Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy - Osho - Oshorajneesh.com

CHAPTER 9. THE COSMOS IS A DANCE OF OPPOSITES
individuality of each one of them. And if someone finds himself in accord with Hanumana, he will not
accept Hanunana as inferior because of me. As far as I am concerned Hanumana is not in accord
with me. And I am not going to lie about my view of Hanumana because someone else is in accord
with him. You put the question to me and I answered it the way I saw it. If I have to choose between
them, I will choose Meera and Krishna, and I told you why. But I don’t say that you should choose
Krishna in preference to Rama. It is enough that you understand what I say, and then go wherever
your individuality takes you.
In my view, Rama’s personality is confined, confined to certain norms and ideals, and I think even
Rama’s followers will not deny it. In fact, they follow him because he lives within norms; Rama
appeals to people who love to live within norms. But I say that to live within the confines of norms is
to live a petty life, a limited, inhibited and narrow life. Life is not confined to norms; it goes far beyond
norms and rules, ideas and concepts. Truth is unlimited and illimitable. The whole truth cannot be
covered by any ideas and ideals, however great they may be. Truth can be at home only with the
unlimited, the infinite. You limit it and it ceases to be truth. So truth is at home with Krishna, not with
Rama, because Krishna too, like truth, is unlimited, infinite.
And it is wrong to say that your tradition does not make a distinction between Rama and Krishna.
It does. It does not accept Rama as a complete incarnation of God; Krishna alone is accepted
as such. Your tradition is very clear about it. I don’t know if they have a comparative evaluation of
Hanumana and Meera – perhaps not – but they have certainly evaluated Rama and Krishna, judging
Krishna to be the highest among all the Hindu avataras, all the Hindu incarnations.
It is obvious that followers of Rama do not accept Krishna; they don’t even want to hear his name.
In the same way devotees of Krishna are allergic to Rama – and it is natural. But I am a follower of
no one; I follow neither Rama nor Krishna. I have nothing to do with them; therefore, I can see them
exactly as they are, and I will say the truth.
To me, it seems that Rama’s life is clear-cut and defined; there is nothing hazy about it. Krishna’s
life is not that neat and clear-cut, it cannot be. And that is why it has great depth. Rama has cut
out a portion of a vast and wild jungle and turned it into a neat and clean garden by removing
unwieldy bushes and shrubs. But this does not mean that the vast jungle has ceased to be; it is
there, surrounding the little garden.
D.H. Lawrence often said he wanted to see man in his wild form, that modern man had turned
into a garden and was diseased. While Rama is a small and enclosed garden, Krishna is the vast
jungle itself, wild and rugged and chaotic. It lacks planning and organization, order; it has no roads,
no pathways, no sidewalks, not even flowerbeds. It is full of wild animals like lions and tigers; it
is infested with all kinds of snakes and reptiles and lizards. At places it is dark and awesome.
Even fugitives from the civilized world, like robbers and thieves, take shelter here. It is packed with
wilderness, with ruggedness, dangers.
Krishna’s life is that gigantic jungle, while Rama’s life is a kitchen garden in the backyard of your
house, where everything is in order, where there is nothing to fear. I don’t say to you, ”Don’t have a
kitchen garden,” what I say is that a garden is a garden and a jungle is a jungle.
When you are bored with your garden you think of the jungle, because it is nature’s own creation; it
is not of your making. There is a life, grandeur and beauty in the jungle which no garden can have.
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 169 Osho