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

CHAPTER 14. ACTION, INACTION AND NON-ACTION
It is true, however, that Shankara is less confusing that Krishna. For this reason he created a large
following, and a self-confident following at that. Krishna could not do that. The truth is that in India,
Shankara alone has the largest group of followers – all self-confident, assertive sannyasins. It is
so because Shankara’s approach is simplistic, he speaks about only one side of the coin without
worrying that another side exists as well. Presentation of both sides together is difficult, so subtle
and complex that it needs great intelligence to understand it. That explains why most of Shankara’s
sannyasins are stupid, It is true that sannyas in India came with Shankara, but it is also true that it
is lackluster and stupid at the same time.
It takes great intelligence to stand alongside Krishna. Such an intelligence refuses to be confused
by contradictions, because contradictions are inherent in life. Most of us get confused and bogged
down by contradictions. Because Shankara denies all contradictions, his commentary on the
GEETA has achieved immense popularity in this country. He was the first man who eliminated
all contradictions, all confusions from the GEETA and presented a simplistic and monotonous
interpretation of Krishna’s superb philosophy. But I say that no one has done so much injustice
to Krishna as Shankara has, although it is just possible that if he had not commented on it the
GEETA would have been lost to the world. It is because of Shankara’s commentary that the GEETA
became known throughout the world.
But this is what it is.
Question 3
QUESTIONER. IT IS SAID THAT SHANKARA’S MAYIC WORLD, ILLUSORY WORLD, REALLY
MEANS A CHANGING WORLD, NOT A FALSE ONE. WHAT DO YOU SAY?
You can put any meaning you like, but for Shankara, it is its very changeability, its ever-changing
character that makes the world unreal. That which is changing, which is not everlasting, he says
is false. That which was one thing yesterday, is another thing today and will turn into something
else tomorrow, is false. Change is at the root of Shankara’s definition of maya, of illusion. He says
reality is that which is immutable and eternal. What is unchanging and unchangeable is truth, what
is everlasting is truth.
Eternity is Shankara’s word for the truth, and changeability is his word for the world. That which
does not remain the same even for a moment is false. If a thing was one thing a moment ago, turns
into another thing this moment, and is going to be some thing else the next moment, it means that it
was not that which it was, it is not that which it is, and it will not be that which it will be. That which is
not is false. And truth is that which ever was, is and will remain the same. In Shankara’s definition,
change is synonymous with untruth and the unchanging is synonymous with truth.
But in my vision, as also in the vision of Krishna, change is as much true as the unchanging. For
Krishna, both the changing and the unchanging worlds are real. The reason is that the unchanging
cannot be without the changing world. The wheel of change revokes on an axle that is itself still
and unmoving. The changing wheel and the unchanging axle are interdependent, one cannot be
without the other. The moving and the unmoving are like two wheels of the same chariot. Krishna
absorbs all contradictions in himself; he rejects none – neither the moving nor the unmoving. For
him motion and rest are inextricably linked; you reject one and the other is rejected at the same
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 271 Osho