Sameness

Osho, when we talk about the sameness of all the Tirthankaras’ idols—why only the Tirthankaras? The same sameness of idols and form is there with Buddha and Mahavira too. The same with Christ and Rama and Krishna—there is the same sameness in all. Yet they were different individuals. Leave the others aside; let us talk only of Buddha and Mahavira. They were contemporaries. Why didn’t either of them say, “What I am, that is what Buddha is; the form I have is Buddha’s form”? And why didn’t Buddha say, “What I am is Mahavira’s form”?

Yet Mahavira and Buddha are one; Meera has her own contemplation and her own stream. Mahavira and Meera’s personalities are utterly opposite. If only Mahavira’s approach existed on earth, very few would reach the ultimate truth—because Meera-type people would be left out; they simply cannot attune to that. No resonance happens for them. Thus countless streams run, because there are countless kinds of people. And the effort is that not even a single person should be left without finding a stream suited to them. Therefore, there are innumerable streams—and there will be. As humanity grows, the streams will multiply. They should multiply—lest, for example, with Mahavira: his life-stream is entirely what we could call masculine. There is no method in it for the feminine. And the minds of man and woman are fundamentally different. The woman is a passive mind; her mind is receptive. The man’s mind is aggressive. Therefore,…

Osho, on the one hand human life is filled with great suffering, and to be rid of these sufferings man waits for ages for some avatar in the hope that someone will deliver him. But when that auspicious moment arrives, he does everything possible to avoid it and ends up hacking at his own foot. Osho, is it really true that man does not want to be free of his torments?

Ramakrishna ate fish—how will Jains accept him as Paramhansa? He eats fish! If he doesn’t even know not to eat fish, what else can he know? He ate at night too—how can he be a Paramhansa? Remember: your fantasies are your fantasies; no person comes to fulfill them. Avatar means: whenever someone attains the ultimate knowing, he is unique. He will not fit your patterns. He will tear all your nets of imagination. Hence it is hard for you to accept. You could accept him if he walked exactly along your line. But “men of the line” can exist in pageants, not in reality. So people wait for ages for an avatar, hoping someone will save them. That hope is wrong too—because no one else can save you. You create the trouble; someone else should deliver you? You fall ill—you must undergo treatment, the operation, drink the medicine. You are…

Osho, the twenty-one-day ritual you have hinted at—was that practice or elemental realization in any way traditional? Because from your mode of expression it continually seems that you surely represent some teacher’s or Tirthankara’s method. Within this I also want to dare to ask: do you want to add a link to some established spiritual lineage, or, like Buddha, are you attempting to cut a new path through the mountains?

Nor is the issue one of tolerance. It is a matter of sky-like spaciousness, not tolerance. Not mere forbearance. Not that a Hindu “puts up with” a Muslim or a Christian “puts up with” a Jain. Forbearance already holds violence within it. I do not say the Quran and the Gita say the same thing. The Quran says something quite different; it has its own individual voice—that is its greatness. If it only repeated what the Gita says, it would be worth two pennies. The Bible says something else again, which neither the Gita nor the Quran says. Each has its own voice. Mahavira does not say what Buddha says; they say very different things. And yet from these differing statements one ultimately arrives at the same place. My emphasis is on the oneness of the destination, not on the oneness of the paths. My emphasis is that in the…

Osho, Gautam Buddha again and again says, “This is the reign of the buddhas.” You too often speak in the same way. So can one buddha speak on behalf of all buddhas? If yes, why then were there differences among the buddhas in the past?

So I am not telling you to accept theoretically that there is no difference—so that the Quran says exactly what the Vedas say, and the Dhammapada says exactly what the Bible says. I am not saying that. I am saying: as long as the mind is there, to see difference is a mistake; to see non-difference is also a mistake. The mind has no door to truth. Rise beyond the mind. Go beyond thinking. Be free of thought. In thoughtlessness, non-difference is seen. But remember: non-difference does not mean that Buddha uttered word for word what Mahavira said. The essence is one. Buddha’s examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus’ examples are different—of course they will be. Jesus comes from a different tradition. He heard different stories in childhood. He learned a different language, a different idiom. When he speaks, the Old Testament will echo in it. You will…