rama is what suits. Then would it not be paradharma—another’s dharma—if they were to regard Hanuman and Rama as in some way inferior and choose only the path of Krishna and Meera?

I did not call anyone inferior; I only called them different. Not low, just distinct. And one whose innermost nature lies close to Hanuman will not, on the basis of what I said, be able to take Hanuman as inferior. In my own innermost nature Hanuman does not fall close. So I cannot make a false statement while keeping someone else’s nature in mind. You asked me. I answered. If I had to choose, I would feel like choosing Meera. If I had to choose, I would feel like leaving Rama and choosing Krishna. And I have given my reasons for why it would feel so to me. It is not that you should choose Krishna and drop Rama. Understand what I am saying; that is enough. You must go where your own innermost nature takes you. In my view, Rama’s personality is bounded by maryada—restraint, limit—and I believe even…

Osho, yesterday you spoke in detail about introvert and extrovert personalities. I want one more thing clarified in this regard: What are the fundamental bases and causes of someone being introvert or extrovert? And are extroversion or introversion unchangeable? Are Krishna, by nature, introvert or extrovert?

The complete man stands beyond prediction; hence he is hard to understand. That is why there are many lovers of Krishna—and yet, in truth, those who accept him are as good as none. To accept Krishna wholly is very arduous. Those who “accept” also choose; they do not accept the whole Krishna. Some accept the child Krishna; they do not touch the youth. “Our Bala-Gopala is good,” they say—because the later Krishna appears dangerous. So they settle for the little Kanhaiya—that suffices for them. Their fear is their own. For the youth—what he does—frightens them. How can Surdas accept the youthful Krishna? He put out his eyes at the sight of women! How can youthful Krishna and Sur meet? Where Surdas, who, seeing the eyes lead to lust, put them out—and where Krishna, who can make the eyes dance and play the flute! Sur will say the later Krishna is…