Osho on Meera, Indian woman Mystic Meera

Osho : Meera is a launching place for your pilgrimage. Her scripture is the scripture of love. Perhaps calling it scripture is not right. Take Narada’s BHAKTI SUTRAS — sutras of devotion — that is scripture. There one finds reasoning, method, fixed precepts. It is a system of devotion. Meera herself IS devotion. You won’t find systematic argument. Fixed logic is not found there. There lightning has struck the heart.

In Meera, found nowhere else, is a natural expression of love. There have been other devotees, but they all pale before Meera; they become the background. Meera’s star is a very bright, shining star.

Come, let us go toward this star. If just a few drops of Meera’s juice rain on your life, flowers will bloom in your desert. If in your heart just a few tears make rain clouds like Meera’s rain clouds, and in your heart a melody begins playing as it played to Meera, it is enough. One drop will color you and make you new.

So don’t listen to Meera logically, intellectually. Meera has nothing to do with logic and intellect. Listen to Meera with feeling, with devotion. Look with the eye of trust. Push aside logic, leave it to crawl along the bank. For a little while, let yourself go completely mad with Meera. This is the world of the mad. This is the world of lovers. Only then can you understand, otherwise you will miss.

First, a few things about Meera. Meera’s love for Krishna did not begin with Meera. Such a rare expression of love cannot begin just like that. The story goes back. This Meera is one of the GOPIS — devotees — who was with Krishna. Meera herself has declared it, but the scholars can’t accept it, as there is no historical proof for it.

I accept what Meera says. I am not interested in measuring true and false. To me it is pointless whether it is history or not. Meera’s statement — my agreement; when Meera herself says it, the matter is finished. The question does not arise of someone else raising further doubts about it. And those who raise doubts like this, they won’t ever be able to understand Meera.

Meera says, “I was Lalita. I danced with Krishna in Vrindavan, I sang with Krishna. This love is ancient.” Meera insists, “this love is not new.” And it entered Meera’s life in such a way that it is clear from the very beginning that the pundits were wrong and Meera was right.

Meera was little, some four or five years old, when a SADHU was a guest at her house. When this monk got up in the morning, taking out his idol — a statue of Krishna hidden away in his bag — to set it up to worship, Meera went completely mad.

DEJA VU happened. A memory from a previous existence came. That statue was such that picture after picture began opening. That statue became a catalyst — and once again the story began. It shocked her. Krishna’s form returned to her memory. Again that dark face, those wide eyes, that crown of peacock feathers, the flute-playing Krishna — Meera went back thousands of years in her memory.

She started to cry. She began begging the sadhu for the statue. But the sadhu also had great affection for his idol. He refused to give it; he traveled on.

A whole day passed. She ate no food, and drank no water. From her eyes tears flowed — on and on she cried. Her family was alarmed, now what can be done? The sadhu has gone, where can he be found? And will he give it up? Very unlikely.

And this statue of Krishna was certainly very lovely — the rest of the family felt it too. They had seen many idols, but in this one there was something alive, there was something alert, the aura of this statue was something more.

Certainly someone had carved it with love, not just for trade. Someone had carved it with feeling. Someone had put his total prayer, his full worship into it; or someone who had once seen Krishna had carved it. But the statue was such that Meera was gone, she simply forgot this world. For her the idol must be brought back to stay, if not she will die. This is the beginning of VIRAH — deep longing for God — at the age of four.

That night the sadhu saw a dream. Far away in the next village he slept. A dream in the night — and Krishna was standing there. He said, “Return the statue to whom it belongs. You have kept it for many years, this was a guardianship, but it is not yours. Now don’t carry it on unnecessarily. You go back and give the statue to that girl. It is hers, give it back. It is hers, your caretaking is over now. You have arrived where you were to deliver it, now the matter is finished.” The idol is for the one whose heart contains love for it. Who else?

The sadhu was scared. Krishna had never shown himself to him before. For years he had been praying and worshipping to this same idol — flowers were offered, bells were rung. Krishna had never appeared. He became very frightened. He fled back in the middle of the night. Arriving at midnight he woke everyone up and said, “You must forgive me, I have committed a great wrong.” He fell at the feet of that little girl, gave her the statue and went back.

This event, happening at the age of four or five, reopened her vision. Again the love flowed, again the journey began. Thus a deep relationship with Krishna was started again by this Meera in this lifetime.

This small, accidental event, happening when she was four or five years old… and a revolution happened. Meera remained ecstatic, as if she’d drunk liquor. By the time Meera was thirty-two or thirty-three years old, all those who had been important in her life until then had died. Everyone that her affection went out to, that she had loved, they all died.

Those who have written books about Meera, they all say, “unfortunately.” I can’t say that. I will say, “most fortunately,” because for me there is no such feeling toward death that it is necessarily some form of curse. It all depends on you. Meera used it rightly. Wherever love was torn out, each and every vessel of love gone, she offered this love of hers up to God.

The last stage was staying with her father. Her mother died, her husband died, her father died. There were five deaths passing in a continuum. All her attachments in the world were broken.
She made good use of it. She turned broken worldly attachments into detachment towards the world. And the love that became freed from the world, she offered up to the feet of God. She submerged herself in the passion-song for Krishna.

And these deaths did one more fortunate task — she was shown one thing, that everything in this universe is momentary. If the beloved is to be sought, seek in the eternal. Here nothing is yours. Don’t go astray here, don’t lead yourself astray. Here everything touched will go away. Here death, and death only, increases. This is a graveyard. Don’t get any idea of dwelling here. No one has ever remained here.

All that she’d seen with her own eyes… Thirty-three years old is not very old. She was young. So many deaths happened in her youth that the thorn of death showed her totally, clearly, that life is momentary. And then her mind turned away from all this. Turning away from this one can turn towards the divine.

First Meera danced only at home, before her Krishna statue. Then love began to rise like a flood, and the house could not contain it. Then she danced in the village temples, in the sadhu’s SATSANGS. Then love started rushing in such a flood that she was no more conscious. She drowned, she became absorbed, she became filled with Krishna.

Naturally, as she was a lady of the royal household, of a respected family, trouble came to the family. The family always becomes troubled. A thousand kinds of rumors began to spread in the community, because the matter went beyond the tradition.

You can imagine — Rajasthan of five hundred years ago — women didn’t come out from behind their veils; their faces were never seen in public. And in the royal household, even more difficult. And she began dancing in the streets, she began dancing in the midst of the common people. Even though the dance was for God, to her relatives dance was still dance — there was no difference for them. And those who had been the closest to her were all gone.

Her brother-in-law was on the throne. Wherever Meera sings that the king sent poison, that the king sent a snake in a basket, that the king had thorns scattered in her bed, it indicates her husband’s younger brother. Her husband had passed away.

Her brother-in-law was Vikramajit Singh. He was an angry youth, an ill-natured youth. And this was too much to hear… Meera’s fame was insufferable to him. Meera was so famous, people began coming from far away. Ordinary people came for her darshan; saints, monks, respectable people came too. Hearing the news of Meera they came from afar. The fragrance began to spread. The perfume was like the musk deer; everyone whose nostrils got a whiff of musk had to come.

This is a very surprising thing. From every part of the country people came, but the blind family members couldn’t see. Those people coming became the cause of more difficulty for the family because Meera’s fame was a shock to their egos. The king on his throne thought, “Someone in my own family higher than me? This is unbearable.”

Then he found a thousand excuses, and all the excuses logical — fault can never be found in them: “She is mixing with the commonfolk, with her veil aside. She is dancing in the streets; sometimes while dancing she doesn’t pay attention to her clothes. This is unbecoming. It is not proper for a lady of the royal household.”

But consider the stories: poison was sent and in Krishna’s name Meera drank it; and it is said that the poison became nectar. It must have become! It’s bound to. With so much love, so much welcoming — if someone drinks even poison it must turn into divine nectar. And if in anger, in violence, in hate, in enmity you drink ambrosia it too will become poison.

In these events that have taken place in the lives of enlightened ones, I look for demonstration of this psychological truth. Meera receives the poison as nectar; then it becomes nectar. How you accept the world is how the world becomes. This world is created from your acceptance. This world is the extension of your vision.

It became difficult for Meera to remain in her village, so she left Rajasthan. She went to Vrindavan. “I’ll go to my beloved’s town,” she thought. She went to Krishna’s village, but the same troubles started up. Because he was not there now, Krishna’s village was under the yoke of pundits — brahmin scholar-priests.

There is a lovely episode. When Meera arrived at Vrindavan’s most famous temple, an attempt was made to stop her at the door, because entry to the temple was forbidden to women. The high priest of the temple had never seen women. Meera was a woman, so arrangements were made to stop her.

But those people who were standing by the door to stop her, they were struck dumb. When Meera came dancing, holding her EKTARA in her hand, playing music; and a crowd of devotees behind her, spreading wine in all directions, and all drunk — in that drunkenness those who stood guard were also stunned. They forgot they were meant to stop her until Meera had entered inside.

The breeze was as one wave — it went right in and reached the inner sanctum. The priest freaked out. He had been worshipping Krishna; the tray fell from his hands. He had not seen a woman for years. Women were not admitted to that temple. How had this woman come inside here?

Now think a little… the guards at the door became immersed in feeling, but the priest could not dive in! No, the priests are the most blind people in the world. And to find a more unintelligent person than a scholar is difficult. The guards too were drowned in this juice. This drunken woman, this ecstatic Meera came, came as a wave — they too forgot for a moment, forgot completely what their job was. They remembered only when Meera had gone past.

It was a thunderbolt. Once the EKTARA was playing inside and the crowd had gone in, then they became alert to what had happened. But the pundit did not plunge in. Meera came dancing in front of Krishna, but the pundit was not immersed. He said, “Hey woman, do you understand that women are not permitted in this temple?”

Meera listened. Meera spoke, “I had thought that besides Krishna no other man existed. Are you also a man? I had understood Krishna was the only man and the rest of the world were his beloveds, that all were celebrating with him. So you, too, are a man? I hadn’t thought that there were two. So you are in competition?”

He was shaken. The pundit didn’t understand how to answer now. Scholars have answers to fixed questions, but this question had never been raised before. No one had asked it before Meera, no one had ever asked, “Does there exist some other man? I have never heard of this. You are saying very strange things. Where did you get such arrogance? Krishna is the one man, the rest are all his beloveds.”

But troubles were beginning, after this event. Meera was unable to stay in Vrindavan. We have always given ill treatment to enlightened people. After death we worship them; living we misuse them. Meera had to leave Vrindavan. She went to Dvarika.

Years later the political situation changed in Rajasthan; the kingship changed and the youngest son of King Sanga ascended the throne, Udaysingh Mevar. He was King Sanga’s son and the father of King Pratap. Udaysingh had great feeling for Meera. He sent innumerable messengers to Meera to bring her back: “This is our disgrace. This is Rajasthan’s disgrace that Meera wanders from village to village, moving here and there. This stain will always remain on us. Let her come back. Bring her back. We ask forgiveness for our mistakes. That which has happened in the past is gone.”

People went, pundits were sent, priests were sent to explain and convince, but Meera always gave the explanation, “Now where to come or go? Where should I go now, giving up this temple of my life’s love?” She was ecstatic in the Ranchhordasji temple.

Still Udaysingh tried very hard. He sent a group of one hundred men and said, “Bring her back no matter what. If she doesn’t come, give her a threat. Tell her you’ll fast sitting at the door of the same temple.” And they gave the threat. They insisted, “You must come, if not then we’ll die right here.”

Then Meera said, “This again; if I am to go, then I will go and ask my love. Without his giving permission, I cannot go. So I’ll ask Ranchhordasji.” She went inside and the story is very lovely, very surprising, very significant. She went inside and it is said she never came out again. She disappeared into Krishna’s statue.

This too couldn’t be historical, but it should be, because if Meera cannot merge into Krishna’s statue, then who can? And she had dissolved Krishna so deeply into herself, couldn’t Krishna at least let her be merged into himself? If not then the whole foundation of devotion will be broken. Then the trust of the devotee will be broken. Meera has dissolved Krishna so deeply into herself, then Krishna too has a responsibility.

Be aware, don’t take this as a fact and sit thinking over it. This is truth and truth is very different from fact. Truth is far above facts. Just what is there in facts? Not worth two cents. Fact is not the limit of truth. Fact is that which man’s small intelligence can understand. It is a fragment of truth; truth is vast.

If you ask me, I say it is so. Is has to be. If not, the devotee’s trust is wrong. Meera must have said, “Now what’s your feeling, shall I go now? Where will I go? Either come with me or take me into you.” Ultimately that which you love, you become.
Love with care and understanding. Make your friendships with awareness. Because this friendship is no ordinary matter. Meera’s friendship was with Krishna, and if finally she merged into his image then to me this seems to be completely right. It must be so. It is just so.

Osho on Woman Enlightened Master, Woman Enlightenment

Question : Why has there never been a single Woman Enlightened Master?
Osho : A woman cannot be a Master — it is not possible. When a woman arrives she becomes a Mistress, not a Master. The fulfilment of a woman is love. The flowering of a woman is love. Mastery is not the goal of the feminine mind; they don’t become Masters, they become Mistresses. To be a Master is basically a male effort.

Awareness is the way of man, love is the way Or woman. On the path of awareness it is possible to teach; one can become a Master. On the path of love, how can you teach love? You can flower, you can bloom in love, but how can you teach it? Yes, if somebody wants to learn from you, he will learn it, but you will not be a Master.

And such women have existed: Rabiya, Meera, Mallibai, Magdalen, Teresa. Such women have existed: Sahajo, Daya, Lalla. Many women have existed, but they were not Masters. They were so surrendered to God that they became Mistresses.

Meera says ‘I am a mistress to you. My Lord’ — a mistress to Krishna, to God himself. She sings the song of the glory of her Lord, she dances. If somebody can catch something from her, it is overflowing; but she cannot be a teacher. She is surrendered, her surrender is absolute. Yes, if you are in her company, you will learn what surrender is… but you will have to learn, she will not teach. A woman cannot be a teacher.

To teach, a certain different quality of energy is needed. Let me say it in this way, this is my experience: it is very difficult for a man to become a disciple, very difficult for a man to become a disciple. Even if he becomes, he becomes reluctantly. Surrender is difficult. How to surrender the will? Even if he surrenders, he only surrenders conditionally, in order to become a Master one day. He becomes a disciple in order to become a Master.

It is difficult for a man to surrender; it is very simple for a woman to surrender. It is very simple for a woman to become a disciple, it is very difficult for a woman to become a Master. Even after she has arrived, she remains surrendered. And for the man, even when he has not arrived, he remains deep down unsurrendered. On the surface he will show surrender, but deep down somewhere the ego persists.

A man can become a good Master. A woman can become a good disciple because to become a disciple means to become a receiver, to be receptive, to become a womb. To become a Master means to become a giver.

The same phenomenon continues… as it is there on the biological level, it remains on the spiritual level. Biologically, a woman is ready to receive the sperm from the man she loves. The man cannot become a mother, he can only become a father. He can trigger the process: the woman will become the mother, she will carry the child in her womb for nine months, she will nourish the child with her blood and her being, she will be carrying the pregnancy. The same happens on the spiritual level too.

When a woman comes to a Master she is immediately ready to surrender. If sometimes it happens otherwise — sometimes there are women who are very reluctant to surrender that simply shows they have lost contact with their womanhood. They don’t know who they are, they have become distracted from their centre. They don’t know how to surrender because they don’t know how to be a woman. If you know how to be a woman, if you are a woman, surrender is so simple, it comes so easily.

All the great disciples in the world were women. Buddha had thousands of disciples, but the proportion has always been the same: three women, one man. So was the proportion with Mahavir. He had forty thousand sannyasins: ten thousand men, thirty thousand women. And so was the case with Jesus.

The really devoted people around him were not the men but the women. When he was crucified, all the men escaped, there was not a single man. All those so-called ‘apostles’ had all disappeared, but the women were there. Three women were there: they had no fear, they were ready to sacrifice themselves.

When Jesus was taken down from the cross, it was not by men — those disciples had gone far away, and one or two were there but they were hiding in the crowd women took down the body. And it is very significant that when Jesus appeared after three days, resurrected, he appeared first to Mary Magdalen, not to a man.

This is very significant. Why? What about those twelve apostles? Why to Mary Magdalen? And she immediately recognised him, and she rushed to him and she said ‘So, My Lord, you are still alive!’ And when Jesus appeared to the disciples, male disciples, they would not recognise him, they thought ‘It seems tricky. How can this man come back?’

It is said that when he appeared before two disciples, male disciples, he walked with them for hours and they would not recognise him. And they continued talking about Jesus and Jesus was walking by their side. They were a little puzzled about the appearance of this man — he looked like Jesus but how could he be? ‘Just appearance? — one should not be deceived by appearance alone.’ For two hours they walked together.

When they went to an inn, all three sat there to eat their dinner and when Jesus broke his bread, THEN they recognised. Very materialistic mind. Suddenly they saw… because Jesus’ every act, his every gesture, was his, authentically his. Now they recognised because he was breaking the bread in the same way that they had seen Jesus break bread for years — then they recognised. But for two hours, the presence was not recognised. Magdalen recognised immediately.

When she went to tell the male disciples that Jesus was resurrected, they laughed. They said ‘Woman, you are hallucinating.’ And they laughed and they said ‘This is how women always are — imaginative, dreaming, romantic. Now look at this foolish woman. Jesus is dead. We have seen him die on the cross with our own eyes.’ But she cried and she said ‘Listen to me. I have seen him.’ But they would not listen.

A woman can be a perfect disciple, and this is how it should be. Woman is receptive, an opening, a womb. They have never been Masters in the sense that men have been Masters — like Mahavir, Buddha, Zarathustra, Lao Tzu. No, they have never been Masters like that. But there have never been disciples like women; no man has ever been able to equal them as far as disciplehood is concerned.

And let me tell you this, that as far as this division of male and female is concerned, the female mind is more blessed. Because the real thing is to receive the truth, the real thing is not to give it that is secondary. And a woman is always more total than a man. Whenever she receives the truth, she becomes luminous: her whole body, her whole being shows it; she carries an aura.

Have you not seen a woman who is pregnant, how beautiful she becomes? Her face glows, she is carrying a new life within her. And this is nothing compared to a woman who really becomes a disciple. She is carrying God himself within her. Her glory is infinite. So don’t be worried why women don’t become Masters. There is no need. If you can become disciples, that is natural and you will always remain true to nature.

Osho on Jesus Christ Training in Secret School Essenes

Osho : Jesus was trained in one of the oldest secret schools. The school was called Essenes. The teaching of the Essenes is pure Vedanta. That’s why Christians don’t have a record of what happened to Jesus before his thirtieth year. They have a little record of his childhood, and they have a record after his thirtieth year up to the thirty-third, when he was crucified – they know a few things. But a phenomenon like Jesus is not an accident; it is a long preparation, it cannot happen just any moment.

Jesus was continuously being prepared during these thirty years. He was first sent to Egypt and then he came to India. In Egypt he learned one of the oldest traditions of secret methods, then in India he came to know about the teachings of Buddha, the Vedas, the Upanishads, and he passed through a long preparation.

Those days are not known because Jesus worked in these schools as an unknown disciple. And Christians have knowingly dropped those records, because they would not like the son of God to also be a disciple of somebody else. They would not like the very idea that he was repared, taught, trained – that looks humiliating. They think the son of God comes absolutely ready. Nobody comes absolutely ready. If somebody is absolutely ready he cannot come.

In this world, you always enter as imperfect. Perfection simply disappears from this world. Perfection is not of this world, cannot be – it is against the very law. Once somebody is perfect, his whole life enters into a vertical dimension. This has to be understood: you progress on a horizontal plane, from A to B, from B to C and D, and so on up to Z; horizontal, in a line, from past to present, from present to future. This is the way of the imperfect soul, just like water flowing in a river from the hills and plains to the sea – in a line, horizontal, always maintaining its own level.

Perfection moves in vertical lines, not horizontally. From A it doesn’t go to B, from A it goes higher than A, then higher, still higher. On this line, for those who live on this line, perfection simply disappears. It is not there because they can look in the future or in the past.

They can look back, but the perfect man is not there; they can look ahead, but he is not there; they can look here, he is not there – because a new line of vertical progression has started. He is going higher and higher and higher. He moves in eternity, not in time.

Osho on Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Osho on Navadip

Osho : Krishna comes at the pinnacle of a rationalist, intellectual culture that had left no stones unturned. We had thought everything that could be thought. From the VEDAS and Upanishads we had traveled to vedant where knowledge ends. VEDAS itself means the end of knowledge. Giants like Patanjali, Kapil, Kanad, Brihaspati and Vyas had thought so much that a time came when we felt tired of thinking.

Then comes Krishna as the culmination, and he says, “Let us now live, we have done enough of thinking.”

In this context it is good to know that Chaitanya happened in Bengal exactly at a similar time. Bengal reached the zenith of dialectics and reasoning in the form of the navya nyaya, the new dialectics. Navadip, the town in which Chaitanya was born, was the greatest center of learning and logic. It was called the kashi of the logicians.

All logical learning of India found its apex in Navadip, and it became known as navya nyaya, which represents the Everest of dialectical reasoning. The West has yet to reach that peak. Western logic is old; it is not new. It does not go beyond Aristotle. Navadip took logic beyond Aristotle and carried it to its last frontier.

It was enough to say anywhere in the India of those days that such-and-such a scholar comes from Navadip – nobody dared enter into a debate with him. He was supposed to be invincible as a dialectician; nobody could think of defeating him in polemics. Students from all over India went to Navadip to learn logic.

Scholars of logic went there to debate with their counterparts, and if once someone won a debate he immediately became famous all over the country; he was acclaimed as the greatest pundit – the scholar laureate of India. Often enough it happened that someone who went to Navadip to debate got defeated at the hands of some scholar and became his disciple.

It was impossible to defeat Navadip; the whole town was full of logicians; every home was the home of a scholar. If someone defeated one scholar there was another round the comer ready to challenge him. The town was a beehive of scholars.

Chaitanya was born in Navadip, and was himself a towering scholar of logic. He was the top logician of the Navadip of his time, held in great respect by all. The same Chaitanya one day said goodbye to scholarship and went dancing and singing ecstatically through the streets of Navadip saying that everything is unthinkable.

When such a person says something it is bound to have tremendous significance. Chaitanya too represents the climactic point of a great tradition. After exploring and analyzing every nook and comer of thinking and intellectual understanding, after going to the very roots of words, concepts and their meanings, he renounces knowledge and returns to his basic ignorance and declares he is now going to sing and dance like a madman.

He said that he would not argue any more, not search truth through logic, he would simply live and live with abandon. Life begins where logic ends.

Osho on female Enlightened masters, few female masters?

Question : YOU, BUDDHA, JESUS, ETC. ARE ALL MEN. YOU SAY WOMEN ARE CLOSER TO NO-MIND. WHY DID YOU CHOOSE A MAN’S BODY? WHY ARE THERE NO WOMEN MASTERS?

Osho : It is from Deva Chandan – of course, a woman who belongs to the lib movement. It is significant. The question has to be understood. It has never been so in the past – that a woman was ever a great Master – and it will never be so in the future either. The reason is that the feminine mind, by its very nature, is not aggressive.

And to be a Master one has to be aggressive. It has nothing to do with the male-chauvinists. It has nothing to do with the male-oriented society. Your question is almost like this: Why is the man always the father and never the mother? Nothing can be done about it; it is natural. Only once has it happened:

let me tell you the anecdote.
A priest was in a hospital for an exploratory operation to determine the cause of the abdominal pains from which he had been suffering. In the hospital, at the same time, a young unwed girl came and gave birth to a baby boy which, she explained to the doctor, she did not wish to keep.

The quick-thinking physician approached the priests bed as he awoke after the operation and
explained to him that a miracle had occurred: God had given him a son. The priest, at first shocked, took the baby boy in his arms and bowed his head in prayer, thanking God for the miracle. What else to do?

Many years passed. The priest and boy were living together as father and son. The time came
for the boy to leave home to go to college. The night before his departure, the priest approached
the boy and chokingly said, ‘My son, I have a terrible confession to make to you.’ The puzzled boy looked up as the priest continued to speak. ‘I have always led you to believe that I am your father. Well, my son, it is not true. I am your mother. The bishop is your father.’

Only the male mind can be a Master. To be a Master means to be aggressive. A woman cannot
be aggressive. Woman, by her very nature, is receptive. A woman is a womb, so the woman can
become the best disciple possible. It is very difficult for a man to become a disciple, it is very simple for a woman to become a disciple.

The Master-disciple relationship is a man-woman relationship. You may not have looked at it that way, but try to look at it that way. The disciple is receptive, the disciple is a womb. That’s why it is very difficult for males to become disciples – some reluctance, some resistance, some fight, some ego continues. it is very difficult for a man to become a disciple.

The greatest disciples have always been women: Mary Magdalene was the greatest disciple Jesus had. But she could not become an apostle, she could not become a Master. Yes, Buddha was also surrounded by beautiful, tremendously capable women. Mahavira was surrounded: Mahavira had forty thousand sannyasins – thirty thousand women, ten thousand men. The proportion has always been so.

Four disciples come – three are women, one is a man. And that one man is not very reliable: he may have come for the women, he may not have come for the Master. That danger always exists. But the greatest Masters have always been men. Now this is a paradox, but this is how it is – because a Master has to go out in a thousand and one ways, to work on you.

A Master has to move out – to help you, to hold your hand, to protect you, to shock you, to drag you into the unknown, to push you. He has to do a thousand and one things which are aggressive; that’s why. It has nothing to do with the male-oriented society. Even in the future, when all equality has been established absolutely, man will be the father, and woman will be the mother. And miracles don’t happen.

Osho on Ramakrishna Cancer and Ramakrishna Devotion

Osho on Ramakrishna Cancer and Ramakrishna Devotion

Osho : I am reminded of a case: Ramakrishna had a cancer of the throat. In the last stage it became impossible even to drink water. All his disciples said, ”Why don’t you ask in your prayers to God to remove this cancer? We know that if you ask, your prayer will be heard. And if your prayer cannot be heard, then all prayers are false.”

Ramakrishna was such a man that if his prayer is not heard, it can only mean there is no God, or God is deaf. If Ramakrishna’s prayer is not answered, then nobody else in the whole world should hope that his prayer will be answered. So they insisted again and again, but Ramakrishna said, ”It does not look right. I close my eyes because you insist. But I cannot ask anything from existence. Perhaps cancer is right; otherwise why should it be given to me? I cannot be wiser than existence.”

The disciples in despair asked Ramakrishna’s wife, Sharada, ”Unless you tell him, he will not listen to anyone. And you have to be absolutely insistent.”

Sharada told Ramakrishna. He said, ”I knew that my disciples would bring you, and I cannot refuse you because I have never refused. And you have never asked anything; this is the first time in your whole life you are asking for something, and in these last moments how can I refuse you? I will try.”

He closed his eyes and after a few seconds he opened them and started laughing.
Sharada said, ”What happened? Did you ask?”

He said, ”I asked. But the answer came: ‘Why do you insist on your own throat? Drink from all the throats of your disciples. Why insist on being identified with your own body? Why not merge into all your lovers?’ That’s why I started laughing because I knew this would be the answer. You unnecessarily made me look stupid before existence.”

If the disciple loves the master, if there is trust, and trust founded on experience, he will carry
spontaneously the master’s message. There is no need to say anything, he will be his master’s
message.

Osho on Kabir Initation, Kabir and Ramananda

Osho on kabir Initation, Kabir and Ramananda

Osho : Kabir is saying: Where can I find a Master who can become a bridge between me and you, whom I can tell, and trust that the message will be delivered to you, who can answer on my behalf? Where can I find a Master?

The story of Kabir is of tremendous beauty. It is said that he was born into a Mohammedan family. Nothing is absolutely certain, but he was abandoned by the parents and he was brought up by a Hindu family. But the suspicion was there always that he was born a Mohammedan, brought up by a Hindu.

He had knocked on many so-called gurus’ doors and they would not accept him because he was a Mohammedan, or even if he was not, at least his birth was suspicious, uncertain. He must have been an illegal child, maybe – why was he abandoned? The parents had simply thrown the child on the bank of the river.

Somebody found him and brought him up. Nobody would accept him. His name also shows that he was a Mohammedan; Kabir is one of the names of God given by the Sufis. Sufis have a hundred names for God – ninety-nine can verbally be communicated, the hundredth cannot be communicated verbally; that is understood only in deep silence between the Master and
the disciple.

Out of those ninety-nine names, one is Kabir. Kabir literally means ’the great, the vast, the infinite’. Kabir is not a Hindu name, certainly. His name was Mohammedan, his birth suspicious – who would accept him? And the so-called Masters were afraid; he was rejected.

Then he played a trick. He wanted to become a disciple of the great Ramananda, a very famous Master, but he was afraid to go to him – maybe he would not accept him, just as others had not accepted him. And once he had rejected, then it would be very difficult to make his no into a yes, so he played a trick.

Ramananda used to go to the Ganges in Varanasi to take his morning bath, early, when it was dark and the sun had not risen yet. Kabir went there, slept on a step where he knew Ramananda would pass. It was dark and Ramananda’s feet touched Kabir – Kabir clung to the feet. Ramananda said, ”Hey Ram! My God! Who are you, and what are you doing here?”

Kabir said, ”Forget all about it. But you have given me the mantra ’Hey Ram’. You have initiated me, now I am your disciple.”

This is how he got initiated into disciplehood. It was only later on, when the sun rose, that Ramananda became aware that it was Kabir. Everybody knew about him, that he was knocking on every door asking to be initiated. Ordinarily it is the Masters who create devices to initiate the disciples, but in Kabir’s case it was Kabir the disciple who created a device to be initiated by the Master.

Now Ramananda could not go back on his word. He said, ”That’s true, this is your mantra –
hey Ram, oh God – and you are my disciple.”
He says: It is very difficult to find a Master.

More Osho Discourses

  1. Osho on Lord Krishna
  2. Osho on Mystic Kabir
  3. Osho discourse on Truth
  4. Osho darshan Diary discourse
  5. Osho discourse on Selfish Pride
  6. Osho on Greed, Desire and Needs
  7. Osho on Lao Tzu and Yoga Sutras
  8. Osho Sufi Story on Fakir and a Pandit
  9. Osho on Living in this moment and time
  10. Osho discourse on Patanjali Yoga Sutras
  11. Osho discourse on Life. Life has no security
  12. Osho discourse on heat yoga and Bhrama Yogi
  13. Osho discourse on Loving Oneself and Growth
  14. Osho on kabir Initation, Kabir and Ramananda
  15. Osho Sannyas, Osho discourse on Neo Sannyas
  16. Osho discourse on real knowledge and knowing
  17. Osho on Adolf Hitler and Self-consciousness
  18. Osho Story on Hassid Master Sosya – Be yourself
  19. Osho on Conscious action and Conscious Loving
  20. Osho on inferiority complex, superiority complex.
  21. Osho discourse on Meditating and watching – Meditate
  22. Osho on Memorizing the Scriptures and Real Knowledge
  23. Osho : God is overflowing energy God is Sat Chit Ananda
  24. Osho on Yoga Sutra, Alonesness and Universal Oneness
  25. Osho on Tirthankara, Jiddu Krishnamurti becoming Tirthankara
  26. Osho on various Samadhi’s, Atma, Bhrama and Nirvana Samadhi’s

Osho on Krishna, Lord Krishna

Osho on Krishna

Osho : Krishna is utterly incomparable, he is so unique. Firstly, his uniqueness lies in the fact that although Krishna happened in the ancient past he belongs to the future, is really of the future. Man has yet to grow to that height where he can be a contemporary of Krishna’s. He is still beyond man’s understanding; he continues to puzzle and battle us. Only in some future time will we be able to understand him and appreciate his virtues. And there are good reasons for it.

The most important reason is that Krishna is the sole great man in our whole history who reached the absolute height and depth of religion, and yet he is not at all serious and sad, not in tears. By and large, the chief characteristic of a religious person has been that he is somber, serious and sad-looking – like one vanquished in the battle of life, like a renegade from life. In the long line of such sages it is Krishna alone who comes dancing, singing and laughing.

Religions of the past were all life-denying and masochistic, extolling sorrow and suffering as great virtues. If you set aside Krishna’s vision of religion, then every religion of the past presented a sad and sorrowful face. A laughing religion, a religion that accepts life in its totality is yet to be born.

And it is good that the old religions are dead, along with them, that the old God, the God of our old concepts is dead too It is said of Jesus that he never laughed. It was perhaps his sad look and the picture of his physical form on the cross that became the focal point of at traction for people, most of whom are themselves unhappy and miserable. In a deep sense Mahavira and Buddha are against life too.

They are in favor of some other life in some other world; they support a kind of liberation from this life. Every religion, up to now, has divided life into two parts, and while they accept one part they deny the other, Krishna alone accepts the whole of life. Acceptance of life in its totality has attained full fruition in Krishna.

That is why India held him to be a perfect incarnation of God, while all other incarnations
were assessed as imperfect and incomplete. Even Rama is described as an incomplete incarnation of God. But Krishna is the whole of God. And there is a reason for saying so. The reason is that Krishna has accepted and absorbed everything that life is.

Albert Schweitzer made a significant remark in criticism of the Indian religion. He said that the religion of this country is life negative. This remark is correct to a large extent, if Krishna is left out. But it is utterly wrong in the context of Krishna. If Schweitzer had tried to understand Krishna he would never have said so.

But it was unfortunate that we did not allow Krishna to influence our life in a broad way. He remains a lonely dancing island in the vast ocean of sorrow and misery that is our life. Or, we can say he is a small oasis of joyous dancing and celebration in the huge desert of sadness and negativity, of suppression and condemnation that we really are. Krishna could not influence the whole spectrum of our life, and for this we are alone to blame.

Krishna is not in the least responsible for it. We were not that worthy, that deserving, to have him, to imbibe him, to absorb him. Up to now, man’s mind has thought of and looked at life in fragments – and thought dialectically. The religious man denies the body and accepts the soul. And what is worse, he creates a conflict, a dichotomy between the body and spirit.

He denies this world, he accepts the other world, and thus creates a state of hostility between the two. Naturally our life is going to be sad and miserable if we deny the body, because all our life’s juice – its health and vitality, its sensitivities and beauty, all its music – has its source in the body. So a religion that denies and denounces the body is bound to be anemic and ill, it has to be lackluster.

Such a religion is going to be as pale and lifeless as a dry leaf fallen from a tree. And the people who follow such a religion, who allow themselves to be influenced and conditioned by it, will be as anemic and prone to death as these leaves are. Krishna alone accepts the body in its totality. And he accepts it not in any selected dimension but in all its dimensions. Apart from Krishna, Zarathustra is another. About him it is said he was born laughing.

Every child enters this world crying. Only one child in all of history laughed at the time of his birth, and that was Zarathustra. And this is an index – an index of the fact that a happy and
laughing humanity is yet to be born. And only a joyful and laughing humanity can accept Krishna. Krishna has a great future. After Freud the world of religion is not going to be the same as it was before him.

Freud stands as a watershed between the religions of the past and the religion of the future. With Freud a great revolution has taken place and man’s consciousness has achieved a breakthrough. We shall never be the same again after Freud. A new peak of consciousness has been touched and a new understanding, an altogether new perspective, a new vision of life has come into being. And it is essential to understand it rightly.

The old religions taught suppression as the way to God. Man was asked to suppress every thing – his sex, his anger, his greed, his attachments – and then alone would he find his soul, would he attain to God. This war of man against himself has continued long enough. And in the history of thousands of years of this war, barely a handful of people, whose names can be counted on one’s fingers, can be said to have found God.

So in a sense we lost this war, because down the centuries billions of people died without finding their souls, without meeting God. Undoubtedly there must be some basic flaw, some fundamental mistake in the very foundation of these religions. It is as if a gardener has planted fifty thousand trees and out of them only one tree flowers – and yet we accept his scripture on gardening on the plea that at least one tree has blossomed.

But we fail to take into consideration that this single tree might have been an exception to the rule, that it might have blossomed not because of the gardener, but in spite of him. The rest of the fifty thousand trees, those that remained stunted and barren, are enough proof the gardener was not worth his salt.

If a Buddha, a Mahavira or a Christ attains to God in spite of these fragmentary and conflict-ridden religions, it is no testimony to the success of these religions as such. The success of religion, or let us say the success of the gardener, should be acclaimed only when all fifty thousand trees of his garden, with the exception of one or two, achieve flowering. Then the blame could be laid at the foot of the one tree for its failure to bloom.

Then it could be said that this tree remained stunted and barren in spite of the gardener. With Freud a new kind of awareness has dawned on man: that suppression is wrong, that
suppression brings with it nothing but self-pity and anguish. If a man fights with himself he can only ruin and destroy himself. If I make my left hand fight with my right hand, neither is going to win, but in the end the contest will certainly destroy me.

While my two hands fight with themselves, I and I alone will be destroyed in the process. That is how, through denial and suppression of his natural instincts and emotions, man became suicidal and killed himself. Krishna alone seems to be relevant to the new awareness, to the new understanding that came to man in the wake of Freud and his findings. It is so because in the whole history of the old humanity Krishna alone is against repression.

He accepts life in all its facets, in all
its climates and colors.
He alone does not choose he accepts life unconditionally. He does not shun love; being a man he does not run away from women. As one who has known and experienced God, he alone does not turn his face from war. He is full of love and compassion, and yet he has the courage to accept and fight a war.

His heart is utterly non violent, yet he plunges into the fire and fury of violence when it becomes unavoidable. He accepts the nectar, and yet he is not afraid of poison. In fact, one who knows the deathless should be free of the fear of death. And of what worth is that nectar which is afraid of death?

One who knows the secret of non-violence should cease to fear violence. What kind of non-violence is it that is scared of violence? And how can the spirit, the soul, fear the body and run away from it? And what is the meaning of God if he cannot take the whole of this world in his embrace?

More Osho Discourses

  1. Osho on Lord Krishna
  2. Osho on Mystic Kabir
  3. Osho discourse on Truth
  4. Osho darshan Diary discourse
  5. Osho discourse on Selfish Pride
  6. Osho on Greed, Desire and Needs
  7. Osho on Lao Tzu and Yoga Sutras
  8. Osho Sufi Story on Fakir and a Pandit
  9. Osho on Living in this moment and time
  10. Osho discourse on Patanjali Yoga Sutras
  11. Osho discourse on Life. Life has no security
  12. Osho discourse on heat yoga and Bhrama Yogi
  13. Osho discourse on Loving Oneself and Growth
  14. Osho on kabir Initation, Kabir and Ramananda
  15. Osho Sannyas, Osho discourse on Neo Sannyas
  16. Osho discourse on real knowledge and knowing
  17. Osho on Adolf Hitler and Self-consciousness
  18. Osho Story on Hassid Master Sosya – Be yourself
  19. Osho on Conscious action and Conscious Loving
  20. Osho on inferiority complex, superiority complex.
  21. Osho discourse on Meditating and watching – Meditate
  22. Osho on Memorizing the Scriptures and Real Knowledge
  23. Osho : God is overflowing energy God is Sat Chit Ananda
  24. Osho on Yoga Sutra, Alonesness and Universal Oneness
  25. Osho on Tirthankara, Jiddu Krishnamurti becoming Tirthankara
  26. Osho on various Samadhi’s, Atma, Bhrama and Nirvana Samadhi’s

Osho discourse on Diogenes, Greek Mystic Diogenes

Osho discourse on Diogenes

Osho : Why do you want to hide your body from others? What is wrong with it? Society, civilization, culture, they have conditioned your minds to believe that something is wrong with the body. You feel guilty if you are caught naked. And laws exist and courts to force you not to be naked. And the whole of nature is naked. And it is so beautiful!

Only man has gone ugly somewhere. Some day, when man becomes more aware, man will be less and less attached to clothes. They may be used as utilities: the weather is cold – of course, you have to cover your body; but when the weather is pleasant and one can be like a simple, innocent animal, one has to be.

Completely hidden under clothes, your bodies have left the sensitivity to feel. To feel the touch of the rays of the sun, and to enjoy it, you have completely forgotten the language. To feel the wind on your naked body, as trees feel, and dance, you have completely forgotten. Only your face has been left, only your head. Otherwise, your whole body has been numbed.

Diogenes lived naked, but his nakedness was very, very beautiful – because it was innocent. You can live naked as a perversion also. Then it will not be beautiful. Then you may be an exhibitionist – something has gone wrong in your psychological world. Diogenes lived naked like animals.

And Alexander, it is said, felt jealous. He was robed in the costliest costumes possible and he felt jealous, it is said, seeing Diogenes naked. So beautiful! – envious. He asked, ‘How can I also be like you? – so innocent, so beautiful.’

Diogenes said, ‘There is no how to it.’ And he was lying down on a bank of a river in the sand. It was morning and the sun was rising, and he must have been enjoying the poetry that comes through the sands to the naked body, the subtle messages, the warm sun falling on him. Diogenes said, ‘There is no need to ask for any how. This bank is big enough for both of us. You throw your clothes and lie down with me!’

There is no how to ask. Why ask how? How is a trick of the mind to postpone. If you ask how, then you are asking how to postpone – because you are saying there must be something to be practiced. And practice will take time. And, of course, you cannot practice right now. Tomorrow comes in. And once the tomorrow comes in, then you are done.

Said Diogenes, ‘There is no question of how! You just lie down and rest! And this bank is enough for both of us.’

Alexander said, ‘Some day, I always dream that some day there will be a possibility – when I have conquered the whole world.I am waiting for that day, then I will also relax and rest.’
Diogenes laughed and said, ‘Then you are foolish, because Diogenes can rest and relax without conquering the whole world. So why should you make it a condition that when you have conquered the whole world, then you will rest and relax?

And I tell you: then it is not going to happen ever, because the mind will ask for more and more. And when you have conquered this world, then the mind will ask, ”Is there any other world?”’

And it is reported that when Diogenes said this, that there is no other world but the mind will ask, ‘Is there any other world?’

suddenly Alexander felt sad. The sadness came immediately to him, knowing that there is no other world. Once you have conquered this world, then what will you do?

There is no other world to conquer. The mind will feel very much frustrated. The mind goes on for more and more and more. It doesn’t bother what you have: you may be a beggar – it asks for more; you may be an emperor – it asks for more. The nature of the mind is to
ask for more. It is not relevant what you have.

It is the very nature of the mind just to go on asking for more. A rich man goes on asking for more, and remains poor. He goes on desiring for more, and remains poor. It is difficult to find a really rich man.

More Osho Discourses

  1. Osho discourse on Nirvana
  2. Osho discourse on Diogenes
  3. Osho on Sufism, Sufis Vision
  4. Osho on Teacher and a Master
  5. Osho discourse on Kabir death
  6. Osho on Ramakrishna Mission
  7. Osho on Centering, inner center
  8. Osho on first step for a Meditator
  9. Osho discourse on Jesus miracles
  10. Osho on Kundalini, Kundalini Yoga
  11. Osho on Mary Magdalene and Judas
  12. Osho on Satori, Preparation for Satori
  13. Osho on Jesus Christ and Christianity
  14. Osho on Sufi mystic, Sheikh Farid Story
  15. Osho on Will Meditation lead to Samadhi?

  16. Osho on How to know that Sannyas is Good
  17. Osho on overcoming sex and raising Kundalini
  18. Osho on increase in sex with raising Kundalini
  19. Osho on Satori, Satori is a glimpse of samadhi
  20. Osho on Death Meditation, Dying Consciously
  21. Osho Entering Sleep Consciously Meditation
  22. Osho on Intution, Intution is Irrational
  23. Osho on Gurus work, what a Guru can Do
  24. Osho on Sage Ashtavakra and Yagnavalkya
  25. Osho on Sannyas, Sannyas is not Negative

  26. Osho discourse on Harmony with existence
  27. Osho teachings on Sex and Sex outside Marriage
  28. Osho on Generosity, Generosity is real richness
  29. Osho’s Message, Osho Teachings Osho Philosophy
  30. Osho on Ramakrishna exploitation of Vivekananda
  31. Wordless communication with Existence Meditation
  32. Osho on Samadhi, Partial Samadhi of Vivekananda
  33. Osho on Psychic Exploitation of Gurus and Shaktipat
  34. Osho on Grace, recipient of Grace and Moment of Death
  35. Osho on Badarayana’s statement, ”athato brahma jigyasa”
  36. Osho on Stages of Enlightenment, Christhood or Buddhahood
Next Page »