Baghwan bashing

[cloud recluse]

Okey dokey.Time for some more guru expose'.

 

To start the ball rolling,the self-proclaimed Baghwan,in my opinion,was a masterful manipulator,a remarkable (if somwhat inaccurate) orator,a bit of a sorcerer ,and an impotent drug feind obsesed with power,status & money,perfectly happy to sacrifice the wellbeing of his students to his desire for self-glorification.

For a man who made a career out of attacking & insulting Indias traditional religious institutions as obnoxiously as possible,he ended up being one of the more exceptionally corrupt professional religionists around.The type of guy who talks a good fight,but is happy to let his disposeable disciples take all the flack.

 

Whos up a chat

 

Regards,Cloud.

 

PS.I forgot to mention,some excellent reading on this is THE GOLDEN GURU by James.S.Gordon & BAGHWAN:THE GOD THAT FAILED by Hugh Milne.These 2 books,PARTICULARLY Gordons,point out that B "had something",but it was outweighed by his hypocrisy & deception.

 

Another 2 books about the Guru syndrome in general are FEET OF CLAY by Anthony Storr and DESTROYING THE WORLD IN ORDER TO SAVE IT by Robert Jay Lifton.Storr looks ata few gurus in his workin trying to elucidate the guru posture as a defence against inner fear,B among them.Liftons concentrates on Shoko Asahara of the Tokyo subway gas attack fame,but really goes into detail on the function of guru as substitute ego in the discilpes psyche,as well as the gurus dependence on the disciple.Its interesting how Asahara started to break down in custody after being seperated from his folloewrs.

Edited July 11, 2006 by cloud recluse

[freeform]

I think to make a thread like this very usefull we have to examine 'how it all went wrong'... rather than 'why it went wrong'. Because if we ask why we get a stream of interesting and entertaining oppinions but not much use out of it.

 

I also think that if we have strong feelings about the manipulativeness of others we should find in us the polarity that exists and creates this strong feeling against such spiritual manipulators - because whether we're conscious of this or not, it is very likely that on the other end of the polarity there is a supressed part of us that enjoys controlling others... and our dislike for for this part causes us to seek it outside of our selves and then denounce it 'out there' (so that we dont have to deal with the one inside of our selves!)

 

I use the collective 'we' because I've been reading the other thread denouncing osho and I found myself firstly angry at the man for using people's trust for his egoic means and secondly I found it fun reading cloud's expose of just how terrible this guy is! And I wondered - why do I automatically feel angry about this? and why do I automatically feel good about denouncing this cause of anger. And the answer was that there is a little dark part in my own ego that wants to control others, this part - I don't accept in any way, which in turn supresses it, and my automatic feeling of gratification that came with denouncing this was because I really want to hide this part away as far as I can...

 

Ofcourse now I've done something about it - the little dark part has been brought into the light, loved and embraced and using a technique I brought it to complete Emptiness, which is where it was trying to get to by behaving like that... Then I did the same with the part of me that feels manipulation is a 'bad thing'. Now when I try to get the feeling (of disgust, or anger against manipulativeness, and pleasure for 'letting things be') I just get emptiness... there is nothing there... SWEET!

 

... I frame everything as a chance for me to learn about myself, and to bring to Emptiness another part of my ego... and I'm suggesting that this could be a usefull frame for others, especially if you get strong feelings about something that seems outside of you.

 

so yeah - let the guru bashing commence!

[SheepishLord]

I study with two of Osho's former students. One of them was with Osho when he died. Both students are full of integrity and have accomplished something.

 

Osho's methods are fantastic. What Osho did was he took the work of Wilhelm Reich and supercharged it. I have used his methods with great success in terms of my cultivation. If I were to describe Osho's spiritual practices, he basically uses Reichian methods to create a window of opportunity in which to practice traditionial Vipassana. The method is solid and I have seen many of his students with real, tangible benefits from the practice.

 

Those who criticize Osho's methods have never completed them. My teacher loses 90% of her students after one lesson, because the methods are so powerful they scare people. Imagine what it feels like when all the chi and emotions you've been repressing come up to be discharged? Most people run away. Then they criticize the method instead of themselves for being cowards.

 

Now as far as Osho the man goes, clearly there were a lot of problems. Naturally my teacher tells very different stories about her experiences with him. She would say that he was poisoned by the US government and everyone else would say he poisoned himself with drugs. She would say he gave away his Rolls-Royces and everyone else would say that he accumulated them out of greed.

 

What I can say is that Osho attracted so many followers because he had something to offer. Something few other teachers could offer. Even UG Krishnamurti, whom I adore, had no method to teach his students. So what good was his cultivation to the world? Osho, who probably was a drug-addicted fraud, gave thousands of people methods that changed their lives in a very real way.

 

You are free to focus on the bad about Osho, but that won't change your life.

[ToP-fan]

I think to make a thread like this very usefull we have to examine 'how it all went wrong'... rather than 'why it went wrong'. Because if we ask why we get a stream of interesting and entertaining oppinions but not much use out of it.

 

I also think that if we have strong feelings about the manipulativeness of others we should find in us the polarity that exists and creates this strong feeling against such spiritual manipulators - because whether we're conscious of this or not, it is very likely that on the other end of the polarity there is a supressed part of us that enjoys controlling others... and our dislike for for this part causes us to seek it outside of our selves and then denounce it 'out there' (so that we dont have to deal with the one inside of our selves!)

 

I use the collective 'we' because I've been reading the other thread denouncing osho and I found myself firstly angry at the man for using people's trust for his egoic means and secondly I found it fun reading cloud's expose of just how terrible this guy is! And I wondered - why do I automatically feel angry about this? and why do I automatically feel good about denouncing this cause of anger. And the answer was that there is a little dark part in my own ego that wants to control others, this part - I don't accept in any way, which in turn supresses it, and my automatic feeling of gratification that came with denouncing this was because I really want to hide this part away as far as I can...

 

Ofcourse now I've done something about it - the little dark part has been brought into the light, loved and embraced and using a technique I brought it to complete Emptiness, which is where it was trying to get to by behaving like that... Then I did the same with the part of me that feels manipulation is a 'bad thing'. Now when I try to get the feeling (of disgust, or anger against manipulativeness, and pleasure for 'letting things be') I just get emptiness... there is nothing there... SWEET!

 

... I frame everything as a chance for me to learn about myself, and to bring to Emptiness another part of my ego... and I'm suggesting that this could be a usefull frame for others, especially if you get strong feelings about something that seems outside of you.

 

so yeah - let the guru bashing commence!

 

 

I still don't know how to navigate here for comments and for some reason when I wanted to comment on Freeform's imput all I got was the previous comment......................After all that, I wanted to say. Ditto...... Freeform!

[thaddeus]

Now as far as Osho the man goes, clearly there were a lot of problems. Naturally my teacher tells very different stories about her experiences with him. She would say that he was poisoned by the US government and everyone else would say he poisoned himself with drugs. She would say he gave away his Rolls-Royces and everyone else would say that he accumulated them out of greed.

 

What I can say is that Osho attracted so many followers because he had something to offer. Something few other teachers could offer. Even UG Krishnamurti, whom I adore, had no method to teach his students. So what good was his cultivation to the world? Osho, who probably was a drug-addicted fraud, gave thousands of people methods that changed their lives in a very real way.

 

You are free to focus on the bad about Osho, but that won't change your life.

Very similar things can be said about Castaneda, Mantak Chia, etc. etc...

Which leads to another question..are there any 'teachers' who aren't tragically flawed..i.e. human

T

[sean]

In the Taoist religion I understand that one must become a demon before one becomes a God. And even the Gods are unstable at best. Like freeform says, the hardest thing to face is what's under the surface of our own hard feelings for what we consider so "other". I imagine this is another one of those endlessly difficult features of being human. Various methods of self-inquiry help enormously. Byron Katie's work, the 3-2-1 Shadow Process, any good parts work (ie: Internal Family Systems).

 

Re: Osho, I've gotten some good gems out of his stuff. Same with Chogyam Trungpa. Same with Muktananda. Same with Adi Da even. I'm fairly glad I was never in a situation where they were crashing at my place regularly, but I enjoy checking out their insights from time to time. It's a shame these people and their organizations have also caused suffering. I am not against a call to accountability but I'm also not into victimization movements ("poor us"). Often I even think there should be more said about abuse and decline of teachers at the hands of deranged students than vice versa.

 

Sean

[Yoda]

I totally agree with Plato.

 

I think it's a nice vibe in taoism not to godify the teachers in the first place.

 

-Yoda

[Smile]

Re: Osho, I've gotten some good gems out of his stuff. Same with Chogyam Trungpa. Same with Muktananda. Same with Adi Da even. I'm fairly glad I was never in a situation where they were crashing at my place regularly, but I enjoy checking out their insights from time to time. It's a shame these people and their organizations have also caused suffering.

What's wrong with Muktananda and Siddha Yoga? Did I miss something?

[cloud recluse]

As has been pointed out,everyones fallible,everybody makes mistakes.Also,students may villify teachers instead of confronting their own limitations.

I couldnt agree more.

BUT teachers do have a EXCEPTIONAL obligation compared to students.They are in an undeniable position of power over the student,they "have" the teaching,the instruction the students seeks.

If they are going to be an effective teacher,the role they are explicitly assenting to,THEY MUST exemplify that teaching,and acknowledge their responsibilities.

 

So students can be arseholes,but you look to the teacher to exemplify the teaching.The teachers responsibilty is far greater,and its incredibly naieve to think otherwise.This still applies to schools that de-emphasise the teachers status.EVEN MORE SO really,as the dynamic largely remains intact,just less visible.

 

Definetely teachers WILL be flawed,but it does NOT have to be a tragic flaw if the teacher can acknowledge their own humanity!! THE AVERAGE PERSON IN THE STREET CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THIS,AND OFTEN DOES SO !!! Any cso-called "Guru" should be able to do far better!!

 

Personally I have had a number of teachers,all flawed,all mature enough to admit it,& all effective in their teaching.Despite comong from cultural backgrounds that generate the guru-cult,they themselves never succumbed to this.

 

So no,not all teachers are tragic in their flaws,just the money-grubbing power hungry ones that try to put themselves above criticism( usually by disabling their students thinking capacities).

 

 

 

I study with two of Osho's former students. One of them was with Osho when he died. Both students are full of integrity and have accomplished something.

 

Osho's methods are fantastic. What Osho did was he took the work of Wilhelm Reich and supercharged it. I have used his methods with great success in terms of my cultivation. If I were to describe Osho's spiritual practices, he basically uses Reichian methods to create a window of opportunity in which to practice traditionial Vipassana. The method is solid and I have seen many of his students with real, tangible benefits from the practice...

 

 

It seems true enough that there were many good therapists in Baghwans cult,but B didnt necessarily come up with the methods himself.These people were 'alternative' therapist before they got there!And a lot of them found his transpersonal references inspiring,pointing them in a new direction.All good stuff in itself.BUT THEY ARE NOT OSHOS METHODS.Tinkering about with bodywork & encounter groups is something that has been going on for ages.Baghwan provided a forum totake it futher,sometimes resulting in radical breakthroughs,sometimes in broken limbs & pack-rapes!He himself didnt particularly care,as long as he got rich!

[Smile]

What's wrong with Muktananda and Siddha Yoga? Did I miss something?

Never mind.... http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net

[cloud recluse]

 

You are free to focus on the bad about Osho, but that won't change your life.

 

We are also free to deny the destructive aspect of things we are egoically attached to,but that wont stop them doing damage to the innocent & vulnerable.

 

The point of this thread is that Baghwan was a particularly high-profile influential figure (on the spiritual scene that is,he largely ignored the wellbeing of the world.As "the Rich mans Guru",he didnt feel poor people had spiritual opportunities).This makes him particularly relevant to discussing the unfortunate legacy of the guru cult & its internal mechanics,which is what I really want to get into here.

 

This is Baghwans usefulness.NOT his popularising of a lot of 60s style therapy-yoga combo's,hes neither the first to do this nor probably the last.Rather he is an excellent cautionary example & case study of how spirituality becomes sick.

Here is a guy whos started off paying lip service to freedom from political oppression & corrupt spiritual establishments,and wound up running an armed concentration camp-style enclave while obsessing with money & self-image.WHY? To what extent was it a problem inherent in the forms of spirituality,& to what extent was it Baghwans own ego? This is what I really want to get into here.Lets unfold the guru-disciple thing!

 

Regards Cloud.

Edited July 11, 2006 by cloud recluse

[sean]

What's wrong with Muktananda and Siddha Yoga? Did I miss something?

Sex with many students, which might not be so bad except some of them were minors and if I remember correctly one was very young. Like the child of a student young.

 

[edit]Just noticed you found your own info.

[minimoke]

In the Taoist religion I understand that one must become a demon before one becomes a God. And even the Gods are unstable at best.

 

Sean

 

I've had limited experience with Tao/religion. I've only been in touch with Tao/bodybuilding, Tao/philosophy, Tao/morality and of course Tao/ForumSpeak. I've never heard or read about the transformation to Tao/demon as a gateway to Tao/Godliness. I've had experience with two different Zen temples where rarely the notion of demon/God reference is made.

 

Am I missing some rudimentary basic understanding of Tao? Is there some Pagan splinter group you are more referring to? I feel confused over this.

 

Bruce the lizard

[Peregrino]

I don't doubt that teachers like Rajneesh, Adi Da, and Muktananda opened their students up to amazing new levels of consciousness and bliss, but consciousness is only ONE element of overall spiritual development; indeed, high levels of consciousness combined with dodgy ethics (often justified in terms of following a "crazy wisdom" that is "beyond good and evil") are a recipe for disaster when someone assumes an authority positon. I don't expect (or even believe it's possible) that a teacher will be perfect, but when considering the prime capacities of consciousness, wisdom, ethics, and compassion (amongst others), just having ONE of these gifts in abundance is not enough for me to give any substantial support (in time or money) to a teacher. I really think the Bagwhan ONLY had a highly developed consciousness, but was hardly alone in that. As regards "crazy wisdom," I can respect that if it really does come from wisdom--and my criteria for judging that is the final results of the unconventional means taken. The fruits of his wisdom have not, in my opinion, involved the flourishing of his students across a full spectrum of spiritual capacities, and, in many, many cases, his methods of "teaching" have done far more harm than good--and I'm talking about students who followed him in good faith, and not just any malcontents who might suffer from "victimitis."

 

Yeah, yeah, consciousness and bliss are great, but they're NOT ENOUGH TO REACH SPIRITUAL MATURITY! I think the Bodhisattva tradition brilliantly addresses this point . . . Or, to resort to a favorite example from Western traditions, as Meister Eckhart put it, "If you are in the greatest of mystical ecstasies, even greater than that of Saint Paul on the Road to Damascus, it is better to leave your solitary transports and help a hungry brother in need of bread when you see the opportunity for such service arising." While perhaps "the poor will always be with us," so will the temptations to narcissism and solipsism, and any teacher who does not adequately address these aspects of development should not be promoted as some sort of be-all and end-all. It seems that the Osho defenders here aren't as dogmatic as some of his students, but I think that I'll look elsewhere for instruction in any particular beneficial practices (e.g. dynamic meditation) that can be separated from the mess of a man that was the BSR.

[cloud recluse]

i suppose its Baghwans life & his development into a pseudoguru that I find most instructive.Then theres also the question of why so many followed him into the cults darker phases.I mean its understandable enough when you see a charming,compelling,eloquent orator siting western existentialists as much as eastern sources,& advocating sex & celebration as a path open to all.But what about when hes set up an "ashram" in Oregon more like a concentration camp,patrolled by heavily armed guards,in which constant gruelling manual labour with inadequate nutrition & sleep has replaced yoga,and the theme of spiritual surrender to Baghwan has now become economic surrender and outright worship! What kept these peoplle hooked ??!!

 

What is the mechanism of the false guru & the gullible disciple? A lots been written about disciples,but why does someone WANT guru status,& why do they often collapse when its withdrawn?There are motivations here way beyond usual greed.

 

As a rule,it seems that pseudogurus start of as quite isolated children,unhappy in that isolation,and are driven by a desire to blot that fear out rather than face it.They seem to be seekers of immunity from life,but in a very extreme form.Now,they often go on to experience severe emotional crisis that precipitate dramatic breakthrough/breakdown crises,out of which they emerge with a vision of the world & themselves treasured not so much for its accuracy,but for its defence value against their internal terror.

Then they set about trying to surround themselves with people who will reflect that image back to them,help them keep their terror hidden,reinforce their self-image to them.Being a psychlogically dishonest stance,this paves the way for further deception of self & other.

 

B seems to have started as a disturbed but gifted youth,badly affected by the death of a close relative when young.He then resolved never to be emotionally vulnerable again,to fortify himself from loss & emotion.In a country of mystics,it was esay to experiment with altered states of consciousness in which his pain was anaesthetized.But he was also attracted to quarrel & pranks (some quite cruel) and fascinated by hypnosis and psychological manipulation of both individuals & large groups.

 

Eventually he goes through an immense mental crisis,& comes out the other side as high as a kite! And his sense of vulnerability SEEMS dissolved,as well as moral obligation & emotional connection to others,something he was never comfortable with anyhow.

 

Now he sets up as a radical anti-guru,a great attention getter in India,and soon attracts a following.His presence is mesmerising,and he really seems to have picked up a capacity for subtle influence on the enerrgy feilds of others.Unfortunately,all his neurosis are still intact,waiting to reemerge overtly when the afterglow of his "Enlightenment"wears off.But their less overt influences on his ego are allready colouring his message.

 

So the stage is set for a big fall.Allready ,a crucial part of his message is the abandoning of critical faculties & complete trust in him personally.And he is by no means a well rounded person,or even particularly mature.So while he is delivering a message of celebration that is very healing for many people,its allready intertwined with a system of disempowerment & obedience in thought as well as deed.

 

As the power & money accumulate,and less & less people are willing to provide critical feedback,things become cultish.Furthermore,as the "Afterglow" starts to wear off,his fears return into awareness intact,and drugs begin to look very attractive,

 

At this point,I think he probably could have said "I was mistaken,Im not Enlightened as such" & people still would have been interested in what he had to offer ( other Teachers have done the same).But he lacked the maturity to deal with himself as much as he lacked the compassion to respect others.He wound up hiding behind the same corrupt religious forms he had so violently denigrated.The rest is history.

Edited July 11, 2006 by cloud recluse

[...]

uh, sorry, kinda off course here--

 

"Imagine what it feels like when all the chi and emotions you've been repressing come up to be discharged? Most people run away. Then they criticize the method instead of themselves for being cowards."

 

what are these techniques you are refering to? =p

[SheepishLord]

uh, sorry, kinda off course here--

 

"Imagine what it feels like when all the chi and emotions you've been repressing come up to be discharged? Most people run away. Then they criticize the method instead of themselves for being cowards."

 

what are these techniques you are refering to? =p

 

I was referring to what is called "Osho Pulsation." There are some great teachers in Europe.

[...]

thanks =) I'll google it...

[Trunk]

Okey dokey.Time for some more guru expose'.

I think you'd change your tune if you spent some time sitting with an advanced teacher. For whatever valid points you make, the element of gratitude seems absent - and that says a lot.

[cloud recluse]

I think you'd change your tune if you spent some time sitting with an advanced teacher. For whatever valid points you make, the element of gratitude seems absent - and that says a lot.

 

Dont get me wrong,I have nothing but gratitude for the legitimate teachers I have encountered.What Im getting at here is the egregiously corrupt ones! Why do they emerge & why are they followed.Im quite serious.I think its an issue that has yet to be satisfactorily resolved in our spiritual culture,and full on sociopathic types like Rajneesh provide an excellent case study.

 

I suppose on the emotional side I am admittedly both puzzled & frustrated by the same sad scenarios recurring again & again.Some progress in the area would be gratifying.But we still seem to alternate between shocking naivete & equally unrealistic cynicism in our approach to spirituality.With Rajneesh we not only have the phenomenon of his life ,we also have the current repackaging & rewriting of his life by his succesors,trying to elevate him into some noble figurehead in order to legitimate their own claims.

 

I have no problem with legitimate gurus!!!! But the pseudo-guru phenomenon is alive & well & taking its toll on a spiritually naieve ,yet sincere, community.I think this warrants considerable attention.The deathtoll amongst the Orange People wasnt as high as Jonestown,but the same essential mechanisms were in place.AND IT ALL SEEMS SO AVOIDABLE,if it can just be clarified & presented as a general caution on the path.

[Trunk]

.. gratitude for the legitimate teachers ..

 

.. But we still seem to alternate between shocking naivete & equally unrealistic cynicism in our approach to spirituality.

Oh. That's more real to me.

[Peregrino]

Trunk, just curious--have you actually studied with Osho? If so, what was your experience--the good, the bad, and the ugly?

 

One other point: If there are "lack of gratitude" problems, there are also "lack of sympathy" problems for real victims of spiritual authority figures. The victims of Catholic priests readily come to mind (people either didn't believe them or straight out tried to silence them for years), but there are also loads of cases related to teachers coming from Eastern backgrounds. Ambiguity abounds in most every human being, but with regards to teachers, if the ratio of abuse to benefit is exceedingly high, I have to side with the victims when all the pertinent evidence is in. In Osho's case, I believe all the pertinent evidence is indeed in, and it resoundingly speaks against him.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Peregrino

[Trunk]

Trunk, just curious--have you actually studied with Osho? If so, what was your experience--the good, the bad, and the ugly?

No, I haven't studied with Osho.

My response was towards what I mis-perceived as unbalanced general guru-bashing (which cloud_recluse has since clarified that that is not what he is doing). I'm for a realistic view of acknowledging actual benefits and difficulties, dangers. Even with teachers of general good character and perhaps some exceptional teaching skill, there's always something to watch out for - every relationship has its in's & out's.

 

For people who've never received a really pure transmission, its too easy to dismiss gurus altogether. And, for some who've received transmission, its too easy to go gah-gah. There's a middle ground that's .. useful, and carefully realistic.

[Yoda]

The Oshos, Muktanandas, Trungpas, TMs, Chias, Gandhis etc have all had their share of victims.

 

Winn's rabbit comes to mind... may he rest in peace.

 

but their legacy is on the whole extremely positive and uplifting and of great benefit to others. Their mistakes are helpful for us too.

 

Speaking of which... what's the dirt on Paramahansa these days? How did that whole paternity thing pan out?

 

-Yoda

[cloud recluse]

....

 

For people who've never received a really pure transmission, its too easy to dismiss gurus altogether. And, for some who've received transmission, its too easy to go gah-gah. There's a middle ground that's .. useful, and carefully realistic.

 

Exactly! The question then becomes one of clarifying that middle ground to make it more accesible & clarifying the downside of the guru-disciple relationship so that seekers can be more readily aware of it without dismissing spirituality in itself.Now this of course doesnt guarantee anything,but it could certainly improve the situation.

 

Now I dont know how accurate my own perception is here,but I think that the spiritual newcomer still comes up against two outworn positions among fellow seekers.There is the blind obedience-antiintellectual trip in various forms,then youve got the 1980's style "cult-busting" deprogrmmer material in which all gurus & new religious movements are possesed of almost demonic powers of instant brainwashing for evil purposes.The latter usuallly carries the assumption that spiritual seekers who become enmeshed in a cultic relationship to a teacher can ONLY be motivated by fear & stupidity,as opposed to a very real desire for a spirituality of purpose,consequence & tangible comitment.

 

I think its time for a more realistic take on the matter .

 

Any relationship between human beings has a potential downside,and perfectly sincere human beings can make dreadful mistakes,gurus included.Spirituality can bring out the best in us,but its just as likely to bring out the worst,and we have to have some degree of preperadness for that,AT LEAST to the extent of being able to acknowledge it when it starts to happen.

 

To that end,I want to pick apart the downside,& high profile critters like Mohan Chandra Rajneesh are excelent material.

 

So,let me hear it! WHY does the toxic side occur ? WHY the mixed up gurus as well as the deliberately fraudulent ones ? WHY are some seekers so eager to worship & fearful of doubt,especially seekers with quite intelligent backgrounds? What are the mechanics of all this ?No one here seems to really deny the situation,but I want to hear WHY it occurs!! I have my own opinions,but I want to hear others!There must be more to it than 'It happens,be careful"!! GIVE ME THE WHY.

 

 

Regards,Cloud

Edited July 13, 2006 by cloud recluse