Spiritual Practice

Osho, then will there also be a difference in the spiritual practice of women and men?

There will be a difference. Less in the method of practice, more in the state of consciousness. Even if the practice is the same, even if the method is one, a man will go at it aggressively, and a woman will go to it receptively; a man will attack it, a woman will surrender to it. The practice may be one, yet their ways, their attitude, will be different. When a man goes, he will seize the practice by the throat; when a woman goes, she will place her head at its feet—at the feet of the practice. There will be a difference in their manner, in their attitude. And that much difference is natural. Beyond that, there is no question of any further difference. Her essential mood will be surrender. And when the ultimate attainment comes to her, she will not feel, “God has come to me”; she will…

In that case there must be a difference in the spiritual practices of man and woman.

There will be a difference, and it will not be in spiritual practice so much as in the state of mind. For instance, when the method is one and the same, even then a man will go about it aggressively, whereas a woman will go about it in a passive way. The man will attack, the woman will surrender. The method will be the same but the attitudes will be different. When a man enters into spiritual practice he catches it by the neck, so to speak, but when a woman starts a spiritual practice she will place her head at its feet. This difference in attitude is natural and there is no more difference between the two than this. The woman's attitude will be that of surrender: when she reaches she will not say that she has attained God; rather, she will say that she is fortunate that God…

Osho, why didn’t Mahavira do his spiritual practice while remaining at home? What need was there to go out?

In Gandhi’s ashram a hymn was sung: “Call only that person a Vaishnava who knows the pain of the other.” Someone once recited it to me and I said it needs a slight correction. In truth, a Vaishnava is one who does not even know that anyone is “other.” Knowing the pain of the other is a second thing. To know the other’s pain, you must first accept that there is “other” and there is “mine.” A Vaishnava is one who does not know anyone as other—and only then can the pain of the other be felt as one’s own, because there is no “other” left. We live within the circle of “I,” of “mine.” That is our home: my house, my wife, my father, my son, my friend—an entire world fabricated by “mine.” Around this “mine” we have raised many kinds of walls: of stone, of love, of hatred,…

Osho, what family or social discontent did Mahavira have? Isn’t his renunciation an escape from responsibilities?

Such a person can rightly be called an escapist—not a person like Mahavira. He raises no new entanglements and flees from no fear; out of understanding, out of a knowing consciousness, he changes staircases—he goes to another step. I see it like this: if someone runs out of fear from something, that is one thing; if someone runs to gain something, that is entirely different. The man with a gun at his back runs; and the man who has seen a diamond mine runs. Both run. But one runs out of fear of the gun; the other runs because he has seen diamonds. You cannot call the second one an escapist. You can call him one who is in motion, running—but not fleeing. He is not running from something; he is running to something. The emphasis of his vision is not on what he leaves but on where he goes.…