Supreme Knowledge

A friend has asked: Osho, devotees behold their chosen deity in form according to their liking. Ramakrishna beheld Kali, Meera beheld Krishna, or Arjuna beheld Krishna in his four-armed form. Can this state be considered the state of supreme knowledge?

But Ramakrishna knew the man was right. It was only his helplessness that he could not do it. The master said, “Sit before me and meditate. And the moment Kali appears within, raise the sword and split her!” Ramakrishna said, “But where will I get a sword?” The master said something very precious: “You brought Kali within—will you not be able to bring a sword? Where was Kali before? You brought her; then the sword is child’s play for you. Just as by imagination you have installed Kali within you in form, in the same way pick up the sword.” Ramakrishna said, “Even if I pick up the sword, I won’t be able to strike. I will forget. I will forget you and your instruction. At the sight of Kali I will be spellbound. I will start dancing. I won’t be able to lift the sword.” The master said, “Then…

But we are misers. We think it is troublesome. So the Christian says: only Christ is God, not Krishna. The Hindu says: Krishna is God, not Mahavira. The Jain says: Mahavira is God, not Buddha. Everyone fears that if there are too many Gods, their own God’s godhood will be diluted. The miser’s arithmetic: “If there are many, the godliness will be diluted, its measure diminished; drops will remain. If only our God were God, he would be an ocean. Now there are so many—mere brooks—where is the ocean!” Because of this fear, religions are tangled in the foolishness that only ours is true, all others false. Have you seen Krishna dancing with all the gopis? It is a symbolic picture. It says: as many consciousnesses as there are, that many godlinesses can be. God is infinite, godliness can be infinite.

Osho, you said... then you will find that the devotee is God. The question arises: if one devotee prefers to be God and another wants to remain only a devotee, then which of the two is superior?

The one who wants to be God will not be able to be. And the one who wants to remain a devotee will become God. The question of superior or inferior does not arise, because only one of the two will happen. The one who does not want to be will be. The one who wants to be will be deprived. That very wanting is of the ego. But the matter is a little delicate. Sometimes humility too belongs to the ego. Beware that your humility may not be of the ego. Perhaps you are saying, “No, I don’t want to be,” because you know that those who refuse are the ones who attain. Then you are clever. Then your humility is adulterous. Your humility is not pure, not sacred, not virginal—it is like a prostitute. The one who wants to be God, whose ego says, “I must become God,”…

I am the incomprehensible shakti (energy), I am without hands and feet.

I CAN SEE WITHOUT EYES, HEAR WITHOUT EARS, KNOW WITHOUT INTELLECT. DEVOID OF ALL FORMS, I KNOW ALL; BUT THERE IS NONE WHO KNOWS ME,THE EVER PURE CONSCIOUSNESS. So how to call it knowledge? Or if we insist on calling it knowledge, we have to qualify it, we have to give a different meaning to the very word. Knowledge means: the division between the known and the knower. If I call this self-knowledge, that means: without any division between the knower and the known. How can knowledge exist without the division? So, this is not knowledge; rather, this is an existential feeling. This is less like knowing and more like being. This being is not known by anything else -- it is known by itself -- so this being can never be made an object. It can never be put before; it is always behind. It always transcends; it always…