Osho's Krishna is unique among his portraits of the awakened: not a renunciate but a celebrant, not one-dimensional like the saints but 'multi-dimensional' — dancer, lover, statesman, warrior, mystic at once. In his 1970 Krishna Smriti talks and the massive Geeta Darshan series on the Bhagavad Gita, Osho argued that ages built on renunciation could never accept Krishna whole, and that only a future which affirms life will finally understand him.
The passages below carry the core of that reading, each linked into its complete discourse.
“True Brahminhood is not a matter of birth, but of realization; it transcends all labels, for the essence of being knows no caste, nation, or color.”
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks on krishna — each links to the complete discourse.
Questioner: what does krishna mean when he says in the geeta, "I will come into being for the protection of the righteous and for the destruction of the wicked"?
"Protection of the righteous and destruction of the wicked" -- both these phrases mean the same. But it is necessary to understand how the wicked are destroyed. How are the wicked finished? Are they destroyed by killing? Killing does not destroy the wicked. Krishna knows very well that nothing is killed by killing. The only way to finish a wicked person is to help transform him into a righteous person, into a sage. Killing will never finish him, it will only result in a change of body for him. Killing will not make a difference, he will continue to be wicked in his next life. The wicked can come to an end only if they are helped to become righteous. There is no other way. Another amusing thing Krishna says is that he will come for the protection of the righteous, of the sage. A sage is in need of…
Osho, what are the reasons for calling Krishna a complete incarnation (purnavatara)? Please give some new reasons. And shed detailed light with reference to the sixty-four arts.
No, there is no other reason to call one “complete.” Whoever becomes zero becomes complete. Emptiness is the prelude to the complete. To be precise, the zero alone is the only complete. You cannot draw half a zero—not even in geometry. If you say, “I have drawn half a zero,” it is no longer a zero. There is no such thing as half a zero. The zero is always whole, entire. The incomplete has no meaning. How will you split zero into two parts? And if it can be split, how will you still call it zero? Zero is not cut, not divided; it is indivisible. From where division begins, number begins. That is why after zero we must start with one. One, two, three—this is the world of number. All numbers arise from zero and are lost back into zero. Zero alone is the complete. Who can be zero?…
Osho, there is one condition he laid down: “paritrāṇāya sādhūnām, vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām.” What does it mean?
“To protect the righteous and to end the evildoers, I will come.” All right. Both clauses mean the same. “To end the evildoers” means the same thing too. When does the end of the wicked really happen? By killing them? Killing does not end wickedness, because Krishna knows perfectly well that nothing truly dies by being killed. The end of the wicked happens only when the wicked can be turned into a saint; there is no other way. Killing does not end the wicked; it only changes his body. Nothing essential changes. The end of the wicked comes only when he becomes a sadhu. And the amusing part is the second clause: “to protect the sadhus.” Protection is needed only when they have become showpiece sadhus, otherwise not. Why would a sadhu need protection? If even a sadhu needs protection, things have gone very wrong. “I will come to protect…
Questioner: what are the reasons for calling krishna a complete incarnation of god? Kindly shed more light on this matter. Please explain in detail what is meant by saying that krishna possessed all the sixty-four arts that comprise a complete incarnation.
The Upanishads' definition of wholeness is, therefore, tight. It says, "From wholeness emerges wholeness, and if you take away wholeness from wholeness, wholeness still remains." If we take away thousands of Krishnas from Krishna, this man will still remain; more and more Krishnas can still be taken from him. There is no difficulty. Krishna will have no trouble whatsoever, because he can be anything. Mahavira cannot be born today. It will be utterly impossible for him to be born at the present time, because Mahavira reached wholeness in a particular situation, in a particular time. That dimension could be perfected only in that particular situation. In the same way Jesus cannot be born today. If today he comes at all, in the first place nobody will crucify him. No matter how much noise he makes, people will say, "Just ignore him." Jews have learned their lesson from their first mistake,…
Read 8 more passages on krishna
Osho, one day you said: the moment you become Krishna, the rasa is set in motion. I was thrilled by this, but when I tried to evoke the feeling of Krishna, the feeling of the gopis welled up in me. And that feeling filled me with even greater ecstasy. Just as the rasa-circle was arranged before Krishna, the same began to happen in your presence. But what did you mean by arranging your rasa?
Exactly that—what happened. What happened was precisely it. If you want to enact the rasa with Krishna, you will have to become a gopi. By becoming a gopi, one day you will also become Krishna—but you must pass through becoming a gopi. Becoming a gopi is a halting place on the road to being Krishna. One who is not ready to become a gopi will never become Krishna. Such a gopi, dancing and dancing and dancing, keeps coming closer. The circle keeps growing smaller. The dance becomes more intense. The gopi slowly begins to disappear, to be absorbed. The circle grows smaller still. The rasa becomes denser. Midnight arrives. The moon stands overhead. Dancing and dancing and dancing and dancing, the gopi dissolves into Krishna—she becomes Krishna. Then the circle has utterly vanished. The rasa is complete. Union has happened. The Puranas tell a tale. In the old scriptures there…
Osho, yesterday you said that when anger is watched consciously, it dissolves. But why is it that when sexual desire arises, even in awareness its intensity persists? Why is it so?
There is no entanglement in the breath. If you try to practice on anger… Anger is not happening every moment; it happens sometimes. And when it happens, it happens with such intensity that you are already going deep into it; so much is at stake in those moments that you may think, “We will look into awareness later; first let’s settle this now.” Lust is very deep, because existence has made it so deep; life depends on it. If lust were so easy that you decided and were freed, perhaps you would not even have been born—because many before you would have become free, and the possibility of your being would have been almost nil. But your parents, and their parents, did not become free; therefore you are. You too will not get free so easily, because your children are also to be—they are waiting: “Do not run away midway.”…
Once you said that krishna was a brahmin, but really he was a kshatriya. Nobody is ready to accept him as a brahmin. Which is correct?
WHEN I SAY SOMETHING there is no need to ask anybody about it. Meditate over it. When I said that Krishna was a BRAHMIN I mean that he has known the ultimate truth. BRAHMA is the ultimate truth. By knowing it one becomes a BRAHMIN. When I say Krishna is a BRAHMIN I mean Mahavira is a BRAHMIN, Buddha is a BRAHMIN -- so is Moses, so is Jesus, so is Lao Tzu. I don't mean the caste BRAHMIN. By birth nobody is a BRAHMIN, nobody can be. I also know that he was a KSHATRIYA a KSHATRIYA by birth. That is meaningless. That is formal, accidental. I don't talk about accidents. By accident I was born in India but I am not an Indian. By accident you may have been born in Germany but you are not a German. By accident you may be black or white but you…
yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati bhārata. bhyutthānam adharmasya tadātmānaṁ sṛjāmy aham.. 7.. paritrāṇāya sādhūnāṁ vināśāya ca duṣkṛtām. dharma-saṁsthāpanārthāya sambhavāmi yuge yuge.. 8.. O Bharata, whenever dharma declines and adharma rises, then I manifest myself; for the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked, and for the establishment of dharma, I appear age after age. Let us take this final verse and continue in the morning. I said: beings like Krishna are born out of karuna, not vasana. Understand their difference. Vasana is for oneself; karuna is for others. Vasana’s target is “I”; karuna’s target is the other. Vasana contracts toward the ego-center; karuna expands from the periphery to all. Like a flower blossoming and fragrance spreading; like ripples traveling across a lake when a stone is thrown—karuna spreads. Vasana is contraction; karuna expansion.
Osho, Krishna is supremely enlightened and beyond the three gunas, yet he deceives, lies, and wages war. Buddha, Mahavira, Lao Tzu, etc., do nothing of the sort. Kindly shed light on Krishna’s personality described above, in the context of the qualities of sattva, rajas, and tamas.
First, it is essential to understand that no comparison is possible between two enlightened ones. All comparisons are false. Every great being is unique; there is no second like him. In truth, even an ordinary person is unique. There is no other like you. The great one within you appears when you bring your own nature, your own destiny, to its fullness. You too are incomparable. There is no other person on earth exactly like you—neither today, nor ever before, nor ever after. Search the whole earth and you won’t find two identical leaves on a tree; not even two identical pebbles. And when your polish deepens and the supreme flowering of your life manifests, then you become like the summit of a Mount Everest. Even now you are unmatched; then you will be utterly unmatched. Now, perhaps, some accord with others is still possible; then there will be none.…
Osho, what qualities in Krishna’s personality are relevant for today’s age, and what significance can his personality have today? Please shed some light.
Hence even those who worshipped Krishna have worshipped him in fragments. Surdas’s Krishna never grows beyond childhood. The adult Krishna is dangerous; Surdas could not endure him. If child Krishna teases the village women, we do not mind much; but if a young Krishna does so, we are troubled, because we can only understand on our own level. Lacking any other measure, we select a form we like and reject the rest. Those who love the Gita ignore the Bhagavata, because the Krishna of the Bhagavata is quite different; and those who love the Bhagavata avoid the Gita—where is music, color, rasa, and where the battlefield! Perhaps there is no personality greater than Krishna in swallowing such vast oppositions at once. So people have clung to one face of Krishna and denied the others. Gandhi called the Gita his mother, but he could not assimilate it. Where would Gandhi’s ahimsa…
A friend has asked: Osho, Gautam Buddha taught truth, nonviolence, not to lie, not to steal, not to do evil. But in Krishna’s Gita the path of violence is shown. Krishna teaches stealing, lying, and moving from sex to samadhi. So tell us: one who teaches the path of violence—can he be called God?
The teachings of Buddha and Mahavira are ethical and given with the ordinary person in mind. Krishna’s teachings are religious and addressed to a very extraordinary person. The teachings of Buddha and Mahavira can be understood even by a very ordinary intelligence; there is hardly any obstacle there. They consider the third-rate mind—the last rung of intelligence. Krishna’s teachings can be understood only by first-rate human beings. They are exceedingly subtle, and far higher than the teachings of Buddha and Mahavira. It will be a bit difficult to grasp them. We all understand that stealing is a sin; even a thief understands it. It is not only you who see it; the thief, too, knows stealing is wrong. But why is stealing wrong? Stealing can be wrong only if property is real; that’s the first premise. Money must be of great value, and personal ownership must be accepted; only then…
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…
“Do not try to assimilate Krishna; instead, let his essence inspire your own unique flowering, for true spirituality is the celebration of your individuality.”
Understanding Osho's Reading of Krishna
The threads that run through his discourses on krishna.
A Figure for the Future
Why will Krishna's relevance grow? Because, Osho argues, the age of repression is ending — and Krishna is the one great figure who never repressed anything.
Because repression will no longer be possible. After long struggle and long seeking, it has become known that the forces we fight are our own; nothing is more foolish than fighting oneself. It is also known that what we fight, we remain surrounded by; and what we fight, we never transform. If one fights sex, celibacy will never happen in his life. If celibacy can happen, there is only one way: to transform the energy of sex. Do not fight sexual energy; collaborate with it. Do not make it an enemy; befriend it.Krishna Smriti, Chapter 1 →
Too Whole to Accept in Part
In the Geeta Darshan series Osho explains why Krishna has millions of lovers and almost no true acceptors — everyone picks a fragment and flees the rest.
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.Geeta Darshan Vol 5, Chapter 5 →
Buddha Sits, Krishna Dances
Asked how the supremely enlightened Krishna can wage war and dance while Buddha sits silent, Osho answers that the realization is one — only the instrument differs.
Buddha expresses by being quiet; Krishna expresses by dancing. This depends on their personalities; the happening is one. Understand it this way: a painter watches the sunrise; a musician watches the sunrise; a dancer, a sculptor, a poet—all see the same sun rise. The same beauty stirs each heart; all are filled with delight; something has dawned within. But the painter will paint if you ask what he saw; the poet will weave a song; the dancer will dance.Geeta Darshan Vol 14, Chapter 5 →
The Dance of Celebration
On the maharaas — the dance in which every milkmaid found Krishna dancing with her alone — Osho reads the tradition's boldest image of the divine play.
It is because of this that a single Krishna dances with any number of gopis. Ordinarily it is not possible for a single man to dance with many women at a time. Ordinarily no man can be in love with many women together, but Krishna does it, and does it beautifully. It is amazing that every milkmaid, every gopi taking part in the maharaas, believes that Krishna is dancing with her, that he is hers. It seems Krishna has turned into a thousand Krishnas so that he pairs off with each of the thousand women present there.Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy, Chapter 9 →
“Imitating the leelas of masters like Krishna is a degradation of your uniqueness; instead, let their essence inspire you to discover your own intrinsic nature.”
Questions Osho Answered on Krishna
44 questions in the library — the most sought-after:
Krishna doesn’t come to kill bad guys or guard good guys; he helps badness turn good and reveals fake goodness so real goodness can shine.
Krishna spoke from different stages of growth, so some teachings are wise and some harmful; Osho keeps what truly helps and firmly rejects using spirituality to...
Krishna is called a ‘Brahmin’ because he realized the ultimate truth, not because of his birth; real identity comes from awareness, not labels.
Feel Krishna with pure love, let your “me” melt, become like his shadow, and you unite with him.
Krishna is complete because he became like zero—nothing to cling to or call himself—so he could be everything and respond freely.
Don’t copy Krishna; reflect on him so you awaken your own true way and go beyond your fearful, borrowed mind.
Krishna shows a happy, whole way to be spiritual—enjoying body and life instead of fighting them.
Wise people agree about Krishna; it’s the followers who argue because they like taking sides and disliking the other side.
“To imbibe Krishna's teachings, do not imitate him; instead, understand him to discover your own unique dance of being. Drop the corruption of imitation and embrace the responsibility of being yourself.”
Frequently Asked
Because Krishna refuses every single mold: he is flute-player and war-counselor, lover and yogi, child and statesman, with no dimension suppressed for another's sake. Osho contrasted him with the 'one-dimensional' purity of Mahavira or Buddha and saw in that totality the prototype of his own vision — Zorba and Buddha in one body.
He spoke on it at enormous length — the Hindi Geeta Darshan series runs to thousands of pages — reading it as a psychology of the inner war rather than a manual of duty. Arjuna's crisis is every seeker's; Krishna's answer is not 'fight' but 'act from egolessness, and the doer dissolves.'
As a cosmic metaphor before a historical event: life itself is raas, the play of opposite energies meeting. That every gopi felt Krishna dancing with her alone was, for Osho, the tradition's way of saying the divine is total with each being — love that multiplies rather than divides.