|
|
Osho on Swami Vivekananda
Question - But Ramakrishna Mission.... Ramakrishna and Swami
Vivekananda...
Osho : Just wait a minute. Don't use those two names together, because
to me those are totally different names, of different qualities of man.
First, Ramakrishna mission: Ramakrishna mission is not created by
Ramakrishna; it is Vivekananda's creation. So one thing, it does not
come out of an enlightened mind.
Vivekanand is a very clever politician. If he is speaking amongst
Christians, he will praise Christ. He has not the guts to criticize on
any point. I cannot do that. If I see that something is wrong, I have to
say it. If there is something good, I praise it, but I keep the right to
criticize also. If he is speaking amongst Buddhists, he will not speak
anything against Buddha or Buddhist scriptures. He created Ramakrishna
mission as a synthesis of all religions.
Now, for me the very idea of synthesis of all religions is like
synthesis of all lies, which will be far bigger a lie. There is no need
of so many religions -- all that is needed is a certain quality of
religiousness, which is neither Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. When
you are truthful you are religious; when you are loving you are
religious; you are respectful of life, you are religious.
That does not mean you are Hindu, does not mean you are a Buddhist. I
want the whole world to be religious, but not a synthesis of
Christianity and Judaism and Mohammedanism and Hinduism -- and what kind
of synthesis that will be? If you just conceive the idea, it will be
such a hodgepodge.
Mohammed says four wives are allowed: Now how you are going to
synthesize with those who think that only one wife is religious, more
than that is sin. So the synthesis will be two wives! Neither the
Mohammedan will be... agree to it nor the non-Mohammedan is going to
agree. Mohammed himself married nine women, naturally -- he is no
ordinary man. Ordinary men are marrying four; an extraordinary man, a
prophet of God has to marry nine.
How you are going to synthesize? Jainas think unless you are naked and
live naked without any possessions you cannot be enlightened. Now,
according to Jainas even Gautam Buddha is not enlightened, because he
uses clothes. How you are going to synthesize these people?
If you ask Jainas and Buddhas and Hindus that Jesus Christ crucifixion
is for the salvation of humanity, that it is the greatest sacrifice God
has given, His own son, to save humanity -- all the three will laugh.
They will say that "This is stupid! God who is omnipotent can create the
whole world, He can change it any moment -- without any sacrifice,
without any crucifixion, without all this drama."
Secondly, they cannot accept Jesus as enlightened, because he is being
crucified. According to Hindus, Jainas and Buddhists -- all the
religions born in India -- anybody who is enlightened cannot be
crucified. Existence is not so unkind.
Of course, in India it has never happened. I am not saying they are
right; only I am saying how you are going to compromise all these
people? It will be a bazaar, and everybody disagreeing on every point.
Mohammedans say God created animals for man to eat -- no question of
argument, because it is written in the book of God and the book of God
cannot be questioned.
One of the jailers in America, very educated man, came to give me a
BIBLE seeing that I am just sitting the whole day with closed eyes,
doing nothing -- good chance to convert a man. So he gave me a BIBLE. He
said, "This is the book of God."
I said, "If it is a book of God, then certainly I will keep it with
respectfully, but how did you come to know? When God told you?"
He said, "No, God has not told me, it is written in the book."
I said, "You are educated, intelligent... I can write a book and can
write it: `These are the words of God.' Will you believe that book, that
it is words of God?"
He said, "No."
"But then why you can believe Jesus' words? What is the difference in my
words and Jesus' words to you? And if this is the book of God, then what
about KORAN? -- the same claim.... What about VEDAS, the same claim;
what about GITA, the same claim.
So Ramakrishna mission is a political movement, trying to be nice to
everyone. So everybody is right, everybody is good. And don't bring any
controversial things in -- just compare those things which can be
compared without any controversy. That's why they are not opposed.
My situation is just the opposite: I don't believe that any of the
organized religions is worth saving. They are too old, too rotten, and
too dirty. And as time has passed they have become more and more
stinking. A totally new religious consciousness is needed in the world,
which will not be under any label -- Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian.
And that's my effort. My people are not Hindu, Mohammedan, Christian,
Jew... they are just people, human beings. Naturally, every religion is
against me because I have taken their Jews, I have taken their Hindus, I
have taken their Mohammedans and I am dangerous to every religion.
Strange fact: They don't agree on any point; they agree only on one
point, and that is me. They agree on me, that I am wrong -- about
anything else they don't agree. And nobody is ready to argue with me. I
have been challenging them openly, "Come, face to face. And I am not
calling you to my people; I will come to your congregation. And I am
ready to argue with you on point by point, how you are false and how you
are creating a bogus kind of religiousness" -- which does not help
anybody. On the contrary, it creates only wars and bloodshed.
For five thousand years how many wars they have fought, jihad, religious
wars.... And they have been killing each other, and doing nothing. So my
position is different from Ramakrishna mission. And my position is also
different about Ramakrishna and Vivekananda. Ramakrishna is an
enlightened being, but uneducated, inarticulate -- very simple, a
villager. He could not create a religion; he experienced it, but he
could not express it.
This is one of the troubles -- there are people who can express things
which they have not experienced and there are people who have
experienced things but they cannot express. It is not necessarily that
you see the sunset and you may be able to paint it the way Picasso
paints it. And it is possible Picasso may paint it without seeing it,
and you have seen it but you cannot paint it -- those are two different
qualities. And that has created a problem.
Ramakrishna knew; Vivekananda had no experience of his own, but he
became the leader of the movement. So one blind man who is articulate
became the leader of other blind people. Ramakrishna is left completely
out. Only his name is there; neither his experience nor his methods of
experience.
I have met many Ramakrishna Mission people; they don't understand
Ramakrishna at all. All that they know is what Vivekananda has said.
Ramakrishna never wrote a single book, never gave sermons -- just
sitting, talking in a ordinary way.
Source - Osho Book "The Last Testament, Vol4"
Osho discourse on :
Alice Bailey,
Confucius,
Dalai Lama,
Swami Ramtirth,
Vishnu Devananda & Ram dass,
Yogananda
^Top
Back to Psychic World |
|
