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

CHAPTER 16. ATHEISM, THEISM AND REALITY
for every new idea from old and respectable scriptures. Everyone who came upon something new
had to claim its origin in the Vedas, the UPANISHADS, the Brahmasutra. And for this reason right
interpretations of these scriptures became difficult. Everyone indiscriminately imposes his own ideas
and interpretations on these helpless scriptures. This is no different than a new business using the
”good will” of old and established firms.
Evidently no one cared to know what the Vedas or the UPANISHADS really had to say; everyone
imposed his own interpretations on them with impunity. So Shankara interprets the UPANISHADS
in one way and Nimbarka interprets just the contrary way. So Dayananda interprets the Vedas to
conform to his own ideas, and Arvind does it quite differently to suit his beliefs. which are different
from Dayananda’s. They have made a mess of these great scriptures; they have virtually debauched
and defiled them. The Vedas, the UPANISHADS and the Brahmasutra have suffered terribly down
the ages at the hands of their interpreters. The same has been the fate of the Geeta. Whoever
wants to have his say claims the support of these scriptures, and does everything in his power to
impose his meanings on them.
In my view this is nothing but intellectual prostitution, and it has existed in India for thousands of
years. Because no one had the courage to say his thing, on his own authority, they had to take
shelter in the VEDAS, the UPANISHADS, and the Geeta. And this dishonest practice stemmed from
a lack of self-confidence on the part of the great minds of India. Honesty demands that if Arvind
has stumbled upon a truth, he should say it on his own regardless of what the VEDAS say. Even if
all the scriptures say the opposite, he should fearlessly state his own vision. But if he is not certain
of his own ideas, he has no way but to seek the support of the VEDAS, the UPANISHADS and the
GEETA. Then he will have to use them as his soldiers to win the battle of debates.
Please bear in mind that the seers of the VEDAS and the UPANISHADS do not seek any such
support for themselves, they say on their own whatever they have to say. Their statements are
straight, bold and emphatic. The author of the Brahmasutra does not quote authorities to support
his viewpoint; he says positively this is his vision of truth. But after the Vedas, UPANISHADS and
the Brahmasutra, the intellectual standard of India began to decline and it makes a long, sad story
spanning thousands of years. Since then no one dared say his thing on his own authority as
the seers of old had. Then everyone sought the support of the trinity of the UPANISHADS, the
Brahmasutra and the Geeta. Straightforward and honest utterances became rare. And Arvind is the
last link in that long chain of India’s intellectual decline.
For this reason, I say Raman and Krishnamurti are much more honest; they don’t seek support from
the Vedas or anything else. Honesty means that when you err you take the responsibility, instead
of passing it on to others, to the Vedas. Honesty means that when you find some right thing, some
truth, you say it even if the whole world is against it. Only then will posterity be in a position to judge
if there is substance in what you have known. But until recently, utter confusion has prevailed in the
world of philosophical ideas and concepts.
In my view, India’s philosophy has failed to follow the honest course of development of its counterpart
in the West. If Socrates says something, he says it on his own authority; he does not try to prop
himself up by the weight of his predecessors. Similarly, if Kant and Wittgenstein say something, they
do so on their own; they don’t claim the authority of Socrates or anyone else. Western philosophy is
much more honest than ours. And it is out of this honest way of thinking that science was born in the
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 303 Osho