Tolerance

Questioner: krishna put up with nine hundred and ninety-nine invectives hurled on him by king shishupal, but he killed him with his chakra -- a wheel-like weapon -- when the king fired his last invective. Does it not show that krishna's tolerance is only skin deep, that deep down he was intolerant?

It can appear so, because we all have only skin deep tolerance. If I lose my temper on the fourth foul word hurled at me, it means I had lost it with the very first one, but somehow I put up with three of them, and appeared in my true colors as soon as the fourth one came. But the contrary can also happen, and Krishna is that contrary; he is not like us. There is every possibility that he was an exception to this generality. It is not that Krishna's tolerance could take only nine hundred ninety-nine invectives. Do you think nine hundred ninety-nine are not enough. And that one who can bear this huge number of abuses cannot bear one more? It is really hard to believe. The real question before Krishna is not that his tolerance has run out, the real question is that the man confronting…

Osho, Krishna tolerated nine hundred and ninety-nine insults but could not bear even one more—he killed Shishupala with his discus. Doesn’t this prove that he only tolerated the earlier insults outwardly, while inwardly he was somewhat intolerant?

One could think so, because that’s how we all are. If we flare up at the fourth insult, we know perfectly well that we had actually flared up at the very first. We merely held ourselves together through three; we had tolerance up to three—and then we ran out, and at the fourth our intolerance showed itself. But with Krishna it can be just the opposite. And Krishna is a very contrary man—he doesn’t function the way we do. So the opposite possibility suits him more. It’s not that his tolerance lasted only up to nine hundred and ninety-nine insults. Nine hundred and ninety-nine insults are quite a lot. And if someone can bear nine hundred and ninety-nine, to say he cannot bear the thousandth is hard to imagine. The big question for Krishna is not that his tolerance ran out; the big question is that the other person’s limit…

Osho why can't I tolerate people who belong to other religions?

IT IS BECAUSE OF YOUR UPBRINGING. You have been brought up as a fascist, as a fanatic -- as Christians, Hindus, Jainas, Mohammedans; you have not been brought up as human beings. You are hypnotized from your very childhood; you are living in a kind of hypnosis. To live as a Christian or as a Mohammedan is to live in a hypnosis, is not to live really. That's why you cannot tolerate people who belong to other religions, because deep down you know they are wrong, they are stupid, they are committing a great crime. They have to be put right, they have to be brought under your flag, into your flock -- because only Jesus saves or only Buddha saves. You cannot tolerate them because they look like pretenders. To a Christian, a Buddhist is a pretender, because God has only one son. It is very strange -- why…

Questioner: why can't mahavira tolerate it?

Mahavira will not tolerate it in the sense that he will not accept it, he will not respond to it, he will remain unmoving like a rock. He will refuse a woman's hug with his whole being. He will not say in words, "Don't touch me," but the woman will know it; she will feel as if she is hugging a piece of rock. A woman will not feel humiliation if you ask her not to touch you, but she will really feel hurt if you don't respond to her hug. Not that Mahavira has any disrespect for women, but the way he is he cannot do otherwise, he cannot take hugs and embraces from women. Therefore women have to keep a respectful distance from him; they can never be on intimate terms with him. There is a limit, a boundary line beyond which they cannot come near him. It…