Question - Lao Tzu Stresses inaction, Whereas

How do these two theories compare and contrast?

Krishna

lays stress on action.

Osho - These two theories are the two ends. Lao Tzu does not tell us to give up action.
He tells us to act but act as if not acting. Do your actions as if you are not doing them.
Rather, they are happening. Everything is happening the breath comes and goes. You
do not take the breath, you do not release the breath it happens on its own. Life also
is like that. You establish yourself in inaction and let all actions take place as they will.
Krishna says the same thing, but from the other end. He says, Do not run away from
action. Do your duty but do not become the doer. Let go of the feeling that you are the
doer. God is the doer.
In Lao Tzus system, there is no place for God because he says that even this suggestion
gives rise to duality. He says: By saying even this, that God is the doer, we plant our
ego on God. Besides, it suggests some doer, even if it is God and not us. According to
Lao Tzu, there is no doer. Actions take place on their own. This is a little difficult to
understand. It is easy for us to accept God as the doer. If not us, God is the doer. Our
logic remains intact.
But Lao Tzu says: Why do you want to involve Him in this business of being the doer,
when you yourself are not prepared to be the doer? There is no doer; there are only
happenings. The wind blows, the leaves rustle, the waves of the oceans rise and fall.
The world is a collection of the happenings, there is no doer. When this comes within
your understanding, then you let things happen. You are neither the doer nor the nondoer. Then you let things happen as they will and you merely watch them happening.
Then you reach the state that Krishna speaks of.
Krishna said to Arjuna, Leave all this. Perhaps Arjuna was not as worthy a disciple of
Krishna as Lao Tzus disciples. Therefore Krishna had to say, Leave everything to
God. It is He who does everything. Do not interfere in His work. Take yourself only as
a means that He employs in order to carry out a particular task.

Remember, if Lao Tzu were in Krishnas place he would never have given Arjuna such
a long sermon. Lao Tzu, in the first place, would not have spoken at all. If Arjuna could
read his silence, well and good.
Lieh Tzu says: I have heard of teachers who teach with the help of words. And, there
are

teachers

who

teach

without

the

medium

of

words.

Lieh Tzu stayed with Lao Tzu for twelve long years. Never did he ask Lao Tzu a single
question nor did he receive a single answer. Lieh Tzu would sit in a corner and listen to
Lao Tzu when he answered the questions of others. Years later, Lao Tzu himself asked
him

one

day,

Have

you

nothing

to

ask?

Lieh Tzu said, If I have your permission I will ask.

Why

did

you

remain

silent

all

these

years?

Lao

Tzu

asked

him.

Lieh Tzu replied. I have gained so much understanding sitting silently with you that I
did

not

want

to

cause

disturbance

with

words.

To this, Lao Tzu said, It is, therefore, that I say that you are now eligible to ask. He
who finds speech an obstruction is freed from the illness of speaking. Now we can
converse because words will cause no hindrance. He who discovers the bliss of silence
cannot be hindered by words. Now, we can safely exchange our views.
But the disciple who stands before Krishna is a different type altogether. The situation
as well as the times are different. It is a time of battle. You could not afford to be silent
for twelve years. The situation is very different. Besides, if Lao Tzu were to tell Arjuna,
There is no doer. Things happen,
Arjuna would have run away. When there is no doer, there is no deserter. He would
have run away although that would have been wrong on his part because in running
away, he would have been the deserter. He would then have been deceiving his own
self. We all are capable of deceiving ourselves; we are great adepts at this art. We are
very clever at deceiving ourselves. We will run away and then philosophise, It is
happening. I am not the doer. I am only the witness.

If a man in the same mental state as Arjuna runs away, he is responsible for his actions.
In fact, it is the sense of doer-ship that makes him think that he would be committing a
sin by killing his near and dear ones. Therefore, he should run away. Krishna stops him
from running away and explains to him that this feeling that I am doing is wrong. If
Arjuna had reached the stage where his ego had dropped, and then, if he had laid
down his bow and arrow and walked away, Krishna would have been the last person to
stop him. But then, that going would have been of different kind altogether.
Talking of Arjuna, I am reminded of a follower of Lao Tzu by the name of Rong Kong
Uneji. He was a very great marks-man. He used to say, Pull the arrow but do not let
the muscles of the arm move, because if the muscle so much as twitches, you become
the doer. Then it is you who has shot the arrow.
Now this was a very difficult thing. The king heard about him. He called for him
because he was curious to see this man. We can believe that a man, while pulling the
arrow, may have the feeling of being only a medium and not the doer. He may have the
attitude of being a witness to the happening but it is virtually impossible for him to
shoot the arrow without using his muscles.
Uneji came to the court and placed his bow on the ground. It is said that no one but he
could lift his bow; it was so heavy. He lifted the bow. The king himself inspected the
muscles of his arms. He found them soft and supple like a childs. The king was
surprised. Uneji said, Now your majesty will believe me when I say the arrow is not
shot; it shoots by itself.
If Arjuna came to this stage where he could say, It is not I who am going; this going is
taking place, then Krishna would never have stopped him. But Arjuna was not in this
state. Arjuna was not fit to be a disciple of Lao Tzu. He belonged to the class of
warriors, an outright masculine type; whereas all the teachings of Lao Tzu are for the
feminine mind.
Arjuna is a symbol of masculinity. He was as a man should be. That is why, even
Krishna, in order to bring his masculinity out to the fore, says, You talk like an
impotent man! He shakes the man in him to the very bones. He tells him that people

will call him a coward and he will go down in history as a warrior whose courage
failed him in battle. Krishna tried to bring out the pride of the warrior in him so that he
would pick up his bow and prepare for battle.
The teachings of Lao Tzu are essentially for a feminine mind. Therefore, his disciples
are bound to be basically different. Whether feminine or masculine, the result is the
same. One may drown ones ego in the service of God and not consider oneself to be
the doer; or, like Lao Tzu, follow the path of non-action, where things happen by
themselves and the sadhaka says he is not the doer.
Lao Tzu does not even ask his followers to act. Why should he? If things are
happening, they are happening. If they are not, they are not. If they stop happening,
they stop happening. You are no one to interfere or come in between. This, however,
does not mean that the follower of Lao Tzu runs away from action. Nor does it mean
that the followers of Krishna are always involved in actions.
Those who followed Lao Tzu have also fought wars. Uneji, about whom I spoke, was a
warrior. He was well-versed in archery. We know of the so-called sannyasins of our
country who run away from the world with the Gita in their hands, and yet maintain
that the Gita is their very life.
What is one to do? What you should do is neither in the hands of Lao Tzu nor in the
hands of Krishna. It is entirely in your hands. It has always been so. Actually, the
teacher cannot do anything without your cooperation. And, the teacher can go only
that far with you as you are prepared to go. Lao Tzu and Krishna have given the same
message, but from very opposite points. One is a message for the male mind, and the
other is a message for the female mind.
Source - Osho Book "The Way of Tao, Volume 2"
Osho - Jesus is not a Meditator -- How can he become Enlightened?
Question - Beloved Master, Once you said Jesus was fully Enlightened. Recently, I
heard you say Jesus was not enlightened. You tell us that you always say the truth.
How can truth change so fast?

Osho - Truth never changes, but statements about truth can change. When we start
teaching a child, his book is full of big pictures and very little written matter. If he is
learning the alphabet, then every letter stands for something. "M" stands for mango.
The child can understand the mango, not the "M," and he can see the mango -- a
colorful, beautiful picture. But slowly slowly the mango will be dropped. Now when
you read, have you to repeat every time, "M stands for mango"? You have completely
forgotten what stands for what. Now you can read the alphabet directly.
Yes, I had said to you, "Jesus is enlightened." It was "M stands for mango," because you
were not in a state to understand that Jesus is not enlightened. To say to you something
which you cannot comprehend is meaningless. For centuries you have become
accustomed to believe that Jesus is the only begotten son of God: he is light, he is love,
he is life, he is the savior -- twenty centuries of conditioning.
Now you can understand my problem. I have to start with conditioned people,
programmed people. Their conditioning is thick; I have to go with them so that they
can go with me!
So I had been going with all kinds of people: Hindus -- and I have spoken twelve
volumes on Krishna; Jainas -- and I have spoken many volumes on Mahavira;
Buddhists -- and I have spoken more on Buddha than anybody else; Christians.... And
even bishops and cardinals have written letters to me, "It is surprising -- you are not a
Christian, and in two thousand years nobody has shown such insight into the
meanings of the statements of Jesus Christ."
And I had a belly laugh. Those statements are third-rate -- not only third rate, but
wrong too; the meaning that I had given to them was mine. But that was the only way
that a Christian could become available to me, a Buddhist could become available to
me.

Now I have found my people, I need not say, "M stands for mango." Now I can say to
you exactly what is in my heart, and I know you will be able to understand. I have
walked so long with you, can't you walk a few steps with me? I have suffered so much,
managing your conditionings, giving them meaning. Now I want you to listen to the
naked
truth.
Jesus was not enlightened.
Truth never changes, but statements have to change because the statement depends on
the audience. I am not talking to the walls; if I were there would be no need to change
the statement. I am talking to people who are conditioned and programmed. It is a
very skillful work to uncondition them, to deprogram them, to create a trust, a
friendship, a love stronger than your conditioning -- so that if a moment comes that
you have to choose between your conditioning and the love, you will choose love.
Now I have people who are ready to listen to the truth without any Jesus, any Krishna,
any Buddha. I can now talk directly to you. These three and a half years of silence were
simply a device to give a gap so that you could forget all that I have said before, and I
could start afresh.

Jesus is not enlightened. In fact, in the Western world enlightenment has been very
rare. People have not worked for enlightenment, people have remained part of
organized religion. And enlightenment needs a rebellious spirit so that you come out
of all organized religions; you drop everything that has been taught to you, and you
start looking within yourself for the truth of your being.
Jesus is not a meditator -- how can he become enlightened? He has not even taken the
first step. He prays -- and there is a tremendous difference between prayer and
meditation.
Prayer is directed towards a mythological God, a fiction. Prayer is always directed
outward. Meditation is an inward journey, not to some fiction but to your own reality.
Enlightenment happens to those who come to realize their being.
Jesus is still praying to a God, thinking still that he is the only begotten son of God -that proves him just to be a crackpot -- thinking that after crucifixion God will raise
him again, more luminous, glorious. But on the cross nothing happens. He is thirsty
and he asks for water, and God cannot even give him a bottle of Coke. Frustrated, he
shouts towards the sky, "Father, have you forsaken me?" The very word "father" shows
that he is still a helpless child, he is not a mature person. He still needs a father figure,
and is afraid perhaps the father has forsaken him. But now it is too late -- he is
crucified.
Jesus thinks that he is the savior. No enlightened person has ever said that he can save
anybody; he can only share his experience. Then to save yourself or not is your
business. See the subtlety of the point: if somebody can save you, then even your being
saved is not your freedom, it is dependent. What kind of saving is it?
Not a single enlightened man -- Bodhidharma, Chuang Tzu, Basho, Nagarjuna -- has
ever said that he is a savior. All that he can say is, "I am saved, and I have an experience
which you don't have. If you are ready to share it with me, I can open my whole heart
to you." And then it is your decision to be saved or not saved.
I was sitting in Allahabad on the bank of the Ganges, alone. A man jumped into the
river -- and the Ganges at Allahabad is very deep, vast. I thought that he was just
taking a bath, but after jumping he started shouting, "Save me!" He was going down
and up, and whenever he came up, he would shout, "Save me!"

Seeing no other way -- and there was nobody else -- I jumped into the water and pulled
the man out. He was a heavier man, it was difficult to get him out. And he was very
angry when he got out. He said to me, "Why did you save me?"
I said, "My God! You were calling, and I am alone here. I have unnecessarily destroyed
my clothes; now with wet clothes I have to go three miles to the place where I am
staying. And if you didn't want to be saved, why were you calling?"
He
said,
"I
want
to
commit
suicide."
I said, "That's perfectly okay. If you want to commit suicide, who am I to prevent you?
Then
why
were
you
calling
'Save
me'?"
He said, "Just natural instinct -- when I started drowning, I forgot all about suicide."
I
pushed
the
man
back
into
the
river.
He
said,
"What
are
you
doing!"
I said, "I am simply undoing what I have done. Now I will not be deceived by what you
say."
And
he
was
drowning
and
again
shouting,
"Save
me!"
I
said,
"Nothing
doing."
Nobody can save someone who does not want to be saved. And if somebody wants to
be
saved, he has to find the way himself. The enlightened person is just like a bird: he flies
into the sky but leaves no footprints. You cannot follow him; you can simply see the joy,
the freedom -- that the whole sky is available to him.
Perhaps that may awaken in you a desire also. Perhaps for the first time you will find
that you also have wings. And if that bird can fly, why can't you fly? The function of
the enlightened person is just to create the milieu in which you become aware of your
wings, you become aware of your potentialities.
Jesus is not doing that. He is the shepherd and you are the sheep. No man has insulted
humanity in such a way as Jesus has done. Enlightened people don't humiliate; in fact,
they respect you because they can see your potential -- if not today, then tomorrow you
will be flying. If not tomorrow, then the day after tomorrow.
Time does not matter, because we are part of eternity. On both ends it is eternity. Time
does not matter. When you start flying has no significance; flying has significance. But

to tell you, "I am the shepherd and you are the sheep," is to destroy your individuality,
is to destroy your freedom, is to destroy your integrity; is to destroy everything that is
valuable, is to reduce you from human beings to animals. An enlightened person raises
you, helps you to rise to super-human beings. He does not make you sheep.
No, Jesus was not enlightened. In fact, in the Judaic and Christian tradition the
orthodox have never been enlightened. Amongst Jews, there have been a few
enlightened people, but they are not accepted by the orthodox Jews. Those are the
Hassids -- rare and really genuine people. But the orthodox will not accept them... and
they are the only beauty that Judaism has created. The very flowering of Judaism is
Hassidism,
but
it
is
rejected.
The enlightened person is bound to be rejected by every tradition. In Greek tradition
you will hear about Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus, and so many other philosophers; but you
will rarely see Heraclitus mentioned as an enlightened man, or Pythagoras, or even
Socrates. But these are the people.... But the very word "enlightenment" does not exist
in the Greek traditions.
The same is true in Mohammedanism. Mohammed is not enlightened, and the
orthodox tradition of Mohammedans rejects Sufi mystics who are enlightened:
Jalaluddin Rumi, al-Hillaj Mansoor, Sarmad, Rabiya al-Adabiya. These people are not
part of the traditional religion. They are rejected, condemned. The same has been true
all
over
the
world.
But now it is time -- I can tell you things directly. Rejoice that you are accepted as
capable of hearing the truth.
Source - Osho book "From Bondage to Freedom"