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

CHAPTER 16. ATHEISM, THEISM AND REALITY
his journey; he need not look for help from other quarters. So the two cousins exchange pleasantries
when they meet; there is no relationship of give and take between them. Some times Krishna goes
to listen when Neminath is speaking to people. This reflects Krishna’s greatness, and his eagerness
to learn. And only Krishna is capable of this humility. One who is interested in every aspect of life,
who loves the whole of it can go anywhere to learn, can accept anyone as his teacher. But Krishna
is equally well-equipped, sufficient unto himself. There is no reason to think that Neminath can make
his inner life any richer.
Question 5
QUESTIONER: DID KRISHNA HAVE TO PASS THROUGH ATHEISM IN ORDER TO ATTAIN TO
THE HIGHEST IN THEISM?
One who is a profound theist is a profound atheist too. It is skin deep theists who fight with skin-deep
atheists. Fight always happens on the surface; there is no fight at the deepest levels of life. Foolish
theists quarrel with foolish atheists; an understanding and wise theist does not bother about fighting
with atheists. Similarly an understanding atheist does not quarrel with the theists.
Understanding, from whatever source it comes, unites. It always leads to the adwait – the one
without the other. What does a theist say? He says God is. But when theism deepens, there is no
God but me, I myself become God. A stupid theist, who does not know what theism really is, says
God is there somewhere in the heavens. A wise theist says God is here. An atheist claims there is
no God. If he is a man of deep understanding he means the same as the theist means. He says,
”There is no other God than that which is: what is, is. ” And he calls it prakriti, the pre-created, or
nature.
There is a saying of Nietzsche’s which is significant in this context. Nietzsche is a profound atheist;
as an atheist he is as profound as any theist can be as a theist. Nietzsche says, ”If there is God I
won’t be able to tolerate him, because then, where will I stand? What will happen to me?” He means
to say if God is, he as a man will be reduced to nothing. Then he has no ground to stand on, and he
could not tolerate it. He says, ”If God has to be, why not me? Why can’t I be that God?” Nietzsche
is an atheist, and he says there is no God but existence. That which is, is God. Why think in terms
of any additional God? Even a profound theist says the same thing: that which is, is God; there is
no other God.
I have never differentiated between penetrating theism and penetrating atheism. In reality, while the
theist uses positive terms in his description of reality, the atheist uses negative terms. There is that
much difference. That is why positive theists think Buddha and Mahavira to be atheists. But neither
Buddha nor Mahavira will agree with this description.
To superficial theists, both sankhya and yoga seem to be atheistic, but they are not. They are not
atheistic in the sense they are thought to be. Their fault – if it is a fault – is that they use negative
terms. Similarly persons like Krishnamurti look like atheists to superficial theists because they too
use the negative language. But the difficulty is that there are only two ways of voicing reality the
positive and the negative. The theist is using the positive when he says, ”That which is, is God.” And
the atheist is using the negative when he says, ”That which is, is not God.”
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 319 Osho