CHAPTER 2.

NO MISSION, NO MESSAGE

one becomes egoless, one realizes the truth, because the ego is not there to be a hindrance, to
be a covering. Krishna emphasises surrendering, samarpan, sarva dharman parapechii, mamekam
sharanam, prarchi(?): leave all, and come to me totally surrendered. But this me means the ultimate,
this me is not Krishna.

THIRD QUESTIONER: THE ULTIMATE MEANS....?

A: God, the Divine, the real, the truth, the atman, whatsoever one may name it – Krishna emphasises
surrendering, Buddha emphasises no-self, Mahavira emphasises egolessness, Jesus, the kingdom
of God, the bliss. He talks about the bliss, ananda, the kingdom... and the poverty in which we
live....

SECOND QUESTIONER: WHAT WAS....?

A: Ananda – happiness. Happiness unbounded, happiness unlimited, happiness infinite.

Whosoever may have realized, whosoever may have reached, the question is not that one says this
and the other says that – this and that mean the same thing. If one has realized and the other has
not realized, then even this and that cannot mean the same.

This is to be understood: A person who has realized, he may say whatsoever he likes. He cannot
say against it... anyone who has realized. But a person who has not realized may say, ”this is what
I mean, this is what you are saying, I am totally convinced of it.” But he cannot mean the same,
because the same has not been experienced.

Words cannot convey the experience. But anti-words can convey.... If the person is a person of
knowing, anti-words can convey. Mahavira says, ”Self is the only thing. To know the Self is the aim,
to realize the Self is all.” Buddha says quite the contrary: ”To know the self is ignorance.”

These two statements quite contradictory, quite opposite to one another, mean the same thing. But
if someone says, God is, and another, too, says God is, and if the persons concerned are persons
who do not know what God means, these two statements – similiar, exactly similiar: GOD IS – these
two statements cannot mean the same. The two persons and their experience and their ignorance
and their definitions, are different. They have not come to the point where individuality dissolves.

Unless individuality is dissolved, we cannot come to the same experience, because the difference
is not in the experience, it is in our personality, our individuality: I. My I gives meaning to my words,
your I gives meaning to your words, and your I and my I are two different things, they can’t mean the
same thing. But a Buddha has no I, a Mahavira has no I, a Jesus has no I. So they cannot mean
different things, because the difference was created by the I. They can give different expressions,
but they cannot mean different things. For us, this becomes a dilemma. This has become a very
difficult job for the human mind to conceive, that Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira, Mohammed, Krishna,
they all mean the same thing. Then... then what is the foundation of Hinduism, of Mohammedism,
of Jainism, of Christianity?

In reality, there is no foundation. These all are conceived in ignorance. We have not understood
what Jesus means, therefore there is Christianity. We have not understood what Mahavira means,

Early Talks 11 Osho