Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Osho Rajnesh have you heard about him? Crazy or half Crazy half enlightened or what?
it's hard to believe that sex can be used in such a way but when two people in a committed spiritual relationship meet and have tantric sex, it can be totally rewarding. it's a method to the non dual.
I agree with this, but this isn't how it's practiced by many gurus. We're talking about Rajneesh, right? Using hordes of women followers, first in India, then in Oregon, and now in India again? That's not the type of tantra you describe. Benjamin Walker in his book, "Tantrism: Its Secret Principles and Practices" says the ultimate goal is power over women, to make yourself irresistible to women. Rajneesh achieved that, and just keeps on achieving.
But if people find his teachings helpful and inspiring, then maybe that's better than no inspiration. Personally, I like there to be consistency between words and actions. I like people who are ethical, compassionate, mindful of the effects of their actions, wise, and humble. But...that's just me.
I do get the 93 rolls royces. He is saying 'hey people, you work so hard for money. you think money will make you happy' 'look at me, I have plenty of money. but it doesnt make any difference to me at all' and the way he was deported from US was a sham. reminds me of john lennon.
OK, let's say that after you're awakened, you can have your cake. But one wouldn't get attached to cake. Don't you think Rajneesh quite overdid it? He seemed to be obsessed with cake. Not to mention the cars. Was it 90 of them? However many it was, wouldn't it have been more enlightened and compassionate to use that money to set up a charitable foundation for a worthy cause? Look at Amma Chi; she funds schools, hospitals and other charitable projects. No obsessive sex or car collections.
I recall osho's comment to journalists when interviewed about his being deported. He said, "now I don't have to pretend anymore and smilled". Implying that the other gurus had to pretend that they were such good, perfect people.
maybe so. i don't know i am not osho. i don't know his mind/heart. but if you feel compelled to do so then the way truth will manifest is in your own way.
i believe the cars were gifts to him by his followers and he had many wealthy followers. to having a giving mind is to have a mind that takes as well. both are useful in compassion.
now about sex. tantra is a very advance practice where the masculine energy and feminine energy of consciousness is manifested via kundalini in the higher chakra (formless) and the lower chakras (form). it is the dance of the male and female into absolute union. tantra isn't just sex. tantra is the science of awakening using what is in front of us.
it's hard to believe that sex can be used in such a way but when two people in a committed spiritual relationship meet and have tantric sex, it can be totally rewarding. it's a method to the non dual.
but that doesn't matter.
maybe you're right. maybe all that money would be better to help others directly.
i'm not sure really. to me it is better to share truth and to practice, practice, practice verses just material giving. though i don't want to create a dichotomy. as it is the giving mind that we cultivate in practice.
osho helps a certain type of mind. with helping there is always harming. such is the nature of duality.
may we practice so that we can save all beings in the "correct" compassion way that follows our experiential truth.
Oh your on about Samsaric Tantra arent you, Hindu Tantra ?
Reading on him, it seems to me that he was cunning and persuasive. Perhaps it is because he is so well versed in various doctrines. He didn't even write his own books either. That is an indication that he was sold out to the entertainment industry. His resort points even further to this.
This would explain his pomp: Rajneesh expressed that he did not give to charities. He said that giving to charities would thwart the path of the unfortunate. He also said that one should be selfish and not hold back, for "how can a cloud shower fulfillment unless it is fulfilled with its own rain?" So, he speaks from two sides of his mouth, maybe? It is still uncertain to me.
In terms of his sexuality: Rajneesh also expressed that India was largely over populated and compassion would have it for children to be aborted. He also said that there should be halls built for children to experiment sexually with one another and even experiment with adults. He compared this with the views of Australian aboriginals in order to persuade his audience not to have such fears against pleasure. To my recollection, Australian aboriginals do not subscribe to this view. What kind of right view is that to have?
Of course, the above is just my understanding of what was read, so far. Also, he was never known to me until this forum; so, perhaps it is too soon to tell.
Still, Imo, Rajneesh seems like he was just another well versed guru in India with an agenda. He teaches meditation; however, there are others who do also.
None the less, my perception is a bit penetrated by what he expresses, so, it would do well for me to read further.
Hate to rain on people's parade, but what this Osho teaches is not Buddhism, not anything close to Buddhism, certainly not anything remotely like Buddha taught was the path to Awakening.
Is he enlightened? How would I know? How would anyone know? And it's an irrelevant question, anyway. The so-called enlightened gurus of the world are some of the most dangerous people in the world, because they don't think rules apply to them and their worshipers excuse any behavior as, "well, he's enlightenend, so rules don't apply!" Somehow those rules the gurus like Osho breaks always are in his favor. More sex. Lots of money. Treating his followers like slaves. Funny how those broken rules always end up looking like simple selfish behavior. The broken rules never mean giving his money and possessions to the poor, does it?
I met a man once who called himself at the time Da Free John. He went through lots of names. Like all gurus, he was fascinating to watch and talk to. He oozed charisma. And like all gurus, he somehow found reasons to get all the sex he wanted while his followers supported his lifestyle. And if you gave him a half hour, he could convince you to worship at his feet if you didn't recognize a snake oil salesman when you saw one. He eventually retired to some tropical island with his dedicated followers and eventually died, leaving no legacy because he actually taught you nothing.
And in the end, Osho will join the ranks of gurus who come and go and attract followers and how many of those followers will be enlightened? None. Because it's not the Dharma. It's not the 8-fold path.
It's not the finger pointing at the moon and saying, "Look there!" It's a finger pointing at oneself and saying, "Look at me!"
Sorry to throw this cold water into here. And of course, it's only my own opinion.
Osho said that without 90 rolls royces there's no connection between the western mind and the practice of meditation. Half jokingly but I, at least, see his point. If you are rich then you can show a westerner that your practice is worthwhile. I realize it shouldn't have to be that way but if an individual or many individuals are led to genuine spiritual practice might it not have been worth it? You could donate that money to charity but might not helping people enlighten themselves ultimately be more profitable?
"He eventually retired to some tropical island with his dedicated followers and eventually died, leaving no legacy because he actually taught you nothing."
This is what I think we should focus on. Follow a teacher that leaves you a practice that you can face death with!
I do get the 93 rolls royces. He is saying 'hey people, you work so hard for money. you think money will make you happy' 'look at me, I have plenty of money. but it doesnt make any difference to me at all' and the way he was deported from US was a sham. reminds me of john lennon.
OK, let's say that after you're awakened, you can have your cake. But one wouldn't get attached to cake. Don't you think Rajneesh quite overdid it? He seemed to be obsessed with cake. Not to mention the cars. Was it 90 of them? However many it was, wouldn't it have been more enlightened and compassionate to use that money to set up a charitable foundation for a worthy cause? Look at Amma Chi; she funds schools, hospitals and other charitable projects. No obsessive sex or car collections.
Hi, Jll. My comment was mainly about the obsessive sex, that's what the reference was to obsession with "cake". He got deported in part due to multiple allegations of sexual abuse. The authorities couldn't get him on that, so they found another reason, that's why it may've seemed like a "sham". Interesting point about the cars, though. Do you really think that ostentatious collection made no difference to him at all? I guess that's open for individual interpretation.
@Alex The rare true masters don't refer to themselves as enlightened or as masters. They're humble. Because of the lack of fanfare, they're usually hard to find. And some people, when they do find a humble teacher who declines to have his followers use honorifics, like "your holiness" or "your eminence", or to bow to him, etc., some followers leave, because they think a real master is the flashy kind with a big PR department. Some people don't know the real deal when they see it. Such is the way of Samsara.
Is he enlightened? How would I know? How would anyone know? And it's an irrelevant question, anyway. The so-called enlightened gurus of the world are some of the most dangerous people in the world, because they don't think rules apply to them and their worshipers excuse any behavior as, "well, he's enlightenend, so rules don't apply!" Somehow those rules the gurus like Osho breaks always are in his favor. More sex. Lots of money. Treating his followers like slaves. Funny how those broken rules always end up looking like simple selfish behavior. The broken rules never mean giving his money and possessions to the poor, does it?
Sorry to throw this cold water into here. And of course, it's only my own opinion.
Thanks for your usual no-holds-barred, here-comes-the-truth, ready-or-not post, Cinorjer. I would submit that those who think the rules don't apply to them are not truly enlightened. They're power freaks who use the whole thing about relative truth vs. absolute truth, blah blah, as an excuse for extreme indulgence. How you tell whether someone is enlightened is in part by their thoughtful, virtuous conduct and humility. But some people find that boring, and fail to recognize it as enlightenment. There are hidden bodhisattvas among us everywhere. It takes a certain outlook to be able to recognize them, because they're just quietly going about their business.
He is in no way enlightened, just another cult leader stealing ideas from other religions including Buddhism for his own gain. While deluding and harm many confused people on the way.
Why learn the teachings of the Buddha from a contaminated source from a evil cult leader when there is the Sangha?
Why learn the teachings of the Buddha from a contaminated source from a evil cult leader when there is the Sangha?
Yes, indeed. You can find inspiring, exciting teachings in our local Buddhist center. And here, on this forum, come to think of it. I've learned a lot here.
Oh, and Alex: check out the thread on "On love, relationships and sex". The opening post has some really great observations. You were interested in Osho's teaching about loving without attachment. That topic actually has been discussed here a number of times in the past, though it's a bit ominous in the context of Osho's life. This new member has a really good handle on it. Who needs Osho when we have people like this among us?
Don't hate osho though. That won't help! Show what IS valuable in contrast to osho message would be more valuable than ad hominem. Whats important is what YOU do and not what osho did. Osho is DEAD!
He was never charged for the bioterrorism, so we don't know if he was involved. He did invite the feds to investigate and called the people involved criminals.
no ones perfect. just because you are a buddha doesn't mean you're infallible.
No, it means you're not a buddha. HHDL on the topic of misconduct:
"If a teacher's actions are unethical, then, even if they have practiced for many years, their practice has been wrong-footed. Quite simply, they lack a proper understanding of the Dharma. There is a gap between the Dharma and their life."
FYI Dalai Lama is quoted as saying that "OSHO is an enlightened master"
After reading that account I just posted, it really puts enlightenment in a very different perspective. Enlightened beings are not perfect beings. I can see the need for moral purity even more now than before.
I don't think he was involved with the bioterrorism, in fact when he discovered who was responsible, he called the police, according to articles on the internet. I did read that Osho/Rajneesh said it's not necessary to teach morality, because through meditation, one will automatically become moral. But looking at the behavior of him and some of the authorities under him who were involved in the bioterrorism, it looks like he was wrong. The Buddha taught moral discipline for a reason; it's a fundamental component in the path to enlightenment.
Thanks. Upon reading all of it, it is clear to me that my intuition about the posture of his intent was true to the author who was once an follower. This is disappointing. Osho certainly had Enlightenment, but, his intolerance to his physical ailments, his addictions, and his desires clouded that. He was just a man who had great meditation skills and that's okay; though, there is discomfort having read the fact that he sexually exploited children. My concern is that his skills were used to do that, which is would be an wholesome act of the sociopath.
That article makes him sound more like Stalin than like anything remotely resembling an enlightened guru.
@Dakini That also sounds true. With his paranoia that lead his mind to think of assassination in Russia to preserve a communist philosophy combined, wow. "Even mighty madness flares and fades upon death's perfect sphere in his eternal space and time."
But, everybody has enlightenment. It's just a mater of channeling it by correct skill using the doctrines, of which Osho was well versed; only, his skill carried a very selfish intent.
My heart goes out towards the bodies and minds of his poor followers. He fabricated verbally. And that injured the wholesome views that they could still have during meditation. The suffering of dissonance towards a failed master must be very confusing; yet, a blessing, none the less.
I just read something in his "Book of Secrets" where he actually says that morality is important for preparing to experience the deeper effects of meditation. This is opposite of what he said at the beginning of the book, that no morality is required. I suspect that is along the same lines as, with great power comes great responsibility. I will learn from him what I can, but I do feel the morality aspect of buddhism is very important.
@simple witness: "Everyone has enlightenment. It's just a matter of channeling it with correct skill..." I like that. Correct skill guided by a compassionate and virtuous heart, no?
True; only, it depends on how one views virtue. Compassion truly is as the heart beat or the way the lungs breathe. It is an unconditioned responce (pardon the cliche.). When we allow our emptied minds to follow compassion, then, our consciousness deepens with it and the inner awareness is met with the virtue of our supreme being.
So, it seems that consciousness carries virtue to the inner awareness when it is based on correct practice (This is just my experience with it, all the while, sitting and witnessing it within.). My choice of practice to achieve this is by the three jewels. They are my guide.
Only, my experience with the Dhamma and especially the Sangha is very limited due to my newness to Buddhism. The Joy of the Buddhist path is, none the less, fulfilling. :P
@Jeffery The order of how this is approached is just what is brought my consciousness now from sitting and witnessing; but, you know how this works. Nothing stays as it seems. There is always new awareness and new practice to come.
However, since my tone is beginning to seem corny, it would do well to stop on this note. Lol!
SimpleWitness, that is emptiness that we can't keep anything without it turning corny. We have to let every realization fall apart and diffuse into space :mullet:
Thank you, Jeffery. This is a totally inescapable reality. It is burdensome to keep it anyway. The posture of my intent is ready to let go; yet, it was but recently that my ability to just let go was within my will to do so.
My limits are to still cling to certain views and practices. You should see my journals and book case. It's almost neurotic. :P
Comments
But if people find his teachings helpful and inspiring, then maybe that's better than no inspiration. Personally, I like there to be consistency between words and actions. I like people who are ethical, compassionate, mindful of the effects of their actions, wise, and humble. But...that's just me.
Yes, I fell for the media's portrayal of him.
Now I am not so sure. thanks for the link.
He is saying 'hey people, you work so hard for money.
you think money will make you happy'
'look at me, I have plenty of money. but it doesnt make any
difference to me at all'
and the way he was deported from US was a sham.
reminds me of john lennon.
I recall osho's comment to journalists when interviewed about his being deported. He said, "now I don't have to pretend anymore and smilled". Implying that the other gurus had to pretend that they were such good, perfect people.
This would explain his pomp:
Rajneesh expressed that he did not give to charities. He said that giving to charities would thwart the path of the unfortunate. He also said that one should be selfish and not hold back, for "how can a cloud shower fulfillment unless it is fulfilled with its own rain?" So, he speaks from two sides of his mouth, maybe? It is still uncertain to me.
In terms of his sexuality:
Rajneesh also expressed that India was largely over populated and compassion would have it for children to be aborted. He also said that there should be halls built for children to experiment sexually with one another and even experiment with adults. He compared this with the views of Australian aboriginals in order to persuade his audience not to have such fears against pleasure. To my recollection, Australian aboriginals do not subscribe to this view. What kind of right view is that to have?
Of course, the above is just my understanding of what was read, so far. Also, he was never known to me until this forum; so, perhaps it is too soon to tell.
Still, Imo, Rajneesh seems like he was just another well versed guru in India with an agenda. He teaches meditation; however, there are others who do also.
None the less, my perception is a bit penetrated by what he expresses, so, it would do well for me to read further.
Metta
Is he enlightened? How would I know? How would anyone know? And it's an irrelevant question, anyway. The so-called enlightened gurus of the world are some of the most dangerous people in the world, because they don't think rules apply to them and their worshipers excuse any behavior as, "well, he's enlightenend, so rules don't apply!" Somehow those rules the gurus like Osho breaks always are in his favor. More sex. Lots of money. Treating his followers like slaves. Funny how those broken rules always end up looking like simple selfish behavior. The broken rules never mean giving his money and possessions to the poor, does it?
I met a man once who called himself at the time Da Free John. He went through lots of names. Like all gurus, he was fascinating to watch and talk to. He oozed charisma. And like all gurus, he somehow found reasons to get all the sex he wanted while his followers supported his lifestyle. And if you gave him a half hour, he could convince you to worship at his feet if you didn't recognize a snake oil salesman when you saw one. He eventually retired to some tropical island with his dedicated followers and eventually died, leaving no legacy because he actually taught you nothing.
And in the end, Osho will join the ranks of gurus who come and go and attract followers and how many of those followers will be enlightened? None. Because it's not the Dharma. It's not the 8-fold path.
It's not the finger pointing at the moon and saying, "Look there!" It's a finger pointing at oneself and saying, "Look at me!"
Sorry to throw this cold water into here. And of course, it's only my own opinion.
I really think he knew a lot of buddhism.
His view on desire are the same as buddhism
This is what I think we should focus on. Follow a teacher that leaves you a practice that you can face death with!
@Alex The rare true masters don't refer to themselves as enlightened or as masters. They're humble. Because of the lack of fanfare, they're usually hard to find. And some people, when they do find a humble teacher who declines to have his followers use honorifics, like "your holiness" or "your eminence", or to bow to him, etc., some followers leave, because they think a real master is the flashy kind with a big PR department. Some people don't know the real deal when they see it. Such is the way of Samsara.
Why learn the teachings of the Buddha from a contaminated source from a evil cult leader when there is the Sangha?
Oh, and Alex: check out the thread on "On love, relationships and sex". The opening post has some really great observations. You were interested in Osho's teaching about loving without attachment. That topic actually has been discussed here a number of times in the past, though it's a bit ominous in the context of Osho's life. This new member has a really good handle on it. Who needs Osho when we have people like this among us?
http://meditation-handbook.50webs.com/osho2.html
I don't know, I think Siddhartha Gotama Buddha was enlightened, and I don't know about anyone else, don't care.
I did read that Osho/Rajneesh said it's not necessary to teach morality, because through meditation, one will automatically become moral. But looking at the behavior of him and some of the authorities under him who were involved in the bioterrorism, it looks like he was wrong. The Buddha taught moral discipline for a reason; it's a fundamental component in the path to enlightenment.
Thanks. Upon reading all of it, it is clear to me that my intuition about the posture of his intent was true to the author who was once an follower. This is disappointing. Osho certainly had Enlightenment, but, his intolerance to his physical ailments, his addictions, and his desires clouded that.
That also sounds true. With his paranoia that lead his mind to think of assassination in Russia to preserve a communist philosophy combined, wow. "Even mighty madness flares and fades upon death's perfect sphere in his eternal space and time."
But, everybody has enlightenment. It's just a mater of channeling it by correct skill using the doctrines, of which Osho was well versed; only, his skill carried a very selfish intent.
My heart goes out towards the bodies and minds of his poor followers. He fabricated verbally. And that injured the wholesome views that they could still have during meditation. The suffering of dissonance towards a failed master must be very confusing; yet, a blessing, none the less.
Agreed. The Damma and the Sangha speak cleanly of his teachings.
I like that.
So, it seems that consciousness carries virtue to the inner awareness when it is based on correct practice (This is just my experience with it, all the while, sitting and witnessing it within.). My choice of practice to achieve this is by the three jewels. They are my guide.
Only, my experience with the Dhamma and especially the Sangha is very limited due to my newness to Buddhism. The Joy of the Buddhist path is, none the less, fulfilling. :P
:bowdown:
@Jeffery
The order of how this is approached is just what is brought my consciousness now from sitting and witnessing; but, you know how this works. Nothing stays as it seems. There is always new awareness and new practice to come.
However, since my tone is beginning to seem corny, it would do well to stop on this note. Lol!
Metta to you both.
Thank you, Jeffery.
This is a totally inescapable reality. It is burdensome to keep it anyway. The posture of my intent is ready to let go; yet, it was but recently that my ability to just let go was within my will to do so.
My limits are to still cling to certain views and practices. You should see my journals and book case. It's almost neurotic. :P