Osho Rajneesh Cult Documentary

[gatito]

An interesting discussion with a wide range of view points, mostly well-expressed. Rather than simply throw in my inclinations on the question of whether Osho was right or wrong, sinner or saint,... I thought, (for diversity's sake), I'd add what I think is an interesting sidestep which is applicable to every teacher and whatever the paths they happen to promote. It's from a talk given by Wayne Liquorman, an American, Non-Duality teacher :

 

*

*

*

 

 

For those of you who are hearing me for the first time I want to emphasize that nothing I say is the Truth. I make no claims whatsoever that one word comings out of my mouth is the Truth.

 

Now I am not unique in this. None of the teachers that you've either read or heard are speaking the Truth. Truth can't be spoken. All of these concepts are simply pointers, indicators of a Truth that is right here - that is ever-present - as clear, and as unmasked as it could possibly be.

 

So, I personally have no trouble with anybody else’s teachings. If one teacher says you exist and another one says you don’t exist, and this one says that you’re God incarnate and this other one says that you’re nothing, I don’t care. They are all understood to be relative teaching tools. There is never a question of the hammer being Truer than the screwdriver. What I find objectionable (in an aesthetic sense) is when someone says, “What I am saying is the Truth and what the other teaching is saying is bullshit.” Such an assertion lacks the essential clarity of understanding that it’s all bullshit, and that a given teacher’s teaching is a matter of enculturation and personal programming that determine how their teaching is expressed.

 

Ramana Maharishi used the image of a concept, (or religion, or philosophy), as being like a thorn that is used to remove some other thorn that is, let's say, embedded in your foot. So you have a thorn (which is some concept about how things are) and it's embedded in you. The sage comes and uses another concept in the hopes of removing that embedded concept with this second concept. If the embedded concept is removed both concepts become superfluous - they get discarded. The thorn that's being utilised to remove the other thorn has no intrinsic value. After it has done its job you don't wax rhapsodic over what a great thorn it was. Its value was only as a tool. The purpose of all religions and philosophies is exactly the same.

 

Generally, by the time you've gotten here you've read a lot, you've been to a lot of teachers, you have absorbed a vast number of concepts, and many of them are contradictory. How do you reconcile what this teacher said with what that teacher said ? I mean, you've sat with this teacher; you know that this person is a genuine teacher. There's no question of him scamming you. And yet he's saying something that is utterly and completely different from what this one over here is saying. How do you reconcile these conflicting explanations ?

 

The way you reconcile them is to understand that none of these teachers' concepts are true. All concepts, religions, and philosophies are simply tools, and their applicability is only in the moment.

 

*

 

 

On the face of it, this sounds quite good. However Wayne Liquorman is a neoadvaitin and one of the giveaways is this: -

 

Such an assertion lacks the essential clarity of understanding that it’s all bullshit, and that a given teacher’s teaching is a matter of enculturation and personal programming that determine how their teaching is expressed.

 

In fact, some teaching is certainly not "all bullshit".

 

There is absolute truth (which cannot be spoken) and relative truth (which can be spoken).

 

The final post in this thread explains it quite well..

 

Do not say Ävoid Reading....: 

I would say read with discrimination and do not trust all that is in print

 

There are few enlightened Advaita teachers around and many commercial teachers

keep away from the commercial teachers

 

Read the works  original masters and

not the second generation works based on  an individuals coprehension or interpretation or, revised updates , etc

The originals works  are difficult to comprehend, search an good teacher, who is more your friend than a GURU

Reading alone does not give the full comprehension of Advaita a personal guide is a must

 

www.indiadivine.org/content/topic/1381354-avoid-reading-books-of-wayne-liquorman-and-ramesh-balsekar/?p=7532687

 

Again, vicāra, vicāra, vicāra...

Edited July 19, 2015 by gatito

[GrandmasterP]

Every guru, ashram and utopian community has people who join up and then leave with tales of woe and or horror.

It happens almost every time everywhere.

Guru-ing is a business, these people get their living by it and there's a guru out there to suit everybody. Find out who is hot and who is not in the guru-ing industry by checking Sarlos Guru Ratings here..

http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ratings.htm

All I know about the Osho Rajneesh people for sure is that they fought for and won the right to freely publish Osho's works when the 'official' Osho outfit attempted to secure worldwide copyright.

Here's Osho's outstanding commentary on Chuang Tzu...

http://www.oshorajneesh.com/download/osho-books/Tao/When_the_Shoe_Fits.pdf

 

Enjoy.

BTW

Apologies for my absence from the forum. A new small-business venture is keeping me rather busy but I do pop in and read posts from time to time.

Best regards to all

Edited July 19, 2015 by GrandmasterP

[gatito]

Every guru, ashram and utopian community has people who join up and then leave with tales of woe and or horror.

It happens almost every time everywhere.

 

<snip>

 

That's untue as well..

 

vicāra, vicāra, vicāra...

 

[Michael Sternbach]

An interesting discussion with a wide range of view points, mostly well-expressed. Rather than simply throw in my inclinations on the question of whether Osho was right or wrong, sinner or saint,... I thought, (for diversity's sake), I'd add what I think is an interesting sidestep which is applicable to every teacher and whatever the paths they happen to promote. It's from a talk given by Wayne Liquorman, an American, Non-Duality teacher :

 

*

*

*

 

 

For those of you who are hearing me for the first time I want to emphasize that nothing I say is the Truth. I make no claims whatsoever that one word comings out of my mouth is the Truth.

 

Now I am not unique in this. None of the teachers that you've either read or heard are speaking the Truth. Truth can't be spoken. All of these concepts are simply pointers, indicators of a Truth that is right here - that is ever-present - as clear, and as unmasked as it could possibly be.

 

So, I personally have no trouble with anybody else’s teachings. If one teacher says you exist and another one says you don’t exist, and this one says that you’re God incarnate and this other one says that you’re nothing, I don’t care. They are all understood to be relative teaching tools. There is never a question of the hammer being Truer than the screwdriver. What I find objectionable (in an aesthetic sense) is when someone says, “What I am saying is the Truth and what the other teaching is saying is bullshit.” Such an assertion lacks the essential clarity of understanding that it’s all bullshit, and that a given teacher’s teaching is a matter of enculturation and personal programming that determine how their teaching is expressed.

 

Ramana Maharishi used the image of a concept, (or religion, or philosophy), as being like a thorn that is used to remove some other thorn that is, let's say, embedded in your foot. So you have a thorn (which is some concept about how things are) and it's embedded in you. The sage comes and uses another concept in the hopes of removing that embedded concept with this second concept. If the embedded concept is removed both concepts become superfluous - they get discarded. The thorn that's being utilised to remove the other thorn has no intrinsic value. After it has done its job you don't wax rhapsodic over what a great thorn it was. Its value was only as a tool. The purpose of all religions and philosophies is exactly the same.

 

Generally, by the time you've gotten here you've read a lot, you've been to a lot of teachers, you have absorbed a vast number of concepts, and many of them are contradictory. How do you reconcile what this teacher said with what that teacher said ? I mean, you've sat with this teacher; you know that this person is a genuine teacher. There's no question of him scamming you. And yet he's saying something that is utterly and completely different from what this one over here is saying. How do you reconcile these conflicting explanations ?

 

The way you reconcile them is to understand that none of these teachers' concepts are true. All concepts, religions, and philosophies are simply tools, and their applicability is only in the moment.

 

*

 

 

I agree to this. There are no ultimate truths. The history of science demonstrates this: Whenever a "final" answer was found, it opened up a Universe of new questions.

 

Established religions do claim having ultimate answers and defend them by saying: "Don't ask any stupid questions!"

[Apech]

When I see the words 'non-duality teacher' I reach for my vajra.

[gatito]

When I see the words 'non-duality teacher' I reach for my vajra.

 

..an healthy and wise response.

[gatito]

[Sebastian]

I think we may need to re-assess the value of genius in our society.

 

There are already many people displaying genius in many fields.

 

Yet not all of these geniuses have left the world a more beautiful place. 

 

I used to over-respect genius and viewed it as a tangible proof of achievement, to my detriment.

 

Genius in itself is not a bad thing, but it's not the entire thing I learned.

 

Maybe we should praise kinder folks who are average in every way instead.

 

A definition for Genius could be a creative homage and service to life.

 

Drawing people in with beautiful words to ultimately abuse them is not That.

 

This Osho example shows that the Truth is not always so eloquent.

 

Decorated words usually carry some hidden agenda within them. 

Edited July 19, 2015 by Sebastian

[thelerner]

I beg to differ.

A truth is a truth is a truth - no matter who utters it.

 

Kind of..  There is more power to a truth said by a good trustworthy person. 

There's a saying (Buddhist?), a truth said in anger is no longer the truth. 

[Chang]

I think we may need to re-assess the value of genius in our society.

 

There are already many people displaying genius in many fields.

 

Yet not all of these geniuses have left the world a more beautiful place. 

 

I used to over-respect genius and viewed it as a tangible proof of achievement, to my detriment.

 

Genius in itself is not a bad thing, but it's not the entire thing I learned.

 

Maybe we should praise kinder folks who are average in every way instead.

 

A definition for Genius could be a creative homage and service to life.

 

Drawing people in with beautiful words to ultimately abuse them is not That.

 

This Osho example shows that the Truth is not always so eloquent.

 

Decorated words usually carry some hidden agenda within them. 

 

A person may be clever.

 

A person may well be a genius.

 

We should remember however that the person may not be wise.

[liminal_luke]

Being a genius is kinda like being rich. If you´re rich some people will automatically think you´re a good person, some people will automatically think you´re bad. The truth is rich has nothing to do with good and bad. Rich is just rich -- and genius is just genius.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

"There's a lesson to learn from everybody, even if it's what not to do." - some guy in a cheesy TV movie.

[thelerner]

I'll tell you one thing, wise tends to lead a better life then foolish.  Not necessarily materialistically; shit happens, but all in all the fruit of wisdom is a good life. 

 

Osho, ended hated by many, in pain, paranoid, a pariah in many countries, stripped of much of what he built. 

 

This sums it up well:  "One sometimes wonders whether there are not two Oshos.  One, the mystic and the other a quite ordinary all too human egoistic worldly person.  As Calder has observed: “This crazy old man, now called "Osho," was a far cry from the serene, dignified, and highly eloquent Acharya Rajneesh I had met years earlier.  He became fooled into thinking that he was above arrogance and greed, but that was simply not the case.”  from- http://www.academia.edu/430920/Osho_A_Counterfeit_Guru

 

[Nungali]

Osho ... Michael Jackson ... its a pattern. 

 

Seems to come up when 'delay gratification' principle isnt operative. 

 

So ... anyone care to join me for cocktails in my back yard giraffe enclosure <checks watch>  and there is the gymp parade  in 1/2 an hour ... thats oh so amusing  chaps! 

 

Dont forget the dress code !

 

[3bob]

and what about a spin off along these lines for Carlos Castaneda and his books?

[Nungali]

When I see the words 'non-duality teacher' I reach for my vajra.

 

 

 

 

 

(note 'flying bitch-slap technique' ) 

Edited July 19, 2015 by Nungali

[thelerner]

Nungali

Posted Today, 05:28 PM

"Osho ... Michael Jackson ... its a pattern. 

 

Seems to come up when 'delay gratification' principle isnt operative. 

 

So ... anyone care to join me for cocktails in my back yard giraffe enclosure <checks watch>  and there is the gymp parade  in 1/2 an hour ... thats oh so amusing  chaps! 

 

Dont forget the dress code !"

 

 

sure.. as long as there's cocktails

I'll bring my jo and be wearing my best hakama

Edited July 19, 2015 by thelerner

[Nungali]

Only if you dye it Bengal red first . 

[Michael Sternbach]

Kind of..  There is more power to a truth said by a good trustworthy person. 

There's a saying (Buddhist?), a truth said in anger is no longer the truth. 

 

Some truth in that. LOL

 

But what is more important here than the sender is the receiver.

[Geof Nanto]

and what about a spin off along these lines for Carlos Castaneda and his books?

 

Yes, it seems Carlos followed the same downward trajectory of many popular 'gurus'; from genuine seeker of truth to delusional tyrant. In Sorceror's Apprentice: My Life with Carlos Castaneda Amy Wallace recounts her experiences with him and his inner group..... 

 

"Sorcerer's Apprentice "unblinkingly reveals the inner workings of the "Cult of Carlos," run by a charismatic authoritarian in his sixties who controlled his young female followers through emotional abuse, mind games, bizarre rituals, dubious teachings, and sexual excess. Wallace's story is both specific and universal, a captivating cautionary tale about the dangers of giving up one's power to a tyrant-and about surviving assaults on body and spirit.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Yueya

[Apech]

Yes, it seems Carlos followed the same downward trajectory of many popular 'gurus'; from genuine seeker of truth to delusional tyrant. In Sorceror's Apprentice: My Life with Carlos Castaneda Amy Wallace recounts her experiences with him and his inner group..... 

 

"Sorcerer's Apprentice "unblinkingly reveals the inner workings of the "Cult of Carlos," run by a charismatic authoritarian in his sixties who controlled his young female followers through emotional abuse, mind games, bizarre rituals, dubious teachings, and sexual excess. Wallace's story is both specific and universal, a captivating cautionary tale about the dangers of giving up one's power to a tyrant-and about surviving assaults on body and spirit.

 

 

yea but have you read that book its nothing but tittle tattle.

 

so Magical Passes is bollocks ... but his other books are great.  Even if he was a bit dodgy.

[Geof Nanto]

yea but have you read that book its nothing but tittle tattle.

 

so Magical Passes is bollocks ... but his other books are great.  Even if he was a bit dodgy.

 

Yeah, I've read Wallace's book. It's much more than tittle-tattle. I was a great fan of Castaneda’s when I was younger. I've read all his books.  His stories came to me just when I needed them, but now his world of the sorcerer doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

Perhaps it's a topic for it's own thread? However, I don't personally feel any need to comment in depth on these 'gurus'. I don't see them in terms of good or evil, rather I see them as powerful personifications of aspects of our human psyche.

[Apech]

Yeah, I've read Wallace's book. It's much more than tittle-tattle. I was a great fan of Castaneda’s when I was younger. I've read all his books.  His stories came to me just when I needed them, but now his world of the sorcerer doesn't appeal to me at all.

 

Perhaps it's a topic for it's own thread? However, I don't personally feel any need to comment in depth on these 'gurus'. I don't see them in terms of good or evil, rather I see them as powerful personifications of aspects of our human psyche.

 

 

Well you must have got more out of it than I did. Which is probably a good thing.  I thought it was basically kiss and tell.  But I suppose the possible suicide of some of the group is tragic.  I know people are going to shout at me for saying this - but I think a lot of times the groupies are asking to be used.  They could probably walk away but something makes them want more.  I know there's some cults that are violent, threatening and abusive - so that's different but a lot of the time I think the members have to take responsibility.

[Geof Nanto]

I know people are going to shout at me for saying this - but I think a lot of times the groupies are asking to be used.  They could probably walk away but something makes them want more.  I know there's some cults that are violent, threatening and abusive - so that's different but a lot of the time I think the members have to take responsibility.

 

I'm certainly not one who would shout you down for this observation. However the question is far too complex and multifaceted for me to offer any pertinent observation other than I personally believe in the importance of taking responsibility for my actions. That's how I learn. 

[ThisLife]

I don't personally feel any need to comment in depth on these 'gurus'. I don't see them in terms of good or evil, rather I see them as powerful personifications of aspects of our human psyche.

 

 

I feel that whenever we focus our attention on some particular aspect of a question, (in this thread for example, whether Osho was a saint or a sinner),.... I think it's a bit like trying to understand Taoism through intensely examining the yin symbol only. The yin-yang symbol is certainly a viable means to enter into the world view of Taoism. But I think it's only possible to find this symbol functioning as a personal doorway when we explore the meaning of its 'entirety' - i.e. that everything that exists is, somehow, a perfect balance of opposites. (Even if this is very often not visible to either the eye or understanding of our dualistic minds.)

 

Your idea about gurus struck a chord with experiences in my own life. At this juncture I find myself wondering about that familiar old adage that I used to hold as a jewel of Eastern wisdom when I was in the earlier days of this 'spiritual seeking' caper : "When the pupil is ready the guru will appear."

 

Now I question whether my early fascination with this beautifully-expressed pearl of wisdom, wasn't actually like my opening analogy,.... I was simply focusing on only one, (personally attractive) aspect of the yin-yang symbol. Perhaps the counter-balancing, (but hidden), aspect of this age-old search for a wise and perfect teacher is :

"When the pupil has learned what he needs, the guru disappears."

 

And this 'disappearance', of course, is not meant as the 'magician variety' of disappearance. Probably, most often it manifests as a disillusionment with the teacher. A sudden feeling that he or she is a fraud - that you've been conned, etc., etc.

 

Just a thought stimulated by your line of thought.

Edited July 21, 2015 by ThisLife