Jinsutra Lecture 51 Goshalak Ek Aswikrut Tirthankar - Book Summary

This document is a transcript of a lecture series by Osho Rajnish titled "Jinsutra Lecture 51: Goshalak Ek Aswikrut Tirthankar" (Jain Sutra Lecture 51: Goshalak – An Unaccepted Tirthankara). The lecture focuses on the life and philosophy of Makkhali Goshalak, a contemporary of Mahavira and Buddha, who is often depicted negatively in Jain scriptures.

Here's a summary of the key points discussed in the provided pages:

Page 2:

Introduces the questions that will be addressed: a request for information on Makkhali Goshalak's life, an examination of the apparent contradiction between Mahavira's teachings of "asharan" (non-reliance) and his acceptance of disciples, and the distinction between "asharan-bhav" (feeling of non-reliance) and "asahaya-bhav" (helplessness).

Page 3-4: Goshalak's Philosophy and Jain Opposition

Goshalak's Life and Jain Scriptures: Jain scriptures mention Goshalak but not with respect, calling him quarrelsome, arrogant, and peculiar. The lecture questions whether this is an injustice, given Goshalak's unique perspective.
Goshalak's "Philosophy" (Life Vision): Osho clarifies that Goshalak didn't create a structured, philosophical system ("darshan"). He believed life is too vast and mysterious to be contained by philosophies. For Goshalak, philosophies are human impositions, small words trying to capture a large truth.
Rejection of Certainty: Goshalak rejected the human need for definitive answers and systems to resolve life's complexities. He felt these systems offer false security. When asked about the creator of the world, he would shrug and say "Who knows?" He believed the question itself is futile.
Contrast with Traditional Philosophies: Osho contrasts Goshalak with those who claim to know (e.g., God created the world) and those who claim to know the opposite (e.g., God didn't create it). Both claim knowledge. Goshalak's approach was radical: he didn't claim to know and saw the question of creation as pointless, as we weren't there.
The Jain Concept of Sarvajna (Omniscience): The core of Jainism, according to Osho, is the belief that a liberated soul becomes omniscient, knowing everything. Goshalak fundamentally contradicted this, stating that true knowledge lies in recognizing what one doesn't know. He believed the claim of omniscience was futile.
Goshalak's Appeal: Despite lacking a philosophy, Goshalak attracted followers due to his personal charisma and presence. This led to him being considered a rival to Mahavira by Jain followers.
Jain Displeasure: Jains were particularly angered by Goshalak because his views directly challenged their central tenet of omniscience. Osho mentions that Buddhist texts list six prominent thinkers of the era, including Goshalak, but only Goshalak faced significant opposition from Jain scriptures.

Page 5: Character and Goshalak's Unpredictability

Definition of Character: Osho distinguishes between character as practiced habit and living by consciousness. True living is spontaneous, not dictated by pre-set habits.
Goshalak's Lack of Conventional Character: Goshalak lacked the kind of "character" that Jain followers valued – a life of discipline, truth, non-violence, yoga, and meditation. He was considered "characterless" in the conventional sense.
Wilhelm Reich's Parallel: Osho draws a parallel with the psychologist Wilhelm Reich, who also believed that conventionally "characterful" people are often dead inside, living as dead habits rather than vital beings. Goshalak, by living spontaneously and unpredictably, embodied this latter approach.
Unpredictability: Goshalak was unpredictable. One couldn't declare what he would do next. He lived moment-to-moment, accepting life as it unfolded.

Page 6-7: Acarmanyatavada (Non-Action) and Freedom

Goshalak's Acarmanyatavada: Goshalak's core principle was that actions don't lead to merit or demerit. Doing is foolishness; what is to happen will happen. He was a fatalist.
Contrast with Krishna's Gita: Osho compares this to Krishna's teachings in the Gita, where one is encouraged to leave actions to God. Goshalak is more direct: he doesn't even bring God into it, stating that he doesn't know if God exists and that his actions are not his own.
Freedom from Ego and Tension: This perspective, if understood, leads to freedom from ego and tension. There's no striving, no success or failure, no anxiety.
Jain Disciples' Dilemma: Jain followers are troubled by Goshalak's view because it contradicts Mahavira's emphasis on effort and struggle. They see Goshalak as potentially incorrect if Mahavira is correct, and vice versa.
Mahavira's Path vs. Goshalak's Path: Mahavira's path involves immense effort, purifying the ego until it dissolves like camphor. Goshalak's path bypasses this by declaring that there's nothing to purify because ego itself is not the problem; the belief in doing is.

Page 7-8: Rejection of Effort and the Nature of Acceptance

The Futility of Effort: Goshalak saw the effort to change oneself as futile. It's like a fly on an elephant's back claiming to have shaken the bridge.
Acceptance of Being: Goshalak embraced "what is." Good is good, bad is bad. There's no option for victory or defeat. He was a supreme fatalist, even without believing in God.
Marxist Parallel: Osho finds a parallel in Marx, who was also a fatalist, believing in historical laws rather than individual action.
The Illusion of "Doing": Goshalak emphasized that "doing" is an illusion. What happens, happens. This frees one from the burden of effort.
Jain Scriptures and Goshalak's Oppression: Jain scriptures are filled with condemnation of Goshalak, using harsh language. Osho questions why people who preach love and non-violence would resort to such vitriol. He suggests the opposition was more emotional than philosophical.
The Myth of God's Creation and Punishment: Osho discusses the Hindu concept of God creating hell, and then, out of boredom, incarnating as Buddha to corrupt people and fill hell. This is presented as a clever way to accept Buddha while subtly condemning his teachings. He also mentions the Jain scripture claim that Krishna will become the first Jain Tirthankara in the next creation, as a way to soften their criticism of him.

Page 9-10: Goshalak's Legacy and Jain Opposition (Continued)

Jain Scriptures' Negative Depiction: The Jain scriptures portray Goshalak as regretting his opposition to Mahavira on his deathbed, urging his followers to become Mahavira's disciples. Osho finds this depiction questionable, given the lack of Jain scriptures authored by Goshalak himself.
Bias in Accounts: Osho highlights that accounts of opponents often come from their enemies, making them unreliable. Buddhist texts, for instance, mention Mahavira respectfully, while Jain texts are highly critical of Goshalak.
The "Unworthy" Sutras: Osho states that he deliberately omits certain sutras from Mahavira's teachings that he deems unworthy of Mahavira's consciousness, suggesting that many negative portrayals of Goshalak are interpolations by later disciples.
Goshalak's True Nature: Osho argues that Goshalak was a deeply valuable figure in human history, as valuable as Mahavira. He sees Goshalak as a "Tirthankara" in his own right, embodying a life of "sahaj-samadhi" (natural absorption) and acceptance.

Page 10-11: The "Positive" Aspect of Goshalak

Acceptance of Life: Goshalak's life vision was one of complete acceptance – embracing life as it comes without resistance, denial, or suppression.
Parallel with J. Krishnamurti: Osho finds a strong resonance between Goshalak's acceptance and J. Krishnamurti's philosophy.
Jain Inability to See the Positive: Jains, like many, tend to see the negative in opponents and the positive in their own tradition.
The Value of Rejection: Osho suggests that those who are rejected might hold important keys to understanding.
Goshalak as a "Mast Fakir": He describes Goshalak as a "mast fakir" – a joyous, free spirit who lived without attachment to dogma or societal norms, even dancing with a prostitute. This is another reason for Jain opposition.
The Absence of Goals and Paths: Goshalak believed there are no ultimate goals or predetermined paths. Life is a dance, not a journey with a destination.
On Paths and Destinations: People seek paths and destinations, wanting clear instructions on what to do and what not to do. Goshalak offered none of this, which made him inconvenient and misunderstood.

Page 11-12: Acarmanyatavada and its Misinterpretation

The Misinterpretation of Non-Action: Osho addresses the concern that Goshalak's philosophy of non-action (acarmanyatavada) could lead to unethical behavior like theft or murder.
The Ineffectiveness of Punishment: He argues that punishment and external controls are ineffective. Prisons often train people to be better criminals. He uses the example of public floggings in England, which led to increased pickpocketing.
The Illusion of Change through Effort: Goshalak's point is that personal effort and external coercion do not fundamentally change people. Change happens spontaneously.
The Nature of Memory: The very act of trying to forget something makes it more memorable.
The Ineffectiveness of Laws: Laws, courts, and punishments are ultimately futile in preventing crime.

Page 12-13: Effort vs. Spontaneity and Goshalak's Nudity

The Ineffectiveness of Effort (Revisited): People attempt to change, but often remain the same. If change is to happen, it happens spontaneously.
The Prison System: Psychological perspectives suggest prisons teach rather than deter.
The Futility of Punishment: Goshalak's view is that punishment, whether through laws or spiritual discipline, is ultimately ineffective.
Goshalak's Nudity: Osho contrasts Mahavira's nudity (as a rejection of societal conditioning and worldly possessions) with Goshalak's nudity (as a simple acceptance of the natural state of being born naked and dying naked, questioning the need for clothes). Mahavira's nudity implied discipline, while Goshalak's implied spontaneity.

Page 13-14: Unaccepted vs. Accepted Tirthankaras and Purity

Goshalak's Purity: Goshalak, unlike recognized Tirthankaras like Mahavira, Buddha, and Krishna, is rejected by mainstream traditions. However, Osho suggests that rejected figures might hold significant wisdom.
Purity and Tradition: The more organized and systematic a tradition becomes, the more it becomes corrupted. Jainism, being very organized, is perceived as such.
Goshalak as a "Mysterious" Figure: Goshalak, in contrast, is seen as hazy and mysterious.
The Search for a Path: People desire a clear path and destination, which Goshalak denied, making him unacceptable.
The Pure Gold of Goshalak: Osho compares Goshalak to pure gold – unadulterated but too soft to be made into ornaments without mixing something. Traditions mix things to create structures, but this also introduces impurity.
Goshalak's Lack of a Goal: Goshalak's ultimate point was that there is no ultimate goal; life is a continuous dance.

Page 14-15: The Nature of Belief and Hope

The Illusion of Otherworldly Rewards: Osho criticizes religious teachings that promise rewards in the afterlife to lure people away from the present life. This exploits greed and fear.
The "Wind of Spring" Analogy: The poem illustrates the natural flow of life and the futility of forced striving.
Acceptance of Destiny and Effort: The poem also acknowledges that while destiny plays a role, effort is also important.
The Power of Goshalak's Message: Figures like Goshalak shake the foundations of established beliefs and traditions. They don't create sects because their message is pure, like pure gold.

Page 15-16: The "Asaran" (Non-Reliance) Teaching

Mahavira's Contradiction: The lecture revisits the apparent contradiction in Mahavira's teachings: advocating non-reliance ("asharan") while accepting disciples.
Metaphor of the Tree: Mahavira is like someone on a tree, seeing further. Disciples are at the base. Mahavira offers guidance from his vantage point but expects them to climb the tree themselves.
Disciple vs. Refuge: Becoming a disciple is about learning from someone who has reached a certain point, but true refuge is not to be found in another.
The Danger of Grasping: Holding onto Gurus, scriptures, or doctrines too tightly prevents one from reaching their own realization.
The Child and Mother Analogy: A mother holds her child's hand to teach them to walk, but eventually lets go. Those who cling to the mother's hand forever remain children.
The Danger of Seeking Refuge: Seeking refuge corrupts the path of Dharma.

Page 16-18: Asaran vs. Asahay and Self-Reliance

Asaran (Non-Reliance): Means standing on one's own feet, developing inner strength and self-reliance. It's a positive, empowering concept.
Asahay (Helplessness): Means needing support, being accustomed to reliance, and failing to find it. It's a negative state of despair and searching.
The Sea Analogy: A non-reliant person can swim across a vast ocean; a helpless person searches for a boat or even a straw, drowning in their despair.
Gurdjieff's Crystallization: The development of inner strength and self-confidence leads to "crystallization" or spiritual centering.
The Illusion of Saviorhood: Christianity's idea that Jesus absolved all sins is presented as a significant falsehood, as it fosters helplessness and dependence rather than self-reliance.
The Call to Self-Reliance: Mahavira encourages learning but ultimately emphasizes walking one's own path. Don't mistake the guide for the destination.
The Eye Analogy: One learns from others' eyes but must ultimately rely on their own to see truth.
The Difference Between Loneliness and Solitude: Osho distinguishes between loneliness (the absence of others, leading to despair) and solitude (being content in one's own presence, leading to inner joy).
The Importance of "Asaran": Mahavira's teaching of "asharan" is about cultivating this inner strength and self-reliance, not about avoiding learning from others.

Page 18-20: Final Thoughts and Conclusion

The Essence of Asaran: Asaran means you have your own legs, your own wings. You can learn from others, but the ultimate journey is yours.
The "Helpless" vs. the "Non-Reliant": The helpless person is full of despair and seeks external support. The non-reliant person is confident and finds joy within.
The Story of the Blind Man: The story of the blind man with many sighted family members illustrates the tragedy of not using one's own inherent capabilities, even when others are available. It highlights the importance of developing one's own "eyes" for truth.
The Call to Inner Sight: The ultimate truth can only be realized through one's own inner sight.

In essence, Osho presents Goshalak not as a heretic or antagonist, but as a profound teacher who championed a radical form of existential acceptance and freedom from the burden of effort, ego, and prescribed paths, contrasting sharply with the structured, effort-based approach of Jainism. He encourages a sympathetic understanding of Goshalak's perspective, seeing him as a vital, albeit rejected, spiritual voice.