Mahabharat

Osho, in the Mahabharata Krishna urges Arjuna to fight. But I have heard that once Krishna himself went to face Arjuna in battle. What was that incident?

And in the larger meanings of life, this is worth contemplating. If I have an enemy, with the death of the enemy something in me also dies. Not only does the enemy die—something in me dies as well. My being, too, is with the enemy’s being. It is not only that with the death of a friend something is lost within me; with the loss of an enemy also something is lost within me. So the enemy, too, is a part of my personality. Therefore to be overly hostile toward the enemy is meaningless. In some deep sense the enemy is also a friend. And the friend, in some deep sense, is also an enemy. Why? Because in truth—as I have been saying to you continually these past days—the polarities into which we divide life, making poles, are true only in our words and theories. In the direct depth of…

Questioner: krishna inspires arjuna to fight in the battle of the mahabharat. But it is said that once it happens, krishna himself prepares to fight with arjuna. What is the matter?

And this is very significant in the larger context of life. It is worth knowing that when my enemy dies, something in me dies with him. Not only my enemy dies, with his death I too die in some measure. My being has been bound with the being of my enemy, so with his death a part of me dies at the same time. Not only I lose something with the death of my friend, I also lose when my enemy dies. After all, even my enemy is as much part of my life as a friend is. So it is not good to be very inimical to our enemies, because in some deeper sense even enemies are friends. In the same way, friends are also enemies. Why is it so? As I have been explaining to you these few days, the polarities into which we divide life are polarities…

Questioner: what are the distinguishing virtues of krishna that make him relevant to our time? What is his significance for us? Please explain.

Up to now, man's mind has thought of and looked at life in fragments -- and thought dialectically. The religious man denies the body and accepts the soul. And what is worse, he creates a conflict, a dichotomy between the body and spirit. He denies this world, he accepts the other world, and thus creates a state of hostility between the two. Naturally our life is going to be sad and miserable if we deny the body, because all our life's juice -- its health and vitality, its sensitivities and beauty, all its music -- has its source in the body. So a religion that denies and denounces the body is bound to be anemic and ill, it has to be lackluster. Such a religion is going to be as pale and lifeless as a dry leaf fallen from a tree. And the people who follow such a religion, who…

Question: Osho, it seems to me that, while explaining “svadharme nidhanam śreyaḥ,” Krishna pressured Arjuna. Arjuna was overstepping his kṣatriyahood and perhaps wanted to become a brāhmin. When he experienced despondency, when compassion arose in him, he was moving into his own dharma; Krishna stopped him and tried to bring him back into kṣatriyahood. That is how it seems to me. And there is a second point: you said Krishna sets Arjuna free, he doesn’t press him down. But at the beginning of the Gita Arjuna becomes a disciple and says, “śiṣyas te ’haṁ śādhi māṁ tvāṁ prapannam.” Later, after the whole current of the Gita has flowed by, at its completion we hear Arjuna say, “kariṣye vacanaṁ tava.” Doesn’t this give the hint that Krishna established a kind of guru-dom over Arjuna, under whose influence or pressure Arjuna had to say, “kariṣye vacanaṁ tava”?