Principles

Osho, the principles Mahavira spoke of—such as nonviolence, truth, celibacy, non-possession, anekant—what can be their practical form?

A great mistake has been made here too. First, understand this: truth, nonviolence, celibacy, non-possession, non-stealing—these are not principles. Therefore, to ask for their direct practice is itself a mistake. They cannot be practiced directly. It is like someone wanting to gather straw: he must sow wheat in the field, not straw. And if some madman were to sow straw in order to produce straw, even the straw he had would rot in the soil and nothing would grow. Because straw is a by-product; it comes with wheat. When wheat grows, straw comes with it; if wheat does not grow, there is no way to grow only straw. Yes, when wheat grows, straw inevitably appears; it needs no separate attention. Nonviolence, non-possession, non-stealing—these are not principles; they are by-products, secondary offshoots. Wherever samadhi happens, these all arise on their own like straw. Anyone who sets out to produce them directly…

The night Mohammed was to die... His daily rule was, in the evening, whatever was brought as offerings—after supper, whatever remained—he distributed. Not even a single grain of rice remained in the house. On the night he was to die, he was ill, and physicians said he would die. His wife grew afraid. She hid away five dinars—five coins—that, perhaps in an untimely hour of the night, the illness might worsen and a physician might need to be called. At midnight Mohammed said: It seems to me that some possession has been made in my house. His wife asked: How did you know this? I have hidden five coins—but how did you know? Mohammed said: You seem so fearful to me that I suspected. A person so afraid cannot be aparigrahi.

Hence it was difficult to make a sect. If one went to Goshalak, Mahavira’s rival, Goshalak would say: Mahavira is wrong, I am right. If the same man came to Mahavira, he would say: Goshalak may be right. If you were there, whom would you follow—Goshalak or Mahavira? You would go behind Goshalak—at least he is definite, clear; he knows. This Mahavira says: Goshalak may be right—he himself is not certain. Why tie our boat to him and sink! Who knows where he is going—perhaps, perhaps not! Therefore, only an extremely intelligent kind of person could come to Mahavira—those who are non-insistent about truth, who could see Mahavira’s courage. But as time passes, those who come later do not come through understanding; they come by birth; they become insistent; and their insistence is dangerous. A very renowned Jain scholar came to meet me.

If you understand this, Krishna of the Gita and Mahavira stand at one point. Their processes are utterly different, their means utterly different — but the goal is one. Krishna says to Arjuna: Surrender all to the Supreme. Do not remain the doer. Do not even hold the feeling that I kill, or I do not kill — leave it to God. Then whatever happens — let it happen. If within you there remains no feeling that I am killing — there is no violence. Mahavira says: Wake up. Because in Mahavira’s vision there is no place for God. What is God in the Gita — for Mahavira, that place is held by dhyana. Do not meditate on God, says Mahavira — meditation itself is God. Wake up. Then, awake, whatever happens is inevitable.