Osho was born into a Jaina family, and Mahavira is the figure he wrestled with longest — reverently in the Mahaveer Vani and Jin Sutra series, ruthlessly wherever Jainism had turned its tirthankara into rules and diet. His Mahavira is not the moralist of the tradition but an absolutist of aloneness: a man who refused every helper, every scripture, even clothes, and whose ahimsa was not a discipline of restraint but the natural fragrance of one established in the Self.
The passages below give the pillars of that portrait, each linked to the full discourse it comes from.
“Mahavira understood that the Supreme Truth lies within, and no master can unveil it; true awakening demands a solitary journey into the depths of one's own consciousness.”
From the Discourses
Passages where Osho speaks on mahavira — each links to the complete discourse.
Osho, will your intellectual and fact-based analysis of Mahavira’s life—as certified and settled by tradition—be acceptable to society?
First, there is no need for something to be acceptable to society. I do not even keep an eye on whether society accepts it or not. Nor is there any reason to think that what society accepts must therefore be right. What society accepts is only that which keeps society exactly as it is. Of course, whenever the idea arises that society should change—vision should change, thinking should change—rejection comes. Primarily, what I am saying is likely to be rejected—by society, not by the intelligent. But if what I am saying is intelligent, scientific, factual, essential, then that rejection will have to break. Rejection cannot win; it will have to lose. And if it is not factual, is unscientific, not essential, then rejection will win—and it should. So first, the question simply does not arise in my mind as to who will accept it and who will reject it. That…
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, why could Mahavira not find any master or sect at whose feet he could surrender? What was Mahavira seeking?
And remember: one who bows to someone is always stiff before someone else. One who touches somebody’s feet is eager to have others touch his feet. I once went to the ashram of a great sannyasin. On a big platform the head sannyasin was seated; below him, on a smaller seat, sat another sannyasin; below that, others were sitting on the floor. The head sannyasin said to me, “Do you see who is sitting beside me?” I said, “I don’t need to know; someone is sitting, that’s enough.” He insisted, “Perhaps you don’t know—he is the Chief Justice of the High Court. Not an ordinary man! But very humble—he never sits on the platform with me, always on the smaller seat below.” I said, “That I can see. But below even that small seat some others are sitting—he is not humble towards them; he sits above them. And they are…
Osho, we don’t find analyses of Mahavira’s mental state across the varied adverse circumstances of life. Based on the literature available today, how can his inner state be explained?
This is a very good question. Good because it can arise in all our minds: in varied favorable and unfavorable situations, what is the state of consciousness of a person like Mahavira? There is no mention of it. One might think the absence of mention is because Mahavira never spoke about it. That is not the reason. The omission has another, deeper, fundamental reason. In a person of awareness like Mahavira, circumstances make no difference. So to speak of “different circumstances” has no meaning. In all situations—favorable or unfavorable—the mind remains the same. If someone abuses us, we get angry; if someone welcomes us, we feel delighted. In each situation our mind gets transformed. As the situation is, so our mind becomes. Mahavira calls this the state of bondage. If the mind has to become whatever the situation dictates, we are bound. If the situation is painful, we must be…
Read 8 more passages on mahavira
Beloved Osho, I have heard you say that seeking the truth is as ecstatic as finding it. Does that not eliminate the search?
"And anyway we cannot deceive you. All that we know, we have given to you. We don't know whether it leads to truth or not, because how can we know? -- we are also in the middle of the way. Whether it leads to somewhere or not can be known only when we have reached to the end. And I know almost all the masters around. It is better you start moving alone -- on your own." Perhaps Buddha is the first person who reached to the goal without a master. But one cannot say that those masters did not help him. They did not help him to the end -- they may have helped him only in small ways -- but they certainly helped him to eliminate many things. They certainly made it clear to him that it is better to go alone, to take the risk. Perhaps that…
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.”…
Osho, what new thing did Mahavira give us? Talk of love has been going on since the human race began.
Rabindranath wrote of an old man, a friend of his father’s, who lived next door and often came to their house. He troubled Rabindranath a great deal. Whenever Rabindranath wrote poems about God, the soul, the Supreme, the old man would laugh, grab his hand and shake it, and ask, “Have you experienced it? Have you seen God?” He would laugh so heartily that Rabindranath says he began to fear him. If he saw him on the street he would slip away, because the man would catch him there and ask, “Have you experienced God? Have you seen God?” And he did not have the courage to say yes. Truly, what experience had he had? He was writing poems. The man pestered him so much. But one day—it was the rainy season—he had gone out toward the sea. The sun had come out; it was morning. The sun’s reflection was…
Osho, Mahavira refused to take anyone’s support—that is right. But along with that, a question arises: just as it is important not to take support, it should be equally important not to give support. Yet his way of expressing himself, and then the whole structure of shravaks and shramans and all that—this amounts to giving support to others. So why was this aspect not considered: if I do not take support, who am I to give support to another?
They would say… Sicily is a small island to the south. The Sophists offered an example: a man came from Sicily and, on arriving in Athens, said, “In Sicily, everyone is a liar.” Someone stood up and asked him, “Where are you from?” He said, “I am from Sicily.” The man said, “Now we are in trouble! You say everyone in Sicily is a liar, and you are from Sicily; so you are a liar—what shall we do with your statement? And if we accept that everyone in Sicily is a liar, then at least one person in Sicily must be telling the truth, and your statement becomes false. If we do not accept that everyone in Sicily is a liar—if we take you to be lying—again we land in a difficulty.” Someone stood up and said, “What shall we do?” Perhaps the man himself had no idea what to…
Thus the thinkers of the West ponder: What is truth? The sadhakas of India ponder: What is liberation? What is moksha? What is the means to moksha? This is the difference between philosophy and religion. The philosopher thinks: what is truth? The religious seeks: what is moksha? Read the Western thinkers—you will find they do not think about moksha, they do not even consider it. In their books you will not find a discussion on moksha. Read India’s scriptures—you will find that apart from moksha we are seeking nothing at all. Buddha was passing by a village, and a man had fallen there—someone’s arrow had struck him as he moved through the forest. Buddha came near and said to the man: let us pull the arrow out. The man said: first tell me, who shot the arrow? First tell me: was the arrow poisoned or not?
Osho, Mahavira preached asharan—seek no refuge—and yet he also made disciples. Are these two not mutually contradictory?
They look contradictory; they are not. And whoever has been a truly awakened being in this world will always appear paradoxical. Life is paradoxical, so whoever mirrors life in its suchness will also appear paradoxical. Only the pundit is not paradoxical. The knower will always be paradoxical, because the knower does not prune life, he does not force a framework onto it. For him, life as it is, is accepted. He simply reflects life, and whatever is in life gets reflected in him. He functions as a mirror. Now Mahavira says, asharan—seek no refuge. Do not go into anyone’s shelter. Yet disciples come to Mahavira and say, “Siddhe sharanam pavajjhami.” O perfected one! We come to your refuge. “Arihante sharanam pavajjhami.” O victorious, realized one! We come to your refuge. Mahavira accepts them too. Then it seems all upside down: Mahavira says, “No refuge,” and yet those who seek refuge…
Osho, immediately after his enlightenment Buddha said: Having known by myself, whom shall I call a master and whom shall I teach, whom shall I make a disciple? And yet for forty years he initiated and taught millions. But before the Mahaparinirvana, his final instruction was: Atma Deepo Bhava! Bhagwan, please shed some light on this.
You know how to play the veena. Your fingers are skillful. The veena is there. Yet music is not arising. You are not placing your fingers on the strings. You are not pouring your skill onto the veena. Pour your skill onto the veena; the veena will shower music on you. Everything is present. You know how to cook. There is flour, salt, ghee, lentils, water, the fire is lit—and you sit hungry! And you also know how to cook! Nothing is lacking. Everything is there. Only a little coordination is needed. A little arrangement is needed. There will be no need to remain hungry. Therefore Buddha says: Whom shall I teach? What shall I teach? Truth cannot be taught at all. Whatever is taught will not be truth. Even to say “taught” is too much; truth cannot even be said. Whatever is taught is not your nature. All teaching…
Experience alone is life’s university. There words have no play. He who goes within must first drop the body—our outermost layer, like the doorway and wall one leaves entering a house. First the body is left; then, going deeper, the mind’s processes drop; deeper still, the heart’s feelings fall away. Arriving at the inmost home, only pure consciousness remains—not body, not mind, not feeling. In this purity, the first glimpses of liberation come. Mahavira says: by trigupti the experience of such a state will arrive—that alone is knowledge. Logic does not enter there, therefore no one can prove moksha exists; nor can anyone disprove it. What cannot be proved by logic cannot be disproved either. Only he who tastes it by experience will know—like the dumb tasting jaggery. He who tastes knows; even he cannot prove it to you.
“An awakened one remains untouched by the dualities of praise and insult, wealth and stones; inside, only reflections arise and pass, while the essence remains unchanged.”
Understanding Osho's Reading of Mahavira
The threads that run through his discourses on mahavira.
The Self Is Ahimsa
Asked what nonviolence is, Mahavira gave the answer Osho considered the deepest ever offered — and Osho unpacks why dropping violence and attaining ahimsa are entirely different things.
Someone asked Mahavira: What is ahimsa? Mahavira said: The Self is ahimsa. He gave a most wondrous answer. No deeper answer has ever been given on this earth. Strange, it may even seem discordant. We ask: What is ahimsa? Mahavira says: The Self is ahimsa! What does it mean? It means: the person established in his Atman—that person attains ahimsa. And the person who is not established in his Atman can only restrain violence; he cannot attain ahimsa. To drop violence is one thing; to attain ahimsa is entirely another. Ahimsa is deeply positive, deeply creative. And because it is creative, I said—it is love.Mahaveer Ya Mahavinash, Chapter 5 →
Nonviolence as Total Acceptance
In the Mahaveer Vani discourses Osho links Mahavira's ahimsa to Buddha's tathata: violence is born of wanting things otherwise, so contentment with what is uproots it at the source.
Ahimsa means the deepest absence. That is why I said: Buddha’s spirit of tathata is the spirit of Mahavira’s Ahimsa. Tathata means: whatsoever is, is acceptable. Ahimsa also means this: we shall not make even the slightest effort to transform. Whatever happens is right; whatever will happen is right. If life remains—good; if death comes—good. From what does our violence arise? From this: that what is happening is not what we want; we want what we want—then violence arises. What is violence? Therefore the more the craving for change increases in an age, the more violent the age becomes. The more man wants ‘such to happen’, the more violence will increase. If we open the depth of Mahavira’s Ahimsa, it means: we are content with what is.Mahaveer Vani, Chapter 4 →
Why Mahavira Was Naked
Osho reads Mahavira's nudity not as ascetic display but as knowledge — and dismisses its imitators in a single sentence.
Mahavira’s nakedness is very meaningful; it is part of his knowing, not of his character. Therefore, those who take it to be a matter of character and stand naked are simply insane; they have no idea that it has nothing to do with that.Mahaveer Meri Drishti Mein, Chapter 8 →
Kaivalya: Total Aloneness
Commenting on tantra sutras, Osho reaches for Mahavira's own word for liberation — kaivalya — the aloneness in which nothing is excluded because everything has been absorbed.
This aloneness Mahavir has called KAIVALYA, total aloneness. Why alone? -- because everything is involved, absorbed, has become you.Vigyan Bhairav Tantra Vol 2, Chapter 17 →
“Mahavira sought truth as his own living realization, refusing secondhand knowledge and surrendering only to the Whole, allowing authentic wisdom to blossom from his own being.”
Questions Osho Answered on Mahavira
14 questions in the library — the most sought-after:
He was searching for the deepest truth inside himself that only he could find, so he didn’t go to any teacher or middleman.
He spoke in the everyday language so everyone could understand him without needing priests to explain.
Mahavira’s mind is like a clean mirror—things show up and go away, but the mirror stays clear and doesn’t keep anything.
Don’t worry if people approve; if your analysis is truly factual and wise, it may be rejected now but truth is accepted in the end.
He wanted to discover truth by himself, learning from all of life instead of copying a teacher or a book.
Don’t copy Mahavira’s actions; wake up inside and your own right actions for today will follow naturally.
Yes—great awakened people still come; if old groups won’t accept them, they begin a new path.
Yes—you can connect with Mahavira yourself now, but not by relying on official Jain channels; it’s a personal, direct link.
“Mahavira chose Prakrit to speak the language of the people, for truth must be accessible, not confined to the elite's sterile scripts.”
Frequently Asked
Osho stripped the moralism away. Where the tradition reads Mahavira as a code — vegetarianism, austerity, rules of conduct — Osho read him as pure inwardness: ahimsa as the fragrance of self-realization, nakedness as knowing rather than penance. He often said the Jainas preserved Mahavira's body of rules and lost his soul.
He drew a hard line: Mahavira's ahimsa was a spiritual state overflowing from one established in the Self, while Gandhi's nonviolence was a political instrument — principled, useful, but of an entirely different order. For Osho, ahimsa cannot be adopted as policy; it can only bloom from meditation.
The major ones are in Hindi: Mahaveer Vani (his longest commentary on Mahavira's words), Jin Sutra, Mahaveer Meri Drishti Mein ('Mahavira in My Vision'), and Mahaveer Ya Mahavinash. Mahavira also appears throughout his talks as one third of his recurring trinity with Buddha and Krishna.