PDA

View Full Version : A.K.A. Osho



Bob G
17 December 2007, 11:07 AM
Another pov (edit:which I think most or all of it is quoted from Christopher Calder) about Osho:


"Rajneesh ruled his desert empire as a warlord with his own private army and puppet government. His visions and ideas, faulty or not, were taken without question as the word of God. His disciples were judged by their ability to surrender to his will, and any opposing views were branded as an unspiritual lack of faith. As conditions at the ranch became progressively more unpleasant, a number of sannyasins escaped by hiding in the back of outgoing trucks. Their quest for freedom upset Rajneesh, who demanded that the disillusioned must now ask his permission to leave. Rajneesh then dramatically threatened suicide if others escaped by stealthful means...

...Rajneesh died addicted to Valium, and he experienced all of the negative symptoms of drug addiction, which included slurred speech, paranoia, poor judgment, and dramatically lowered intelligence. At one point his paranoia and confusion were so great that he thought a group of German cultists had cast an evil spell on him. His physical disabilities and drug abuse were simply more than his mortal brain could take. His biggest flaw, his disregard for the ordinary concept of truth, was his ultimate downfall and for that crime he must be held fully responsible.

"Never give a sucker an even break." - W.C. Fields

Rajneesh lied when he said he had enlightened disciples. He lied when he said he never made a mistake. Near the end of his life he was forced to admit that he was fallible, as his list of bungles had grown to monstrous proportions. He lied by pretending that his therapy groups were not mainly just a money making device. Rajneesh lied about breaking United States immigration laws, and he only admitted the truth after he was presented with overwhelming evidence against him. He lied by saying that he was adopted in a phony scheme to get permanent residence status. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was no bank robber, but he was quite literally a pathological liar. The ridiculous thing is that all of his lies were totally unnecessary and counterproductive. As conventional and square as it may sound, honesty really is the best policy!
Rajneesh lied when he claimed that he was not responsible for the horrors of the Oregon commune. Rajneesh was responsible because he hand picked Ma Anand Sheela and the people who committed the major crimes of conspiracy to commit murder, poisoning, first-degree assault, burglary, arson, and wiretapping. Rajneesh himself gave direct verbal approval for Sheela's illegal bugging and wiretapping of his own disciples. The fact that Rajneesh did not order or have preknowledge (hopefully) of the most serious violent crimes does not mean that he was not ethically responsible for them. Rajneesh never turned against Ma Anand Sheela until he started to suspect that Sheela was stealing money from him.
Just one month before Sheela fled the commune, Rajneesh spoke of her publicly, stating that "I have been preparing her like a sword. I told her to go out and cut as many heads as possible." Later, Rajneesh feigned innocence and claimed that Sheela was controlling him in spite of the obvious fact that Rajneesh was the singular reason the commune existed. Rajneesh was surrounded by thousands of adoring disciples who would have gladly expelled or even jailed Sheela any time he gave the order.
Sheela did Rajneesh's dirty work, and the fact that she went farther in her crimes than Rajneesh had planned does not exonerate him of all guilt. Upon leaving the commune, Sheela stated that she was tired of "being his slave for 16, 17 or 20 hours a day," and tired of "taking food out of the mouths of people to buy him watches and Rolls Royces." Rajneesh then publicly claimed that Sheela had extorted millions of dollars from the commune. Sheela's response to his charge was that Rajneesh had spent all of the money himself on his own expensive toys, and that Rajneesh was bad at mathematics and "can't count." Clearly, Rajneesh's insane purchases of dozens of bejeweled ladies' watches and over 90 Rolls-Royce automobiles cost the commune many millions of dollars. After her release from prison, Ma Anand Sheela continued to work for a living, without obvious signs of enormous wealth. Sheela committed many crimes, but Rajneesh himself was never "innocent."
If a teacher puts a drunken sailor in charge of driving a school bus, and the children end up dead, then the teacher is responsible for their deaths. Rajneesh knew what kind of a person Sheela was, and he chose her because of her corruption and arrogance, not in spite of it. Rajneesh personally tutored Sheela in how to control and manipulate his own disciples, and it was Rajneesh himself who encouraged Sheela's infamous outbursts on the ABC television show, Nightline. In a cowardly attempt to evade his own failings, Rajneesh changed his name to Osho, as if a change in name could wash away his sins.
There is no publicly released evidence to suggest that Rajneesh ordered the germ warfare attack on the ten Oregon restaurants. There is also no publicly released evidence that implicates Rajneesh in the plot to have a sannyasin pilot fly an airplane full of explosives into an Oregon courthouse in order to intimidate the political opposition. Luckily, the sannyasin pilot who was asked to perform that insane task was not as dumb as the plotters, and he fled the commune without committing any crime.
Rajneesh was directly responsible for the twisted mix of totalitarian slavery and libertine indulgence that the commune represented. According to highly credible published reports, Rajneesh allowed middle aged men to have sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls at the commune in the name of sexual freedom, yet his disciples were not allowed to have a mind of their own and had to totally surrender to the great Bhagwan's will. Disciples were often forced to work 12 hours a day in cold and difficult conditions, while Rajneesh himself experienced "groovy spaces" in his private heated indoor pool and watched countless movies on his big screen projection television, all the while enjoying his daily supply of drugs. Rajneesh showed his divine love for his disciples by squandering millions in hard earned commune assets on his car collection and expensive jewelry, and all in the name of egolessness and spiritual surrender. [see photo of the flagrantly narcissistic Osho wearing jewel encrusted watch (http://home.att.net/~meditation/prima.donna.html)]
Why did Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh own over 90 Rolls-Royces? Why did Saddam Hussein own dozens of luxurious palaces? Those desires were products of the base animal mind of two men who grew up surrounded by poverty. Enlightenment does not care about symbols of power and potency. Looking for hidden esoteric explanations for obsessive behavior is pointless. Is there an occult reason that Elton John spends over $400,000. per month on flowers? Is there a secret spiritual reason that Rajneesh had a collection of dozens of expensive ladies' watches? The universal cosmic consciousness is completely neutral and without any need to possess, impress, or dominate. It also cannot drive or tell time. One of Rajneesh's most blatant lies was that "the enlightened one gains nothing from his disciples." Rajneesh wanted people to believe that everything he did was a free gift born of pure compassion, and that he gained nothing personally from the guru-disciple relationship. In obvious provable fact, Rajneesh gained much from his disciples: money, power, sex, and the titillation of constant adoration. Just as rock stars become energized by screaming fans at concerts, Rajneesh gained emotional energy and support from his army of sannyasins. The energy transfer was a two-way street, not a totally free one-way gift. Being a guru was his business, his only business. Without that income, at least on the material level, he was just a short, balding, physically disabled Indian man who could not hold a job. Rajneesh's very real enlightenment would not pay his bills or give him the material luxuries he craved..."

satay
17 December 2007, 11:38 AM
Namaste BobG,

What's the source of this text? More importantly, what's the point of posting this here about Osho?

Is this your opinion of Osho or someone else's?

Bob G
17 December 2007, 03:17 PM
Satay,

A great deal of information on certain aspects and eye-witness accounts related to one called "Osho" can be found through surfing the internet.
(and or by his earlier name)

Why did I post some of that information (here or anywhere) ? Well, for anyone that may want to do some new or further research into him and the present organization that is using his name.

My personal opinion of not only Osho but of certain and varied so-called "gurus" is that if they don't follow and teach the yamas then I don't kid myself about them being a true guru. (regardless of how much or how well they co-opt spiritual teachings to sound wise and or holy)

Om

satay
17 December 2007, 03:40 PM
Namaskar Bob G,
Thank you for the note.




A great deal of information on certain aspects and eye-witness accounts related to one called "Osho" can be found through surfing the internet.
(and or by his earlier name)



Yes, negative as well as positive information can be found about Osho since he was a controversial master. No 'religious' people liked him including from hinduism. He spoke openly about the poison christianity and the bible has spread into humanity. This is why he was most disliked and there is all types of negative prapanganda one can find on the internet.

The reason why I asked the question is that your post is 'out of place' or seems like a 'negative attack' on osho for no reason at all.

Just dumping a lot of information (without any context) from other sites doesn't add any value to HDF, especially, when you didn't provide your opinion on the dumped text.



Why did I post some of that information (here or anywhere) ? Well, for anyone that may want to do some new or further research into him and the present organization that is using his name.

My personal opinion of not only Osho but of certain and varied so-called "gurus" is that if they don't follow and teach the yamas then I don't kid myself about them being a true guru. (regardless of how much or how well they co-opt spiritual teachings to sound wise and or holy)

Om


If you feel the urge to 'expose' a guru, please do your own research and present the facts instead of just cutting and pasting negative side of someone's propaganda.

If you had done your research before posting this dump, you would have found the answers to all the objections of this propaganda maker about osho, yes, that includes why he "owned" rolls royce and why he wore expensive watches and why he declared himself Bhagwan!

Read one of osho's books (any book) and decide for yourself instead of becoming part of someone's propaganda. He was not a traditional hindu "guru".

Thanks!

ps: Here a jewel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4aVB1uPOg
It will take you less time to watch this than the time you spent on searching the net and dumping the negative propaganda about osho.
I encourage you to spend the 6 or so minutes...

Bob G
17 December 2007, 06:23 PM
Satay,

Right, and why dump false-positive propaganda or build up a non-Hindu, non-guru at a mostly Vedic based Hindu website?

Also, if public information, via eye-witness accounts, newspaper reports and 1st hand testimony offends you that is your choice.

(edit:And I did read a book of his over 20 years ago along with other material by him; why assume I hadn't?)

Om

Bob G
17 December 2007, 06:31 PM
P.S. & Btw., I see no practical need or point in re-quoting short sentences of mine (as reminders or whatever?) that are in plain sight only one post away from your following reply. (most of us have good enough memories to at least follow posts from one to the next...)

satay
17 December 2007, 10:13 PM
namaste Bob G,


Satay,

Right, and why dump false-positive propaganda or build up a non-Hindu, non-guru at a mostly Vedic based Hindu website?

Also, if public information, via eye-witness accounts, newspaper reports and 1st hand testimony offends you that is your choice.

Om

No, the information you dumped from other websites without presenting your opinion does not offend me. However, I find it rather annoying that one would dump this information here on a Hindu forum in a manner as you did without any proper context.

I don't know what drove you to cut and paste the information to begin with. That's what I am curious about.

Has Osho offended you in some way? Or do Gurus (hindus or non-hindus) in general offend you?

Also, I am still trying to find out what the reason is of cutting and pasting this info here when such negative propaganda is easily available elsewhere on the net. If I don't read about any good reasons, the thread will obviously have to be deleted...

satay
17 December 2007, 10:14 PM
P.S. & Btw., I see no practical need or point in re-quoting short sentences of mine (as reminders or whatever?) that are in plain sight only one post away from your following reply. (most of us have good enough memories to at least follow posts from one to the next...)

Using 'quotes' is just a forum etiquette.

sm78
17 December 2007, 11:45 PM
Has Osho offended you in some way? Or do Gurus (hindus or non-hindus) in general offend you?

Gurus who are after mass-following annoy me too. They do harm to their followers and society at large in an effort to become a celebrity. It is better to follow film stars instead.

Why do I need to say it here ?. No need ... was just adding on to the thread :D

However being aware of false gurus in Kali Yuga is an important thing and our scriptures have ample passages on whom to take on as a guru. Broad guideline is parampara and dharma nistha.

atanu
18 December 2007, 12:14 AM
Dear Friends Bob G, Satay, Singhi,

It is best to mind one's welfare rather than pick holes in our own consciousness.

It is true that Osho inspires many -- through his lucid writing and speeches. It is also true that a vicious attack, floating in the internet does not mean anything.

On the other hand, it is also true that the unconventional methods used by Osho had to have repercussions. The left handed methods are always kept secret, to avoid backlash from society and also not to create too much of ripples. Osho was possibly not careful about that and as SM has indicated, a fascination for fame will mean downfall of any Guru.


In this regard, once a guru was accused, in a stray publication, of indulging in sex with female devotees. The guru said gleefully "Now, people will know that I am bad and the popularity will go down, leaving me more time for meditation".
---------------

It is good for us to take the good and ignore what does not suit us and good for us to remember that Shiva also is known as bahuninditaya -- reviled by many.

Regards to all.

Om Namah Shivaya

Bob G
18 December 2007, 03:10 AM
Satay,

For one I did give my opinion... which for some reason you keep saying or implying that I didn't? And since you actually quoted my opinion earlier how could you also miss it? Here it is again: "My personal opinion of not only Osho but of certain and varied so-called "gurus" is that if they don't follow and teach the yamas then I don't kid myself about them being a true guru. (regardless of how much or how well they co-opt spiritual teachings to sound wise and or holy)"

True guru-devas of the golden-white-light (Hindu or otherwise) do not offend me in the least. Jai Guru!

Also to repeat: "if public information, via eye-witness accounts, newspaper reports and 1st hand testimony offends you that is your choice" And if this is not at least the beginning of a reason to submit something along the lines of revealing cult manipulations then I really have to wonder where you are coming from?

If you are one of the creators of this website or one of the administrators then you can warn or threaten me about deleting my thread or membership - otherwise who are you to say such a thing?

Lastly, I'm not pursuing this thread anymore since my "context" (which I had hoped and or assumed most would extrapolate from the material) was to bring up information and the possibilty of hellish like cult manipulation of impressionable young (and not so young) people by well known figures who imo are not really that well known... further I know that it is not my place to prove or disprove such, for it is really the place of people who are involved to do so for themselves. My opening quote could have been better...and so could have your quote of: "He spoke openly about the poison christianity and the bible has spread into humanity". Interesting generalization (just kidding) and it implys to me that Osho didn't think Swami Yogananda, Ramakrishna and many others didn't know what they were talking about.

Om

satay
18 December 2007, 09:42 AM
namaskar Bob,



For one I did give my opinion... which for some reason you keep saying or implying that I didn't? And since you actually quoted my opinion earlier how could you also miss it? Here it is again: "My personal opinion of not only Osho but of certain and varied so-called "gurus" is that if they don't follow and teach the yamas then I don't kid myself about them being a true guru. (regardless of how much or how well they co-opt spiritual teachings to sound wise and or holy)"


Yes, Bob, you did give me your opinion but only after I requested it. In your original post of this thread, all I see is a dump of propaganda from other sites.

So to clarify, in your Original Post (OP), since it is all a dump of already available propaganda on the internet, without your opinion, the post and thus the thread is ‘out of context’.

Thus the purpose of what you were implying seems that you were attacking osho but my question was ‘why’. And that question, you still have not answered.

What was the purpose of attacking Osho? Has he offended you in some way?

There is no shame in admitting that he has offended you since he offended almost everyone in this world!



True guru-devas of the golden-white-light (Hindu or otherwise) do not offend me in the least. Jai Guru!


Could you please share with us the qualifications of a ‘true guru’? What do you mean by 'true-guru'? What is 'golden-white-light'?



Also to repeat: "if public information, via eye-witness accounts, newspaper reports and 1st hand testimony offends you that is your choice" And if this is not at least the beginning of a reason to submit something along the lines of revealing cult manipulations then I really have to wonder where you are coming from?


I don’t get it. First, you said that this information is already available on the net. And now, you are implying that by posting this cut and paste information from other sites, you were trying to ‘reveal cult manipulations’. By posting it in ‘Other dharma forums’?

I simply don’t get the purpose of your OP which was without your opinion, was a clear cut and paste from propaganda sites about someone who is not even a Hindu let alone be a hindu guru!



If you are one of the creators of this website or one of the administrators then you can warn or threaten me about deleting my thread or membership - otherwise who are you to say such a thing?


Yes, the thread will be deleted as I still don’t understand the purpose of cutting and dumping propaganda about some non-hindu guru here on HDF.



Lastly, I'm not pursuing this thread anymore since my "context" (which I had hoped and or assumed most would extrapolate from the material) was to bring up information and the possibilty of hellish like cult manipulation of impressionable young (and not so young) people by well known figures who imo are not really that well known... further I know that it is not my place to prove or disprove such, for it is really the place of people who are involved to do so for themselves.


One can only decide if a group or a organization is a ‘hellish cult’ by examining facts from both sides and not only from false propaganda.

My quote about ‘He spoke openly about the poison chirsitianity and bible has spread into humanity’ is a fact.

But to verify that you will have to the take the initiative of reading one of his books.



My opening quote could have been better...and so could have your quote of: "He spoke openly about the poison christianity and the bible has spread into humanity". Interesting generalization (just kidding) and it implys to me that Osho didn't think Swami Yogananda, Ramakrishna and many others didn't know what they were talking about.


I don’t know what osho thought of anyone including all the hindu guru names you mentioned. But I do know that he thought and said that ‘Hinduism is the sickest religion in the world’ and that 'Hinduism is a cancer of humanity'.

To understand those statements, again, one has to read the background of why he said that and his context.

Now, back to my problem with your OP:


- The OP is a cut and paste from other sites, without any context and is an attack on someone (non-hindu), without any opinion of the poster.
- I have been unable to find any reasonable motivation of the OP apart from trying to prove by copying, cutting and paste information from other sites, without any context, that Osho’s was a ‘hellish cult’.
The thread will be deleted because of the following reasons:


- Information contained in the OP is a cut and paste dump about someone. This information is available freely elsewhere on the internet; so therefore, I don’t see a reason to keep it here on HDF.
I don’t see how this cut and paste dump on HDF is in the spirit of ‘positive presentation of Sanatana Dharma’ especially, when Osho was not even a hindu guru!

It breaks the following site rules:


• No Offensive Posts, Links, or Images: This site is for positive presentation of Sanatana Dharma, so please do not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, hateful, threatening, racist, sexist, discriminatory, or otherwise in violation of any local or international laws. This includes links in your signature, profile, and bookmarks, as well as posted images, photos, and avatars. Site administrators will ultimately decide if something is appropriate or not. Thanks Bob!

satay
18 December 2007, 09:53 AM
namaste Singhi,


Gurus who are after mass-following annoy me too. They do harm to their followers and society at large in an effort to become a celebrity. It is better to follow film stars instead.


Especially those gurus who say 'they are hindu' when conveinent for them.

Regarding osho, yes, he lived like a film star but to understand why he did, you will have to read his talks... ;)



Why do I need to say it here ?. No need ... was just adding on to the thread :D


Yes, I am still waiting for the analysis on sri sri too. :p



However being aware of false gurus in Kali Yuga is an important thing and our scriptures have ample passages on whom to take on as a guru. Broad guideline is parampara and dharma nistha.

Obviously, however, with respect to osho, he was neither a hindu himself nor a hindu guru, though he took his meditation ideas from tantra.

satay
18 December 2007, 10:01 AM
On the other hand, it is also true that the unconventional methods used by Osho had to have repercussions. The left handed methods are always kept secret, to avoid backlash from society and also not to create too much of ripples. Osho was possibly not careful about that and as SM has indicated, a fascination for fame will mean downfall of any Guru.


It is my understanding by reading his talks that he thought precisely due to the fact that 'this left hand information is kept secret' that our society is in the state that it is now. But I digress... :)



In this regard, once a guru was accused, in a stray publication, of indulging in sex with female devotees. The guru said gleefully "Now, people will know that I am bad and the popularity will go down, leaving me more time for meditation".


Yes, that really sounds like osho! Obviously, looking at him from the 'hindu lens' it is going to be shocking to some, especially to reporters and to those who banned his booked because he spoke the truth. :)



---------------

It is good for us to take the good and ignore what does not suit us and good for us to remember that Shiva also is known as bahuninditaya -- reviled by many.

Regards to all.

Om Namah Shivaya

Shiva is the jagad guru, revealer of all knowledge including tantra. :bowdown:

Bob G
18 December 2007, 07:25 PM
Ok delete it already, you have made your version clear. Also it's very strange to me that you also keep quoting (via a more or less cut and paste method) Osho's hateful anti-Hindu remarks and somehow justify same by saying one must read his propaganda???

What a true Guru is...etc. Om

satay
18 December 2007, 09:24 PM
Namaskar Bob G,


Ok delete it already, you have made your version clear. Also it's very strange to me that you also keep quoting (via a more or less cut and paste method) Osho's hateful anti-Hindu remarks and somehow justify same by saying one must read his propaganda???

What a true Guru is...etc. Om

Osho's remark about hinduism were not 'hateful' and his discourses were not propaganda. To understand the context of his remarks one has to take the initiative and read his discourses. However, I digress...

Sahasranama
01 February 2011, 05:37 AM
Osho is indeed not afraid to speak his mind.

Osho on Shivananda (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/Osho-on-Swami-Sivanand-of-Rishikesh.html)
Osho on Sri Aurobindo (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/sri_aurobindo.htm)
Osho on Vivekandanda (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_on_swami_vivekananda.htm)
Osho on Yogananda Paramahansa (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_on_yogananda_paramhansa.htm)
Osho on the Dalai Lama (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_dalailama_tibet.htm)
Osho on Sathya Sai Baba (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_quotes_sathya_sai_baba.htm)
Osho on Acharya Tulsi
(http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Osho/osho/Osho-on-Acharya-Tulsi.html)Osho on Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/Osho-on-Chogyam-Trungpa-Rinpoche.html)
Osho on Swami Ramatirtha (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_on_swami_ram_tirtha.htm)
Osho on Swami Vishnudevananda and Rama Dasa (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_vishnu_devananda_ramdass.htm)
Osho on Maharshi Mahesh Yogi (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/mahesh_yogi_cheating.htm)

sm78
01 February 2011, 08:33 AM
Osho is indeed not afraid to speak his mind.

Osho on Shivananda (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/Osho-on-Swami-Sivanand-of-Rishikesh.html)
Osho on Sri Aurobindo (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/sri_aurobindo.htm)
Osho on Vivekandanda (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_on_swami_vivekananda.htm)
Osho on Yogananda Paramahansa (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_on_yogananda_paramhansa.htm)
Osho on the Dalai Lama (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_dalailama_tibet.htm)
Osho on Sathya Sai Baba (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_quotes_sathya_sai_baba.htm)
Osho on Acharya Tulsi
(http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Osho/osho/Osho-on-Acharya-Tulsi.html)Osho on Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/Osho-on-Chogyam-Trungpa-Rinpoche.html)
Osho on Swami Ramatirtha (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_on_swami_ram_tirtha.htm)
Osho on Swami Vishnudevananda and Rama Dasa (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/osho_vishnu_devananda_ramdass.htm)
Osho on Maharshi Mahesh Yogi (http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Psychic-World/mahesh_yogi_cheating.htm)

Osho was a typical man of 6th kala in shaktivad nomenclature. He believed that world can be cured by telling it the truth - and he always spoke of whatever he believed as true. Many of the time I find myself in agreement with him, many of the times I don't.

One has to appreciate his courage of speech.

Sahasranama
01 February 2011, 08:51 AM
What is the 6th kala in shaktivad?

sm78
01 February 2011, 09:39 AM
What is the 6th kala in shaktivad?

I had discussed it long back. Will send you a PM just for your expressed curosity. It is the philosophy I try to follow along with Tantra, and it is a hard pill to sollow.

TheOne
01 February 2011, 05:36 PM
I try not to judge anyone especially if they are a brother or sister in the Dharma. But I do feel that yes, Osho has some important messages, but at other times he had broke many laws and his followers had ruined peoples lives. I myself try to avoid the more controversial teachers and stick with the Holy texts and esteemed teachers.

Eastern Mind
01 February 2011, 05:44 PM
I try not to judge anyone especially if they are a brother or sister in the Dharma. But I do feel that yes, Osho has some important messages, but at other times he had broke many laws and his followers had ruined peoples lives. I myself try to avoid the more controversial teachers and stick with the Holy texts and esteemed teachers.

Vannakkam TheOne: I think that's wisdom. I don't understand why any teacher has to comment on another teacher unless there is direct interference in some way. Its good to have a varied lot, as the students are a varied lot, each needing something slightly different. Of course its all quite subjective and personal. One person's 'esteemed' teacher is another's 'raving maniac'. I admit I like to watch the drama a bit without any personal involvement or comments. On occasion I've allowed myself to get dragged into it, and there was never any great outcomes from that.

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
02 February 2011, 01:44 AM
I think no guru should be above criticism. It's a very dangerous thing to elevate human beings to such a level where they are immune to criticism. Especially when they have such responsibilities as the spiritual leaders. Osho criticising the rest doesn't make him better, he himself has done a lot that needs to be criticised, but at least he is not afraid to speak his mind.

sm78
02 February 2011, 02:05 AM
I think that's wisdom. I don't understand why any teacher has to comment on another teacher unless there is direct interference in some way.

We are what we believe, no? Very few (in fact almost none) are intelligent and wise enough to form their own understanding just by observing the world and reading scriptures. Teachers and our Gurus are the integral to what we believe, no? Infact most of us see the world completely through the lens of the teachers and gurus we believe in?

Osho said these things in answer to questions asked to him. Is it not the duty of the guru (Osho, in this case) to challange wrong views and ignorance and thus challange the source of these wrong views and ignorance in his students? If we put Guru's beyond criticism and question, then we are not really brave enough to see them as Guru. Guru is the dispeller of darkness, its a tall order and high requirement. As shisyas we should question, test, prod our guru's. Similarly a true guru will question, challange and destroy wrong views of shishyas which include false gurus.

The western society is great in that respect. It allows free thought and critisim - particularly of those who enjoy prestige and power. It is absolutely necessary, without it, there is literally no way to preserve the light and prevent the darkness. Back in the days, India was same in this respect. We see so much philosophies, arguments and counter arguments, because nothing could go unchallanged. Challanging is the fundamental human faculty of intelligence, and when it is forcibly subdued, particularly for most important things as the Guru, we are basically insulting God and intelligence.

Only dark religions, based on false and imaginary concepts need to fear from criticism and take all measures to destroy criticism, by violence and intimidation. We should be careful, Hindus don't follow the same route.

You don't insult gurus to insult someone, you do so to destroy wrong notions. Osho was doing the same. If we listen to Osho unbiasedly, most of the time he is speaking most logically and hence most likely the truth. If we choose to throw away this logic and truth because you want to follow a false tradition of showring flase respect for certain individuals, are we actually and really respecting the original GURU? The individuals are just individuals, they become acting Guru at the command & wish of the inner Guru who is most important and the only eternel Guru. But we choose to deny him the respect and intead cling onto personalities.

sm78
02 February 2011, 02:23 AM
he had broke many laws and his followers had ruined peoples lives.

How did he and his followers ruined other peoples lives? I am curious to know.

I know many lives are getting ruined everyday (literally through monetary donations, blowing up onself etc...even if we ignore the mental damage done) in paid Satsangs, paid mass shaktipats, fanatic preachings of hatred that goes inside churces and mosques etc.

Lamas, Guru's, Padris and Mullahs are continously exploiting people feeding on their already existing paranoia. Osho was the rare one who challanged the paranoia, existing beliefs and notions we carry like zombies. How is that ruining people?

Note, I am not a follower of Osho and don't believe much of his philosophy. It sounds good, but is not sound at the end. But I have no doubt about his approach. I am sure he could get at least few people to question themselves and thus start them on the path of self-discovery.

sm78
02 February 2011, 06:28 AM
What is the 6th kala in shaktivad?

A better translation & 1 para defn than the one I had forwarded you.

The flag of Ganesha have been somewhat discussed. The perspicacious will be able to discover many more information from these traces of indications. Now, we devote ourselves to the dhyana of Surya to find out, to which endowments in us, this flag seeks us to attain? The supreme embodiment (ishvariya bhaba) of love (prema) in us can be termed as Surya. Surya[1] (the sun) is the light to shatter the darkness of ignorance in us. It is the shinning spirit (teja) to demolish the inertia in us. After experiencing thoughts of this stage, activists (karmin) conceive that a person is unjust for being ignorant. With impartment of proper education he will attain the self-restraint (sangyama) and divinity. The great men connected to this stage want to establish everything upon the foundation of education. They want to restrain everybody by means of teaching and preaching. They are in favour of the rule of love. They strive to awaken morality among the immoral by acute projection of their innocence and anguish for the immoral to the world, in particular, to the immoral. They are obsessed with divinity in man. Proper education and persuasion through reformerís self-suffering could reform a person only if his evilness (asuric nature) is an outcome of ignorance. There are others, who adopt the asuric nature even after being fully knowledgeable. If somebody attempts to reform them with this power, they attempt to further their own interests using this weakness of the reformer.

Eastern Mind
02 February 2011, 07:51 AM
I think no guru should be above criticism. It's a very dangerous thing to elevate human beings to such a level where they are immune to criticism. Especially when they have such responsibilities as the spiritual leaders. Osho criticising the rest doesn't make him better, he himself has done a lot that needs to be criticised, but at least he is not afraid to speak his mind.

Vannakkam: On an individual level I agree, but isn't it up to the said individual devotee or follower? I doubt that there are many really blind followers who went off to see some guru without first questioning their own actions. I'm no mind reader, after all, but it seems that way to me. Obviously they saw something that suited them, or they wouldn't have done it. Even false paths are great teachers in that they tell you what NOT to do. I guess an analogy could be political attack ads. I personally don't see the point. I think it's up to the individual seeker and no one else. What is the personal value of criticism, be it of another sampradaya, another guru? In many cases of parenting, for example, when a child is at his rebellious stage, guidance has exactly the opposite affect of what was intended. Any press is good press, as they say. So when a very critical article comes out in some newspaper, it piques the interest.

On a personal note, of course I have my more cherished teachers, books, etc., but that's my chosen or God given path. I don't need to share with anyone what I think. Its almost then the other side of the proselytising coin, and we all know what most of us think of that. Everyone in SD at least has to stick together in some way. I'm sure the Christians and Moslems love it when they see Hindus fighting amongst themselves.

Aum Namasivaya

TheOne
02 February 2011, 10:37 AM
How did he and his followers ruined other peoples lives? I am curious to know.

I know many lives are getting ruined everyday (literally through monetary donations, blowing up onself etc...even if we ignore the mental damage done) in paid Satsangs, paid mass shaktipats, fanatic preachings of hatred that goes inside churces and mosques etc.

Lamas, Guru's, Padris and Mullahs are continously exploiting people feeding on their already existing paranoia. Osho was the rare one who challanged the paranoia, existing beliefs and notions we carry like zombies. How is that ruining people?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack
He had violated numerous immigration procedures and lied on his visa and eventually deported from the U.S.
During his residence in Rajneeshpuram Osho dictated three books under the influence of nitrous oxide administered to him by his private dentist Sheela later stated that Osho took sixty milligrams of Valium each day and was addicted to nitrous oxide.[/URL][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29#cite_note-127"] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29#cite_note-Spiegel-124)

TheOne
02 February 2011, 10:39 AM
But like I said, I don't know all the circumstances involved and I cannot claim to know everything about his message and personal life. And yes, I do think a Guru is necessary for just about everyone, but I myself have a preference away from people in the limelight that have hundreds of other followers just because I don't see it as a true Guru - Disciple relationship

Believer
02 February 2011, 02:44 PM
First of all, let me say that any time an Indian Guru/Acharya falls because of something that he did/said or his followers did/said, it is very painful, because it reflects negatively on the whole of Hinduism. With that in mind, it gives me no pleasure in pointing a finger at any one of them. Having been around for few decades longer than some of the other members, and having lived through the times of highs and lows of some of the recent Gurus, our knowledge base about their teachings/activities is deeper and wider through no special effort of ours. A lot could be said about them, both positive and negative, but that would only peel the scabs off the old wounds. And it would damage Hinduism. So, why not let the old departed souls rest? If you find something positive in what they said/wrote, absorb it, else move on!
-

Sahasranama
02 February 2011, 03:23 PM
I'm sure the Christians and Moslems love it when they see Hindus fighting amongst themselves.
First of all, let me say that any time an Indian Guru/Acharya falls because of something that he did/said or his followers did/said, it is very painful, because it reflects negatively on the whole of Hinduism.I look at it slightly differently, this all has to do with prestige, but should prestige (ego) prevent us from searching the truth. Humility is not crawling in the sand, kissing people's feet, but it's the lack of humility that makes us worried about what will the Christians or Muslims say when they see us criticising our own saints for the sake of preserving dharma. We like to see the Christians and Muslims as our enemies, but a lot of misinformation that is being spread about Hinduism is an inside job spread by gurus who were looking for masses of followers.


Having been around for few decades longer than some of the other members, and having lived through the times of highs and lows of some of the recent Gurus, our knowledge base about their teachings/activities is deeper and wider through no special effort of ours. A lot could be said about them, both positive and negative, but that would only peel the scabs off the old wounds. And it would damage Hinduism. So, why not let the old departed souls rest? If you find something positive in what they said/wrote, absorb it, else move on!The departed souls would not care, since they have already gone and left us with their teachings. Me or you criticising the teachings of a departed soul is not going to affect the departed soul negatively or positively, but it can help raise the awareness among those who are here now and will be there in the future.

Eastern Mind
02 February 2011, 04:06 PM
We like to see the Christians and Muslims as our enemies,.

Vannakkam Sahasranama:

Shhesh .. I promised myself I wouldn't discuss Christianity any more. This IS a HINDU forum. (Slaps oneself upside head)

I know each is entitled to their opinion, but I am not within this 'we' you speak of. My view is they are tiny children, drowning in maya and anava, needing to be educated, and we as having a difficult task as they are simply not ready for it. I am ready to defend, when defense is needed, but for me your choice of the word 'enemy' differs. Perhaps I am misinterpreting a single word, though.

In Madurai, I spent a lot of time talking with fellow Hindus and re-encouraging and reinforcing how little they (the Christians) have to offer by putting the cross on top of the new hospital. I would rather spend time encouraging my own brethen not to be duped any longer than talking or battling with Christians. The one guy I did encounter I just ignored. I feel confronting him would just harden his resolve, which would defeat the purpose. I felt that his seeing me (a westerner) dressed in veshti, vibhuthi smeared, and all smiles would have the impact of perhaps making his eyes doubt himself for but a moment. That would be a breakthrough.

At least the Hindus understood me. The Christians would have had no clue.

Aum Namasivaya

Sahasranama
02 February 2011, 04:12 PM
I am not choosing the right words today, but what I meant was that people have no problem criticising information about Hinduism when it comes from the western front, but when a native prestigious Indian Hindu says something, he is suddenly above criticism. This attitude of "Deepak Chopra says something, criticise all you want. Sathya Sai Baba does something, don't you dare say a word." Not to be understood wrongly, I like to criticise both. ;)

Believer
02 February 2011, 06:11 PM
Whatever!
-

TheOne
02 February 2011, 09:06 PM
But that would only turn a blind eye to it. There must be a loud opposition to the corrupt / radical "guru's" who subvert their followers. Simply moving on won't solve the real problem.

Eastern Mind
02 February 2011, 09:12 PM
But that would only turn a blind eye to it. There must be a loud opposition to the corrupt / radical "guru's" who subvert their followers. Simply moving on won't solve the real problem.

Vannakkam: But who will be the judge on who is radical and subverts their followers? Not me, that's for sure. I find the term 'brainwashing' very interesting. Some parts of our brains really do need a great washing (cleansing). I've been 'brainwashed' and 'subverted'. Now look what I am. Some guy pretending to be Hindu, I guess?

Aum Namasivaya

sm78
03 February 2011, 12:50 AM
Vannakkam: But who will be the judge on who is radical and subverts their followers?

If you (generic you, not EM) are following their teachings or getting influenced by them, you be the judge. If you don't become the judge of what you eat and take in, who else will do that for you?

If you are completely immune to societal influences and having nothing to do with the gurus who can be criticized, you can probably wash your hands off any criticism business and live your life. I have nothing against that, though I don't think it is the best course of action.

But at the same time we cannot ban, disallow public criticism of public figures. Politicians and Regligious leaders are 2 peoples who need to be scrutinized most. A person might individually choose to stay out of politics and religion, but society has the full right and need to do indulge in this activity.

sm78
03 February 2011, 12:51 AM
I am not choosing the right words today, but what I meant was that people have no problem criticising information about Hinduism when it comes from the western front, but when a native prestigious Indian Hindu says something, he is suddenly above criticism. This attitude of "Deepak Chopra says something, criticise all you want. Sathya Sai Baba does something, don't you dare say a word." Not to be understood wrongly, I like to criticise both. ;)

Extremely good way to put. Denial to self-criticism means we are close to possibilities of improvement.

Satyananda
11 October 2011, 07:49 AM
Another pov (edit:which I think most or all of it is quoted from Christopher Calder) about Osho:


"Rajneesh ruled his desert empire as a warlord with his own private army and puppet government. His visions and ideas, faulty or not, were taken without question as the word of God. His disciples were judged by their ability to surrender to his will, and any opposing views were branded as an unspiritual lack of faith. As conditions at the ranch became progressively more unpleasant, a number of sannyasins escaped by hiding in the back of outgoing trucks. Their quest for freedom upset Rajneesh, who demanded that the disillusioned must now ask his permission to leave. Rajneesh then dramatically threatened suicide if others escaped by stealthful means...

...Rajneesh died addicted to Valium, and he experienced all of the negative symptoms of drug addiction, which included slurred speech, paranoia, poor judgment, and dramatically lowered intelligence. At one point his paranoia and confusion were so great that he thought a group of German cultists had cast an evil spell on him. His physical disabilities and drug abuse were simply more than his mortal brain could take. His biggest flaw, his disregard for the ordinary concept of truth, was his ultimate downfall and for that crime he must be held fully responsible.

"Never give a sucker an even break." - W.C. Fields

Rajneesh lied when he said he had enlightened disciples. He lied when he said he never made a mistake. Near the end of his life he was forced to admit that he was fallible, as his list of bungles had grown to monstrous proportions. He lied by pretending that his therapy groups were not mainly just a money making device. Rajneesh lied about breaking United States immigration laws, and he only admitted the truth after he was presented with overwhelming evidence against him. He lied by saying that he was adopted in a phony scheme to get permanent residence status. Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh was no bank robber, but he was quite literally a pathological liar. The ridiculous thing is that all of his lies were totally unnecessary and counterproductive. As conventional and square as it may sound, honesty really is the best policy!
Rajneesh lied when he claimed that he was not responsible for the horrors of the Oregon commune. Rajneesh was responsible because he hand picked Ma Anand Sheela and the people who committed the major crimes of conspiracy to commit murder, poisoning, first-degree assault, burglary, arson, and wiretapping. Rajneesh himself gave direct verbal approval for Sheela's illegal bugging and wiretapping of his own disciples. The fact that Rajneesh did not order or have preknowledge (hopefully) of the most serious violent crimes does not mean that he was not ethically responsible for them. Rajneesh never turned against Ma Anand Sheela until he started to suspect that Sheela was stealing money from him.
Just one month before Sheela fled the commune, Rajneesh spoke of her publicly, stating that "I have been preparing her like a sword. I told her to go out and cut as many heads as possible." Later, Rajneesh feigned innocence and claimed that Sheela was controlling him in spite of the obvious fact that Rajneesh was the singular reason the commune existed. Rajneesh was surrounded by thousands of adoring disciples who would have gladly expelled or even jailed Sheela any time he gave the order.
Sheela did Rajneesh's dirty work, and the fact that she went farther in her crimes than Rajneesh had planned does not exonerate him of all guilt. Upon leaving the commune, Sheela stated that she was tired of "being his slave for 16, 17 or 20 hours a day," and tired of "taking food out of the mouths of people to buy him watches and Rolls Royces." Rajneesh then publicly claimed that Sheela had extorted millions of dollars from the commune. Sheela's response to his charge was that Rajneesh had spent all of the money himself on his own expensive toys, and that Rajneesh was bad at mathematics and "can't count." Clearly, Rajneesh's insane purchases of dozens of bejeweled ladies' watches and over 90 Rolls-Royce automobiles cost the commune many millions of dollars. After her release from prison, Ma Anand Sheela continued to work for a living, without obvious signs of enormous wealth. Sheela committed many crimes, but Rajneesh himself was never "innocent."
If a teacher puts a drunken sailor in charge of driving a school bus, and the children end up dead, then the teacher is responsible for their deaths. Rajneesh knew what kind of a person Sheela was, and he chose her because of her corruption and arrogance, not in spite of it. Rajneesh personally tutored Sheela in how to control and manipulate his own disciples, and it was Rajneesh himself who encouraged Sheela's infamous outbursts on the ABC television show, Nightline. In a cowardly attempt to evade his own failings, Rajneesh changed his name to Osho, as if a change in name could wash away his sins.
There is no publicly released evidence to suggest that Rajneesh ordered the germ warfare attack on the ten Oregon restaurants. There is also no publicly released evidence that implicates Rajneesh in the plot to have a sannyasin pilot fly an airplane full of explosives into an Oregon courthouse in order to intimidate the political opposition. Luckily, the sannyasin pilot who was asked to perform that insane task was not as dumb as the plotters, and he fled the commune without committing any crime.
Rajneesh was directly responsible for the twisted mix of totalitarian slavery and libertine indulgence that the commune represented. According to highly credible published reports, Rajneesh allowed middle aged men to have sexual intercourse with prepubescent girls at the commune in the name of sexual freedom, yet his disciples were not allowed to have a mind of their own and had to totally surrender to the great Bhagwan's will. Disciples were often forced to work 12 hours a day in cold and difficult conditions, while Rajneesh himself experienced "groovy spaces" in his private heated indoor pool and watched countless movies on his big screen projection television, all the while enjoying his daily supply of drugs. Rajneesh showed his divine love for his disciples by squandering millions in hard earned commune assets on his car collection and expensive jewelry, and all in the name of egolessness and spiritual surrender. [see photo of the flagrantly narcissistic Osho wearing jewel encrusted watch (http://home.att.net/~meditation/prima.donna.html)]
Why did Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh own over 90 Rolls-Royces? Why did Saddam Hussein own dozens of luxurious palaces? Those desires were products of the base animal mind of two men who grew up surrounded by poverty. Enlightenment does not care about symbols of power and potency. Looking for hidden esoteric explanations for obsessive behavior is pointless. Is there an occult reason that Elton John spends over $400,000. per month on flowers? Is there a secret spiritual reason that Rajneesh had a collection of dozens of expensive ladies' watches? The universal cosmic consciousness is completely neutral and without any need to possess, impress, or dominate. It also cannot drive or tell time. One of Rajneesh's most blatant lies was that "the enlightened one gains nothing from his disciples." Rajneesh wanted people to believe that everything he did was a free gift born of pure compassion, and that he gained nothing personally from the guru-disciple relationship. In obvious provable fact, Rajneesh gained much from his disciples: money, power, sex, and the titillation of constant adoration. Just as rock stars become energized by screaming fans at concerts, Rajneesh gained emotional energy and support from his army of sannyasins. The energy transfer was a two-way street, not a totally free one-way gift. Being a guru was his business, his only business. Without that income, at least on the material level, he was just a short, balding, physically disabled Indian man who could not hold a job. Rajneesh's very real enlightenment would not pay his bills or give him the material luxuries he craved..."


I felt I had to write something here about Chris Calder`s unrealistic views on Osho.
It is clear that he has created his own version of events in Osho`s life,and presented his ideas as `the facts`.
You can read Anthony Thompson`s verdict on Chris Calder`s writing here: http://truthaboutosho.blogspot.com/

I find that Chris Calder`s writing on Osho is immature.Of course he is entitled to his opinion.
To read a small book by one of Osho`s very early diciples,: http://www.oshoworld.com/tales/introduction.asp

Om Namo Shivaya

Avyaydya
05 November 2012, 07:16 PM
Namaste,

I really love Osho. I enjoy listening to him. I consider him a real free spirit and enlightened person. Whatever they write about him I do not care. OSHO spoke his mind and offended a great number of people and as Karma goes, this negativity returned to him. I think he would gracefully accept that. As a unconventional person OSHO liked to provoke. He was a very provoking person challenging all kind of concepts other people take for granted or as holy truth. But I think his provoking was rather meant to create free thinking followers than to attack others. The implicit message is: do not look up to much, think for yourself.

I think the subject is a bit out of place here, as Osho did not regard himself to be a Hindu. He was not a Hindu master. He is background was Jain, born Chandra Mohan Jain. But what I make up from his words he regarded him self more of a Buddhist, a Buddha.

Whenever he criticized, he does this in very clear and concise terms so you can follow his reasoning. What I like very much is that all his provoking remarks are done with a great sense of humor and relativity. Although he has a very clear manner of expressing himself, their is always this smile that provokes the listener.

Was Osho perfect? I think there are two things important here.

One: Hindu's do not expect Guru's to be perfect like for instance Muslims or Christians do. Simply read the great epics, not even the Sages are perfect. A student chooses his guru himself as perfect for him. And guru's ask students to ignore their flaws. Even Sages must be constantly aware and can still fail in weak moment.

Two: Who are we to judge? To judge OSHO is to say we equal OSHO in consciousness and understand the true reasons of his actions. In India followers do not expect masters to behave in conventional way. I think it is hard to be a true student if you want to judge your teacher. As non-followers we can criticize OSHO, but remembering the lightheartedness and humor, his rejection for any kind fanaticism, his playful ways and understanding of western psychology and the Love and happiness he imbued in many of his followers, I think fondly of him as a wonderful man and a great gift to mankind.

Jai Ganesha!

R Gitananda
12 November 2012, 07:00 PM
namaste

To speak in a general sense, many people will impute additional attributes to a person who may be extraordinarily gifted in one area or another. For instance, if a person is very brilliant then it will often be assumed that their words or actions which at first glimpse seem nonsensical or even offensive are assumed to be profound. So Einstein could utter something while out-of-his-mind drunk and when the preface "Einstein said ..." is spoken, people tend to not hear the words objectively.

Or if a person who is known to be very pious happens to say something foolish or do something silly then "There must be some deeper meaning,
a lesson for all of us to benefit from. Besides who are you to question such a personality?"

Not having grown up in Hinduism I have no problem separating a person's gifts from their character or wisdom. Logic helps and Patanjali's Yoga Sutra's seem to corroborate my belief that the existence of siddhis does not mean that the person displaying them is Self-realized or worthy of veneration.

Hari Aum


Osho always seemed like a genuinely insightful man who had much to teach, but ... http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/look-into-my-eyes