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

CHAPTER 20. BASE YOUR RULE ON THE RULE
Mohammedans all believe in the existence of both God and the devil. They think that if there is evil
in the world then it has to be segregated from God, who represents goodness and goodness alone.
God can never be the source of evil; he represents light, he cannot be the source of darkness.
Neither Zarathustra nor Jesus nor Mohammed could think of God being associated with evil in any
way. So they had to find a separate place for the devil, and they assigned an independent role to
him.
Krishna strongly contends this assumption. He asks: if there is evil and it is separate, is it so with
the consent of God or without his consent? Does evil, in order to be, need the support of God, or
not? If there is an independent authority of evil, called the devil, it means it is an authority parallel to
the authority of God. Then there are two independent and sovereign authorities in the universe, and
there is no question of good or ever winning over evil or evil being defeated by good. Why should an
independent and all-powerful devil ever yield? In that case there are really two Gods, independent
of each other.
The concept of there being two independent Gods or parallel authorities in the universe is not only
ridiculous but impossible. Krishna rejects this concept outright. He says there is only one sovereign
force, one primal energy in the universe, and everything that is arises from this single primeval
source. It is the same energy that brings forth a healthy fruit and a diseased fruit on the branches
of a tree. It is not necessary to have separate sources of energy or power for the two – the healthy
fruit and the sick one.
It is the same mind that gives rise to both good and evil, virtue and vice; two separate minds are
not required. Both good and evil are different transformations of one and the same energy. Day and
night, light and darkness are emanations of the same force. Therefore Krishna is against denial,
renunciation of any of the dualities. He is all for acceptance, total acceptance of both. Life, as it
is, has to be accepted and lived choicelessly and totally. That is what Krishna’s anasakti or nonattachment
means.
Krishna’s anasakti does not mean choice of one against the other. It does not mean that you choose
to be attached to virtue against vice, or to be attached to vice against virtue. No, neither attachment
nor aversion – no choice whatsoever. He stands for acceptance of life as it is, total acceptance. He
stands for surrender to life as it is, and this surrender has to be total. Anasakti means that I am not
at all separate, I am one with the whole existence. And if existence and I are one, who will choose
whom? I am like a wave in the ocean and I just float with it.
However, Krishna’s anasakti has some similarity with Buddha’s indifference, Mahavira’s
transcendence and Christ’s holy indifference. Krishna can have the peace of Buddha because he
has nothing more to achieve, he has achieved everything there is. He can attain to Mahavira’s
transcendence, because his bliss like Mahavira’s is illimitable. He can, like Christ, declare the
immanence of God – not because there is someone sitting on a throne somewhere, but because
whatever there is in the universe is God, godly; there is nothing other than God.
Krishna’s non-attachment is absolute surrender of the ego, total cessation of the ”I”.
It is just to know that I am not, only God is. And once I know that what is, is, there is no way but to
accept it in its totality. Then there is nothing to be done or undone, altered or modified. Krishna sees
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 381 Osho