Following Osho, Zen Buddhism and Being Rational
Jeroen
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlands Veteran
Recently I have been reading a book called The Life of Osho by a disciple by the name of Sam (self published, freely downloadable here), and it has actually stirred up a whole bunch of thoughts. It made me examine my process in listening to Osho. In the book, Sam tries to examine Osho’s life from a rational standpoint. Osho was well-known for using devices, something he picked up from George Gurdjieff, and Sam extends this to things like Osho’s change in image on going to America, the Rolls Royces, his period of silence, his asking his sannyasins to drop the red clothes, and so on.
I struggled for a bit with this looking for reasons behind Osho doing these things. In the end to me it felt like approaching a relationship which was “of the heart” with reason, and that somehow got in the way. It got the mind involved in the connection with Osho. For me, the relationship with Osho was one of love. It is like looking at a foto of Ramana Maharshi and instantly liking him because of his smile and his eyes, Osho in person was like that. It is a relationship one cherishes, despite the devices.
Buddhism is in many ways simpler. In many streams of Buddhism you can rationally approach the teachings and the path, in most cases they will even be explained to you. Except if you’re following a Zen teacher — a lot of Zen is quite irrational. Which is perhaps why it is no longer as popular as say the Pure Land schools. A short story about Zen…
When Rinzai lay dying, his disciples approached him with a last request. “Master,” they said, “your teachings are so many, so deep, that we feel we can’t summarise them. Would you give us a one sentence summary, so that we may treasure it?”
After a moment, Rinzai then let out a great shout, a lion’s roar. The disciples were shocked that the old man could produce such a noise. Silence descended.
Then Rinzai said, “This is it!” And he closed his eyes and died.
So whether you’re following a Zen teacher or Osho, it’s much the same affair. There is an edge of irrationality, of shock, of devices being deployed. In this age of reason it’s a rare path. Which may explain why Osho spoke almost exclusively on Zen in the last years of his life.
For a disciple it’s about love and trust. A love for the master and trust that he means well, whichever direction he chooses to guide you in.
Comments
What you're describing sounds like what Tibetan Buddhists consider guru devotion. They generally think of it as the swiftest and easiest path. There are great stories like Tilopa and Naropa or Milarepa and Marpa. They do say to carefully examine a teacher before entering a relationship like this, as a bad teacher can lead you astray and do harm. Which I suppose is a sort of rationality as a gateway to letting that go.
dont know osho, but zens point feel something, anything whats real. wake up your senses, here and now....life will pass you by if you dont pay attention. live life Bonzai daniel Son.
dont think, feel your buddha nature is the goal of master student relationship. everything is zen, continuous satori....enlighten activity. buddha nature is life itself for you be truly aware to your inner and outer world and how you play the game of life.
the lotus cross:is daozen,make in out and out in.nothing new under the sun.
That’s certainly true. Osho when I first encountered him was much closer to the impeccable guru always dressed in white, the irrational moves which the book says were intended to create distance between him and certain disciples came later.
You can’t say that I carefully examined him, by any means. If I had, my natural caution might have turned me away. But by just jumping in the deep end and saying “yes” age 6 and following my parents I did not do too badly.
I do wonder how many great zen stories start with the student carefully and rationally examining the prospective master, not many I’m guessing. I think it’s simpeler than “carefully examining” with rational means. Osho said “any master in whose presence you can fly high will be good”, and while Osho was definitely that, there was love too.
I'd say you were lucky. What if your parents joined David Koresh instead?
In the TB examples I gave there really wasn't much of an examination either. I think people here are wise and experienced enough to avoid the cults. But I'll say for any lurkers or potential Googlers, that in addition to good teachers there are a lot of toxic, harmful teachers and groups one can uncritically give their love and trust to that will lead to misery.
In my early spiritual years I knew someone who claimed a guru she followed harmed her psychically and she was now in a physically drained and disabled state. Sogyal Rinpoche, Sasaki Roshi, Asaram Bapu, Jim Jones, etc, etc.
It’s very arguable whether the Osho movement is a cult. It is said that the characteristics of a cult include that they make it difficult to leave and with Osho that’s totally not true, people are free to come and go as they please.
The question is also, do you “give” love and trust? For me it was a feeling that just gradually grew within, that happened, my heart opened to him at a certain point. There wasn’t a conscious decision to give, it is just in my nature to do so. And it doesn’t happen easily for me, for example with women I have to know someone pretty well and for a long time before an emotional connection happens.
With other (real) cults too, the people that join are not stupid. I followed this podcast for a while, A Little Bit Culty which was created by some of the people who had been involved with the NXIUM cult, and they and the people they interviewed seemed perfectly normal and intelligent. It was very interesting, but in the end the “anti-cult movement” too are just a media stream who require endless fodder and produce only negativity.
There are plenty of scare stories, but at least around Osho there are also plenty of good stories, of people who have found the path within, learned to meditate, and were carried into higher spaces by their guru’s. That is what the Indian guru tradition is all about, if a guru does not do that his disciples would leave. But you’re right, people who go in search of psychically capable individuals can make themselves vulnerable.
But I think I can understand a little the position of the Zen master who has become popular and is now the head of a monastery, and sees all the monks going about their daily routines… he comes from a life where he is intensely alert to the world, and has come to a place where it is easy to fall asleep. So they start hitting people unexpectedly with the Zen stick, it is a device.
bodhi-sat-t-vas(t): overview those interested.bodhi is wise rational living in the 6 perfection. bonzai:enthustic effort to live lovingly wise;
[http:/
Something for your reflection. I said you were lucky to have been raised in Osho's commune rather than David Koresh's and none of the abusive guru's I listed were Osho. So any imputation of that sentiment in my words solely comes from your own psyche. I imagine the cult label has been thrown at you at times through your life. I'm just saying its probably a place in need of healing and growth.
Absolutely true. A site I hang out on has quite a few ex-sannyasins, and one of the first things they advised me to do was read The Guru Papers, a well-known book that is all about cults. Cult awareness has been growing a lot in American circles recently especially.
But I refuse to let my memories of events past be coloured by a modern way of looking at things which tries to make things fit neatly into a certain box. Osho’s following could certainly be called a worldwide movement, but it lacks a number of key characteristics typical of cults.
It is about the teachings, and not the teacher aka the body form.
For Buddhism, yes. But Buddha set out to create a religion that would last a thousand years, he had to put the emphasis on something outside, a teaching, and he taught, we are not the body.
Osho on the other hand aimed at creating a new man, a Zorba the Buddha, who could be fully in the body and yet be meditative. That’s why Osho’s meditations include dance, shaking, going wild, raising the energy and then a sudden silence. He explicitly didn’t want a religion to be created in his name.
In a way, teaching that ‘the body is vile’ is not honouring the gift of life, it is not being in touch with all that life has to offer. It’s the Buddhist monk’s path. I like the Dhamma, I feel there are beneficial things one can learn from it, but it is a different way, it has a different effect on mind and body.
I think in the end the liking for a rational path which can be explained, and the approaching of this via books, are the marks of a seeker’s desire for safety. Which is very much the mind’s doing, again people in this time are so much attached to their minds.
The idea of irrationality, of just hitting people on the head to wake them up, for a student to take a leap of faith and follow a master, of giving a great shout in answer to a question, these things have an edge, they are not logical, and that is why they can take you beyond the mind. It is no coincidence that Zen students in these situations suddenly get a glimpse of enlightenment.
It is all about devices. These things have a purpose, they are means to an end only seen by the Zen master.
It reminds me of a meditation which Osho invented in the last years of his life, called The Mystic Rose. It was meant to be completed in three weeks; during the first week you would spend three hours a day — a solid single session — just laughing. It didn’t matter how you did it, even if you just made the sounds and did as if you’d find you got carried away with it. Then the next week you’d spend three hours every day crying. And during the last week you’d spend three hours a day in silence. It’s also a device, but one to get people in touch with their hearts.
The teaching on the 'vileness' of the body is to counteract its spell on the mind and understand/realize its true nature - impermanent, unsatisfactory, and ownerless.
Appreciating the beauty and pleasures that can be had through the body is clearly going to have a different outcome. In fact it is the default view of most of humanity. A random browse through Youtube and Tik Tok/Instagram will show what life has to offer.
I am not sure if it is an either/or proposition. I have done the Buddha’s asubha meditation although on photographs only, and I think the body is both, beautiful and elegant and wondrous AND also dirty and full of effluents and vile and smelly and subject to decay.
One can realise both of these things with respect to the body, and not be enchanted by it, because it is also just ordinary and everyday. A sign of enchantment (or even obsession) would be to go searching for images of the most beautiful bodies that can be imagined by man or artificial intelligence, but that won’t help you. It is not beneficial to the search.
Osho’s view was of a natural, everyday man. He thought sex was fine and healthy and promoting love and wholeness, offering a path to super consciousness even, but he also thought overt sexuality and porn were ugly and should be avoided. There were a lot of beautiful women in the communes, they were very woman-friendly places, but there was little makeup or perfumes. A lot of them were into natural beauty.
He taught that one shouldn’t compare… if the body is unsatisfactory, then compared to what? The body just is, it is the temple of your awareness on this Earth, it is the gift that was given to you when you arrive on this planet.
I was hoping you had access to real bodies, in case I came across any needy ghouls.
Love, devotion and surrender aka Guru worship, is as good or bad as the object of devotion.
It is why I am focussed on the Maitreya. Will never meet them.
Perfect!
Also I am a sucker for sukha!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukha
That is just a view, opinion, and belief.
The Vikings believed that if you die in a battle, you will be reborn as a god warrior in Valhalla.
The Romans and Greeks had theirs.
Flat earthers, conspiracists, Christians (Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox), and even Buddhists.
Ugly or beautiful already involves comparison. It is an idea only.
Asubha also means not beautiful (ie not ugly too).
Mangala Sutta: Blessings
Ooh I luvs blessings!
I think I might be a neutral blessing, working as a curse on the ignorant simultaneously. Don't thank me.
From what I know:
In other words, in your own ‘words-gone’
If you put it like that, it is all just views, opinion and belief — even the sutras of the Buddha. If you live just from your own experience and what you observe from the natural world, you come to very different conclusions.
“A good way to tell if you love someone is to see if their presence makes you happy.”
— me
I came to the conclusion a number of years ago that I needed to live more from the heart. Which was one reason I decided to buy a house and go live in a little mini commune with my mother and stepfather, two people I love dearly. It didn’t turn out too badly, I was able to assist my mother in caring for my stepfather over the difficult last few years of his life.
Now with my spiritual path I have reached a similar insight. I look at all the spiritual books I have read, all the insights I have gathered, and a lot of it has made me more free, but I look at where my heart brings me, and it is still Osho. Looking at a photograph of Thich Nhat Hanh does not give me the same heart connection.
It is not rational, it is just there was a “yes!” to his being, he was quite the most beautiful human being I have known. And despite his occasional lapses of judgment it is still like that. It is an affair of the heart.
I feel like I do something similar, in that I listen to what my intuition, or perhaps heart says. Perhaps where I part (maybe this aspect of what you're doing hasn't been explicitly expressed), is that I accept this information as just that, information, rather than instruction. I feel like these sorts of feelings matter, but they can be heavily influenced by bias and our ignorance of things outside of our understanding, and as such aren't fully reliable in and of themselves.
I think I've come to this position due to past experiences where I wasn't so skeptical and followed them more freely into weird and false beliefs including a psychotic break.
That explains much, I’ve always had a very stable mind, and for me the problem is more finding out what I feel, because my inner emotional voice is so quiet. The predominant emotions I do feel are irritation and more rarely anger. More subtle emotions I have difficulty picking up when they manifest, usually I’m just cheerful all the time.
So I’m trying to find techniques to make it more visible.
That does make sense. My take from what I'm hearing is that for you the rational keeps you too locked into what's solid and for me it helps me from flying off into never, never land.
The way I think of the heart vs mind in practical terms is like the heart jumping right to a math solution which may or may not be correct depending on your level of experience and insight. That's where the rational comes into play in a sort of showing your work to understand how the heart got there. I feel like in the process of doing that over time it has strengthened the quality of my intuition. The rational helps train the intuitive into wiser insights. At least this is the way it seems to me.
As a living, psychotic brake, time to balance up. As people mention.
If we have a tendency one way, that makes us unhappy or causes alienation. What to do?
In Buddhism we uses our rational, experiences, compassion, physical well being or not, towards:
In my terminology, I think what you are talking about there is more intuitive thinking, and the extended function of drawing conclusions because of it, which is an uncertain business. The same with associative thinking, which can lead you right off the deep end.
Reason is very much safer, small incremental steps, each verifiably following from the last. Allowing logic and common sense to guide you. But these are still thinking modes as I see things, part of the mind.
The heart, to me, is the seat of the emotions. It is about what you feel, not about what you think. And what I’m trying to do is learn to “feel better”, to pay more attention to what I feel. Like my visit to my mother in hospital the other day. Although I was concerned at how she was looking, I felt happy to be with her and to be able to give her a hug.
It is things like happiness, joy, anger, irritation, compassion, sadness… these things are feelings, and by paying attention to them you become more emotionally literate, more in tune with reading your own heart. Your thoughts can trigger feelings, and some feelings almost seem to be thoughts, like hate and jealousy. You can feed feelings with thoughts too, like by thinking certain thoughts you can increase feelings of anger.
The antidote to negative feelings is just to pause, become mindfully aware and wait for it to pass. It rarely takes more than thirty seconds. And so you can also by guiding what you think change your dominant emotions, spending less time on the negative ones and choosing to feed the positive emotions, becoming a happier and more cheerful person.
An idea is an idea.
My conclusion is this.
Whatever you experience, think, or believe in that causes a disturbance that leads to (liking and disliking aka craving...this is not the same as simple pleasant and unpleasant feelings on their own) will cause dukkha. You can know this when your inner peace is disturbed. All you need is to step back and watch the feelings pass. We let the ripples settle.
Attachment(craving) to the guru isn't the way imo.
And yes, even the teachings if held wrongly also cause dukkha but the right teachings will eventually end dukkha.
Thanks @pegembara 🙏
It’s difficult to think that millions of Indians, Nepalese and Tibetan Buddhists who believe that the path of guru devotion is a swift road to enlightenment might be wrong, but it could be. I wouldn’t typify the relationship with the guru as one of craving though, it is closer to awe, respect, friendship, caring… it is not something the Western mind is very good at understanding.
It is also a question what attachments one should work at discarding. Attachments to family or loved ones or friends should likely be left to develop naturally, and I think the guru relationship is like that. They give some pleasure, they give some dhukkha, and these things the guru uses to move and motivate you.
Is the goal of being free of dhukkha realistic?
Totally free? Born in the Purelands? Able to withstand the hell realms?
Well... strangely enough, as we season:
I am off to suffer an instant coffee. Which I will enjoy...
Instant coffee is dhukka in todays world of bean-to-cup automatic espresso machines 🙏
But the question is serious. The body will always present some dhukka, in aches and pains, thirst and hunger, illness, old age… the Buddha set out to solve these, but they are part of natural function and will always be there.
i wont speak for my dearest lobster in the missippi swamp, dhukka is sukkha. when you know the truth, revealed by our Father of our religion, it is all veriable in practice. you see the buddha gave the bodhi children gnosis insights. a crumb for you, when your in emptyness, sensations,pleaseant or unpleasent has an illusary tone, hence the buddha teach transparent to transcendance.
but the point is, our father Shaki, teach the way according to your samstate or the degree of bodhisattvas comprehension.
osho is teaching the left hand path of, i dont know. but to teach sex is not a sin is comendable. he just repacage hindu tantra to flower child generation. being a buddhist moderation is key, even in sexuality.
osho dont know his teaching and not qualified to assess it, i will say tantra, left hand path aim is see the left hand is same as right hand path. fold it together mercy and grace come together.
i already have a guru of both hands path it Sam-tara-quan yin triple jewel. i like the ladys. we do tantra.
Osho said so much — over 600 books were made from his lectures — that some sannyasins contend that for any given quote you can find another that says the opposite. This is in part because he gave case-by-case advice to many sannyasins on many personal problems.
An attempt was made during the American years to create a ‘bible’ out of it, when Osho was in silence and it looked like there might not be many more books. But that was one of the reasons that he came out of silence, ordering the burning of all copies that had been printed.
Osho explicitly didn’t want a religion to be created in his name.
LOL
So why do you keep rabbiting/gibbering on about her?
What am I missing?
Oh it’s just something to talk about. And it’s something I spend time on.
Millions are also devoted to the Buddha and hence the he taught that those who see the Dhamma or Teachings see the Buddha.
It is the Dhamma or teachings that is important.
A true teacher doesn't want you to remain a student or devotee. (S)He wants you to be free,,, the faster you do this the better.
All that comes to be will also cease to be. There are no exceptions.
These were the Buddha's last words.
Is the goal of being free of dhukkha realistic?
Most certainly.
Beautifully stated, but…
If one is to “strive on untiringly” with “the Dhamma and the discipline as your teacher”, that sounds like a straitjacket. How does that lead to being free? It sounds to me like it will shape you into something disciplined, controlled, confined by habit.
Do you wish to be a product of a certain teaching, or do you wish to express what you truly are? What Ajahn Chah said was “the heart is the only book worth reading” and “if you let go completely, you will have complete peace.”
In contrast, Osho has a beautiful meditation that he would often do at the end of a discourse, called the ‘no mind’. It had as a key feature a period of gibberish, where you’d throw out everything that was in your mind in a kind of nonsense chant. It was quite cathartic.
In my understanding, its less about the type of life you lead right now, but about where that path will lead you in the end. The discipline of the path leads to real, lasting freedom. Often times things that produce positive long term outcomes aren't necessarily pleasant in the short term. And vis versa.
Hmm. That is just a belief. My real, lived experience is that too much discipline leads to insensitivity and more ego. A little discipline goes a long way. The problem is more likely to be a shortage of kindness.
You have it backwards, your idea is just a belief. My real, lived experience is that discipline leads to positive results and a lack of it leads to a diminished life and a tendency to blame the world and others for your problems.
So in reality I'm right and you're wrong. It's just rational, undeniable facts.
If you can't tell I'm being hyperbolic to make a point about perspective.
Well, I will tell you where I’m coming from. As a child I was pretty bright, doing things like independently teaching myself to read and making artworks from whatever I could find. But in retrospect I found that school and university pound in knowledge and discipline, and pound out originality and creativity.
So you see, it isn’t so much a question of perspective, as it is of deep life experience. In my life I have found insight and relaxation to be far more useful than discipline. Discipline really is a counter to problems with impulse control, and a measure of how far you let society or others or a book set an agenda for you.
If discipline were to truly help with spiritual pursuits, then I’d expect ex-Army men to be among the best spiritual practitioners. Strangely you tend to hear the opposite…
Becoming disciplined is more likely to push you beyond your limits, leading to stress and ill health. It is more important to retain your natural sensitivity, and live within your limits. I recommend it as a strategy for everyone.
I remember a western nun in TB talking about her early days. She told her teacher that she was having a hard time getting into the practice, finding a passion for it. Her teacher responded in that old school style simply, "So". What he meant was in order to progress on the path passion wasn't needed, only a discipline to do the practices. The fruits would come. Many of those Asian teachers advocate for this sort of effort and I certainly don't think you can say that there isn't much spiritual realization among them.
In my deeper life experience than yours, I let too many things go, procrastinated important matters, didn't do my meditation or take care of my health. Slowly I've developed more discipline about doing all these little things and it has made a huge difference in the health and happiness in my relationships and life.
I've been thinking of a thread about passion vs discipline and the pros and cons of each. But I have to do some further learning on the topic. My intuition is that passion is more powerful but limited to a narrow window, ie. the things you're passionate about. Being disciplined allows one to do the often difficult work needed to help you progress in something even when you might not be motivated. The passion comes later with the mastery and positive fruit it brings.
Anyway, my issue isn't in anyone saying a care free, relaxing life is beneficial. Its in saying that's the way for everyone to be a true and good spiritual practitioner. I think this follows along with my feeling about the best medicine being tuned to the individual and adapting practices to fit the disposition of people. In this case the Big 5 personality spectrum in question is the careless (I prefer care free) - conscientiousness spectrum. I also think it matters how you hold things in your mind. Are you tight about it, like telling yourself this is something you need to do. Or can you be more loose, understanding the benefits but not beating yourself (or others) up about it.
Just an addendum. This reminds me of the comfort>eustress>distress paradigm. It isn't just about living in your limits or pushing to the point of breakdown. There is a sweet spot that promotes continued growth and development.
Your story of the nun reminds me of what Poonjaji once said about Buddhist monks, “they are entirely dried up inside”, talking about the lack of humour, spontaneity, aliveness that he saw in them. I think it is symptomatic of society’s state that such an approach is seen as beneficial. And there are other approaches to self-realisation than that of the monks.
The difficulty in life is to learn to listen to your deeper self and bring common sense and kindness to that conversation, rather than to steamroll it with a form of discipline and beliefs imposed from outside scriptures. Bring yourself into harmony, allow yourself to flourish rather than imposing.
Every human being is unique, that is why Osho’s Vigyan Bhairav Tantra lists 112 meditation methods, to find one that suits you. Mastery, discipline when relating to the inner self — that is the ego talking about being in control and making you fit a predictable pattern, it is part of grasping and desiring. It is illusion.
Spirituality is not about growth and development and long effort, it is about freeing yourself from the chains of conditioning. Becoming sensitive to where you need to let go, and then relaxing the clenched fist, letting go. Truth is truly a pathless land.
He must not have met very many monks.
So are you acknowledging that the monks approach is a legitimate path to self realization?
Except of course, the patterns you follow.
In your opinion... You act like there is only one way and one path to follow. All very concrete, certain language for someone into letting go and relaxing.
Which reminds me of another thread idea I'd been mulling over after having a guest on 10% Happier bring up. That of being good vs being right. The former allowing for a pluralism of goods the latter being the one and only correct way.
I agree there are a plurality of paths and teachers, but after having tried the basics of quite a few of them, I think there are some shared characteristics to the best paths. Osho, Poonjaji, Ramana, that is where I see the most potential, and it’s what I’d recommend today, although I suspect they won’t be around very much longer.
It is of course up to you, if you feel strongly drawn to another path, be it Tao or Sufism or whatever, I’d be happy to discuss my experience and knowledge in the hope of perhaps clarifying it’s beauties and pitfalls.
Being a Buddhist monk was attractive to me for a while, until I started to look deeper into what it meant, and where it leads you. Reading Stephen Batchelor’s book Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist was also a major eye-opener.
Buddhism as a layman and Dharmist is interesting, there are certainly things you can learn from it. But there are also drawbacks, which may not be immediately clear.
I realise it’s a Buddhist forum and so you’ll see mostly Buddhist points of view, which is fine, the original topic was about how Zen Buddhism connects to Osho and their shared irrationalities.
The idea of discipline within spiritual practice probably deserves its own topic.
There I was in the panic room, having a mental brainstorm, when I came across another 3 good options:
(more gibbering on request)
This message sponsored by the future AI Buddha https://mettaray.com
A lobster dharma drama project ion
@person @Jeroen
Good discussion.
The practice of discipline is one of my favourite topics. @Jeroen I encourage you to open a separate topic.
For me personally, a period in which I was ever more disciplined brought the biggest (and even previously unimaginable) benefits.
My undisciplined phases brought nothing good and quite some bad.
I struggle with laziness, passivity, undirected effort, going from one thing to the other without producing a result.
I do NOT struggle with being colourful, fun-loving, being able to smell the roses, noticing beauty, joy, etc.
My oldest friend is the reverse. Super-disciplined yet struggling with different issues.
As has been mentioned in the thread, there is a spectrum between discipline and laxity (wording?). Allan Watts called them "prickly" (disciplined) and "gooey" (lax/undisciplined). The Buddha advised the middle-way. Hence, here to it must be that the middle way applies as the way that brings the best results and least suffering.
An open question is how good any of us are in determining where we place on the spectrum in relation to the middle, hence which direction we should go with full steam ahead.
I relate to this as well.
Jack Kornfield tells a story about him seeing contradictions in a teacher of his. When asked about it the teacher replied something to the effect of, "when someone veers to the left side of the road I tell them to go right and when someone veers to the right side of the road I tell them to go left "
New topic on Discipline and spirituality has been opened.