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

CHAPTER 2. KRISHNA IS COMPLETE AND WHOLE
It means that if someone drops the viewpoint of the ego, he will cease to be a doer, and then he can
only be a player, an actor. If I am Rama and my Seeta is kidnapped, I will cry for her. But the way
I cry for her will be quite different if I am acting his part in a drama on his life. Then I will also cry,
and maybe my crying is going to be more real than that of the actual Rama. Indeed, it is going to
be a better performance, because the real Rama does not have the opportunity to rehearse his role.
Seeta is lost to him only once and he comes to know of it only after she has been kidnapped. He is
not prepared for it. And as a doer, he is lost in the act of crying. He cries, screams, and suffers for
Seeta.
That is why India does not accept Rama as a perfect incarnation of God. He cannot be a perfect
actor; he is more a doer than an actor. He tries and fails again and again. He remains a doer. So
we describe his life as that of an ideal character. He is not an actor, a player.
An actor does not have a character, he has just a role to play. So we describe Krishna’s life as a real
play, a performance. Krishna’s life is a leela; he just plays his part and plays it perfectly. Rama’s life
has a character, it is idealistic; Krishna’s life is a free play, a leela.
Character is a serious thing. A man of character has to approximate his conduct to a set of ideas,
rules and regulations. He has to pick and choose; he has to choose between good and evil, between
shoulds and should-nots. Arjuna is trying to be a man of character; Krishna is trying to make an
actor of him. Arjuna wants to know what he should do and what he should not do. Krishna asks him
to accept that which is, that which comes his way, and not to choose, not to bring his mind, his ego
into it. This is absolute acceptance – where you have nothing to deny.
But it is arduous, really arduous to accept the whole of existence without choosing. Total acceptance
means there is no good and bad, no virtue and vice, no pain and pleasure. Total acceptance means
one drops for good the old ways of dialectical thinking, of thinking by splitting everything into two,
into its opposites. Krishna tells Arjuna there is really no birth and death, that no one is ever born
and no one ever dies, that no one kills and no one gets killed, so Arjuna can plunge into war without
fear and with abandon, so he can play freely with war.
Everything on this earth is divine; everything in existence is godly, so the question of right and wrong
does not arise. Of course, it is really arduous to understand it and live it.
The vision of Krishna is extremely difficult for a moralistic mind to decipher. A moralist finds it easier
to understand an immoral person than Krishna. He can brush an immoral man aside by calling him
a sinner. But in regard to Krishna he finds himself in a quandary. How to place him? He cannot
say that Krishna is a bad man, because he does not seem to be so. And he also cannot gather the
courage to say that Krishna is good, because he is goading Arjuna into things that are obviously
bad, very bad.
Gandhi found himself in such a dilemma when he wanted to discuss Krishna. In fact, he was more
in agreement with Arjuna than with Krishna, How can Gandhi accept it when Krishna goads Arjuna
into war? He could be rid of Krishna if he were clearly bad, but his badness is not that clear,
because Krishna accepts both good and bad. He is good, utterly good, and he is also utterly bad
– and paradoxically, he is both together, and simultaneously. His goodness is crystal-clear, but his
badness is also there. And it is difficult for Gandhi to accept him as bad.
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 26 Osho