Was Osho Murdered? Was Osho a Targeted Individual?

[Selkie]

Posted by Flash (here)
Describing what you see as being psychopatic, then making the analogies with Jesus would certainly not take the thread off topic IF you pursue the analysis with Osho. Otherwise you are rigth, it probably would with all the Jesus people then coming in

It would certainly be interesting though to see what you define as psychopatic. I have been doing extensive reading on the topic (and Carmody too) as well as have had quite a few expériences with some psychopaths, and it puzzles me that I do not see the psychopathy in Jesus.

That being said, if we take the Osho's group behaviors as you describe in the US, it definitely looks psychopatic and probably was. Also, as an enlightened master that presumably was Osho, I have a problem to understand how come he would not had made sure that any behvior hurting others would have been stopped

I am not talking of multi sexual partners or 93 Rolls Royce, because it hurts nobody, except for egos, but the rest such as poisoning people definitely has to be stopped from anyone aware of it, including englightened ones (and they may be stopping it with white magic, we do not know about this).

I have seen how easy it is for an enlightened being to have groupies, even when he rejects them, not wanting a cult, how difficult it is to stop that herd mentality towards someone deemed higher (because we can all become enlightened, no one is superior, some just have more training or réincarnations). How difficult it is for trainees and apprentices to not create inaccessible godhoodness towards their instructor (master).

I won't reproach to someone having the herd hanging on them, but definitely having anybody around hurting others has to be stopped.

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
[B]You may need to define what are the signs of being a psychopath OUTSIDE of Osho's examples. I do not see where Jesus had the signs of being a psychopath at all. Although some popes and the bible's writers talking about violence and killing one's son maybe were. Or they were plainly quite ignorant (which psychopaths are too, not having all the necessary marbles to evolve).

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Omniverse (here)
...In that case Jesus must be one of the worst men of all time! (half serious, but really....)...

Yes, I agree. Jesus showed all the signs of being a psychopath, so it is no wonder that the religion that developed in his name is like it is. The saving grace of any religion is everyday men and women living lives of goodness and decency, regardless of how the power-structure of their religion acts.

And maybe that could be the case with Rajneesh, if people live by what he preached, instead of living how he actually lived, which was totally at odds with his teachings. But it doesn't do to whitewash the crimes he and his followers committed any more than it does to whitewash the crimes committed by Christianity and other religions, because if we don't look at the bad, as well as the good, how are we to make informed choices?

I would do that, but I think it would take this thread off-topic.

Posted by Flash (here)
Describing what you see as being psychopatic, then making the analogies with Jesus would certainly not take the thread off topic IF you pursue the analysis with Osho

But you just told said that you want me to do just the opposite:

Posted by Flash (here)
You may need to define what are the signs of being a psychopath OUTSIDE of Osho's examples.

Either way, I think it would take the thread off-topic, and it would be better discussed in a thread of its own.

Posted by Flash (here)
...It would certainly be interesting though to see what you define as psychopathic...

Peeps can always go here

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post918851

I don't start chiming in until here

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post934945

[Flash]

I know, i said two opposite things. You know why? Because I read you! My second post is a revising of my own thoughts/request after reading your post following my first post. I thought what you wrote about risking taking the thread off topic made sense, so I revised my thinking/request.

Second post remains as is.

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
Describing what you see as being psychopatic, then making the analogies with Jesus would certainly not take the thread off topic IF you pursue the analysis with Osho. Otherwise you are rigth, it probably would with all the Jesus people then coming in

It would certainly be interesting though to see what you define as psychopatic. I have been doing extensive reading on the topic (and Carmody too) as well as have had quite a few expériences with some psychopaths, and it puzzles me that I do not see the psychopathy in Jesus.

That being said, if we take the Osho's group behaviors as you describe in the US, it definitely looks psychopatic and probably was. Also, as an enlightened master that presumably was Osho, I have a problem to understand how come he would not had made sure that any behvior hurting others would have been stopped

I am not talking of multi sexual partners or 93 Rolls Royce, because it hurts nobody, except for egos, but the rest such as poisoning people definitely has to be stopped from anyone aware of it, including englightened ones (and they may be stopping it with white magic, we do not know about this).

I have seen how easy it is for an enlightened being to have groupies, even when he rejects them, not wanting a cult, how difficult it is to stop that herd mentality towards someone deemed higher (because we can all become enlightened, no one is superior, some just have more training or réincarnations). How difficult it is for trainees and apprentices to not create inaccessible godhoodness towards their instructor (master).

I won't reproach to someone having the herd hanging on them, but definitely having anybody around hurting others has to be stopped.

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
[B]You may need to define what are the signs of being a psychopath OUTSIDE of Osho's examples. I do not see where Jesus had the signs of being a psychopath at all. Although some popes and the bible's writers talking about violence and killing one's son maybe were. Or they were plainly quite ignorant (which psychopaths are too, not having all the necessary marbles to evolve).

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Omniverse (here)
...In that case Jesus must be one of the worst men of all time! (half serious, but really....)...

Yes, I agree. Jesus showed all the signs of being a psychopath, so it is no wonder that the religion that developed in his name is like it is. The saving grace of any religion is everyday men and women living lives of goodness and decency, regardless of how the power-structure of their religion acts.

And maybe that could be the case with Rajneesh, if people live by what he preached, instead of living how he actually lived, which was totally at odds with his teachings. But it doesn't do to whitewash the crimes he and his followers committed any more than it does to whitewash the crimes committed by Christianity and other religions, because if we don't look at the bad, as well as the good, how are we to make informed choices?

I would do that, but I think it would take this thread off-topic.

Posted by Flash (here)
Describing what you see as being psychopatic, then making the analogies with Jesus would certainly not take the thread off topic IF you pursue the analysis with Osho

But you just told said that you want me to do just the opposite:

Posted by Flash (here)
You may need to define what are the signs of being a psychopath OUTSIDE of Osho's examples.

Either way, I think it would take the thread off-topic, and it would be better discussed in a thread of its own.

Posted by Flash (here)
...It would certainly be interesting though to see what you define as psychopathic...

Peeps can always go here

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post918851

I don't start chiming in until here

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post934945

[Selkie]

Posted by greybeard (here)
Has the thread actually been on topic since the opening post?
Im as much a culprit as anyone.

Anyone who is seen to have a growing influence, in a way which is contrary to Government, is likely to be targeted and possibly murdered.
I read in the dentist to day that the assignation of Abe Lincoln was attributed to hate inspired at his being part responsible for abolishing slavery.
Anyone promoting freedom of the people is in the sights of those behind Government.

To be clear I am not comparing the actual persons

So Osho would not have been popular with many.
He might have started off with good intention and got seduced by fame and fortune.
I really dont know.
As posted, only Osho would have known the truth of his involvement or not in the infamous actions of some of his followers.

Chris

I have answered the OP at least twice, and everything I have written here has been an attempt to show why I think Rajneesh was not a targeted person.

[Selkie]

Posted by Flash (here)
I know, i said two opposite things. You know why? Because I read you! My second post is a revising of my own thoughts/request after reading your post following my first post. I thought what you wrote about risking taking the thread off topic made sense, so I revised my thinking/request.

Second post remains as is.

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
Describing what you see as being psychopatic, then making the analogies with Jesus would certainly not take the thread off topic IF you pursue the analysis with Osho. Otherwise you are rigth, it probably would with all the Jesus people then coming in

It would certainly be interesting though to see what you define as psychopatic. I have been doing extensive reading on the topic (and Carmody too) as well as have had quite a few expériences with some psychopaths, and it puzzles me that I do not see the psychopathy in Jesus.

That being said, if we take the Osho's group behaviors as you describe in the US, it definitely looks psychopatic and probably was. Also, as an enlightened master that presumably was Osho, I have a problem to understand how come he would not had made sure that any behvior hurting others would have been stopped

I am not talking of multi sexual partners or 93 Rolls Royce, because it hurts nobody, except for egos, but the rest such as poisoning people definitely has to be stopped from anyone aware of it, including englightened ones (and they may be stopping it with white magic, we do not know about this).

I have seen how easy it is for an enlightened being to have groupies, even when he rejects them, not wanting a cult, how difficult it is to stop that herd mentality towards someone deemed higher (because we can all become enlightened, no one is superior, some just have more training or réincarnations). How difficult it is for trainees and apprentices to not create inaccessible godhoodness towards their instructor (master).

I won't reproach to someone having the herd hanging on them, but definitely having anybody around hurting others has to be stopped.

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Flash (here)
[B]You may need to define what are the signs of being a psychopath OUTSIDE of Osho's examples. I do not see where Jesus had the signs of being a psychopath at all. Although some popes and the bible's writers talking about violence and killing one's son maybe were. Or they were plainly quite ignorant (which psychopaths are too, not having all the necessary marbles to evolve).

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by Omniverse (here)
...In that case Jesus must be one of the worst men of all time! (half serious, but really....)...

Yes, I agree. Jesus showed all the signs of being a psychopath, so it is no wonder that the religion that developed in his name is like it is. The saving grace of any religion is everyday men and women living lives of goodness and decency, regardless of how the power-structure of their religion acts.

And maybe that could be the case with Rajneesh, if people live by what he preached, instead of living how he actually lived, which was totally at odds with his teachings. But it doesn't do to whitewash the crimes he and his followers committed any more than it does to whitewash the crimes committed by Christianity and other religions, because if we don't look at the bad, as well as the good, how are we to make informed choices?

I would do that, but I think it would take this thread off-topic.

Posted by Flash (here)
Describing what you see as being psychopatic, then making the analogies with Jesus would certainly not take the thread off topic IF you pursue the analysis with Osho

But you just told said that you want me to do just the opposite:

Posted by Flash (here)
You may need to define what are the signs of being a psychopath OUTSIDE of Osho's examples.

Either way, I think it would take the thread off-topic, and it would be better discussed in a thread of its own.

Posted by Flash (here)
...It would certainly be interesting though to see what you define as psychopathic...

Peeps can always go here

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post918851

I don't start chiming in until here

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post934945

Ah, I see.

You know, Flash, I think you and I may be a lot alike

[Flash]

Thank you Silkie for your direction to another forum post of yours in which you were directing us to this wikipedia page.

Reading this I thought "forget Osho, this is exaclty how I have been raised in the Catholic Church, 2 billion people with the same credo", gosh, we were that brainswashed!!!!! Chinese just had to copy the Catholic Church! or any other fanatic religious group.

Of course, I agree with those premises, when those tactics are used, which is very often, juts Watch Fox News, it is cultish and manipulation.

You made my day! I just realised that I often say short sentences that area clichés for thought/feeling short circuiting (my own). I had been told the process but not the effect. Great.

There is much more to it (psychopathy) believe me. In my own discovery process, there is at least thirty common ways psychopaths use to manipulate.

If the below text corresponds to Osho's groups, yes it was cult, as the Catholic Church is. How Osho was involved, I would not know without speaking to him most probably.

Main points[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Though...gy_of_Totalism

In the book, Lifton outlines the "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform":

1.[B]Milieu Control.[/B] This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

2.Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

3.Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

4.Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

5.Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

6.Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

7.Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

8.Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.[3]

[Selkie]

Posted by Flash (here)
Thank you Silkie for your direction to another forum post of yours in which you were directing us to this wikipedia page.

Reading this I thought "forget Osho, this is exaclty how I have been raised in the Catholic Church, 2 billion people with the same credo", gosh, we were that brainswashed!!!!! Chinese just had to copy the Catholic Church! or any other fanatic religious group.

Of course, I agree with those premises, when those tactics are used, which is very often, juts Watch Fox News, it is cultish and manipulation.

You made my day! I just realised that I often say short sentences that area clichés for thought/feeling short circuiting (my own). I had been told the process but not the effect. Great.

There is much more to it (psychopathy) believe me. In my own discovery process, there is at least thirty common ways psychopaths use to manipulate.

If the below text corresponds to Osho's groups, yes it was cult, as the Catholic Church is. How Osho was involved, I would not know without speaking to him most probably.

Main points[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Though...gy_of_Totalism

In the book, Lifton outlines the "Eight Criteria for Thought Reform":

1.[B]Milieu Control.[/B] This involves the control of information and communication both within the environment and, ultimately, within the individual, resulting in a significant degree of isolation from society at large.

2.Mystical Manipulation. The manipulation of experiences that appears spontaneous but is, in fact, planned and orchestrated by the group or its leaders in order to demonstrate divine authority, spiritual advancement, or some exceptional talent or insight that sets the leader and/or group apart from humanity, and that allows reinterpretation of historical events, scripture, and other experiences. Coincidences and happenstance oddities are interpreted as omens or prophecies.

3.Demand for Purity. The world is viewed as black and white and the members are constantly exhorted to conform to the ideology of the group and strive for perfection. The induction of guilt and/or shame is a powerful control device used here.

4.Confession. Sins, as defined by the group, are to be confessed either to a personal monitor or publicly to the group. There is no confidentiality; members' "sins," "attitudes," and "faults" are discussed and exploited by the leaders.

5.Sacred Science. The group's doctrine or ideology is considered to be the ultimate Truth, beyond all questioning or dispute. Truth is not to be found outside the group. The leader, as the spokesperson for God or for all humanity, is likewise above criticism.

6.Loading the Language. The group interprets or uses words and phrases in new ways so that often the outside world does not understand. This jargon consists of thought-terminating clichés, which serve to alter members' thought processes to conform to the group's way of thinking.

7.Doctrine over person. Members' personal experiences are subordinated to the sacred science and any contrary experiences must be denied or reinterpreted to fit the ideology of the group.

8.Dispensing of existence. The group has the prerogative to decide who has the right to exist and who does not. This is usually not literal but means that those in the outside world are not saved, unenlightened, unconscious and they must be converted to the group's ideology. If they do not join the group or are critical of the group, then they must be rejected by the members. Thus, the outside world loses all credibility. In conjunction, should any member leave the group, he or she must be rejected also.[3]

I also posted some links to info about psychopaths in this thread (the Rajneesh thread). Oh, and there are tons of links in the KWP thread, too.

[Delight]

These massively confusing characters like Osho, Sai Baba and many many more cannot do without those who would follow them. They are using other's weakness and exploiting gullibility.
I have met only a few very striking humans about whom I was not sure...

"Is this a Saint or a Sociopath?"

One my friend, the local "teacher" in the Gurdjieff Foundation. This organization started in 1953 (Gurdjieff died in 1949) under the direction of Madame Jeanne de Salzmann. It was a very self approving group and thought itself elite as an organization. It used to be important to the Fourth way WORK that some direct lineage be established. This even though Gurdjieff dissolved the New York connection himself at one point.

My devoted "fourth way" friend was confusing but enjoyable. I loved him and being near him and he had mighty big flaws. He embraced a brand of "trickster" energy, turning conventionally givens upside down inside out and backwards....calling the game of his life "controlled folly". He embraced the work and lived it as a "road map". I think he lived large. IMO we admire this element of huge character more than any other aspect. My friend had talents of creating and leading.

Disgraceful "gurus" who have hurt others have this also in common....THEY LIVE LARGE. People feel something different with them and tolerate them much more than they will a less informative and enthusiastic person. I know that "Osho" channeled well. The large gifts are IMO what allows the whole belief that they must be "enlightened". And perhaps these humans have seen the light and now use the knowledge?

Gurdjieff had tremendous charisma...the energy surplus that attracts people and makes people feel special.
The flamboyant Gurdjeffian style (IMO) included bursts of temper, larger than expected recovery from disaster, extremes of affect, falling in love frequently with multiple affairs (his family and his wife were also important to him) and heavy drinking. He would throw everyone out at times. He used the money of the followers. Some were "hurt".

We label sociopathy when the people can be hurtful and very unpleasant. We still like charisma which is apparenetly an attribute of the sociopathy spectrum. energy does not equal goodness....We (IMO) are impressed by audacious and seemingly "freed up"people and those who cannot feel look very free..... Our "need" to have what we suspect others have and we have not is the set up of the con.

The Dalai Lama was shocked when he heard that Tibetan lamas were liaising with Western female students and said the only remedy for such a situation was for the culprits to be “outed,” mentioned by name publicly and no longer considered as teachers (Mackenzie, 1998, p. 179). But he also pointed out that, in the final analysis, the authority of a guru was bestowed by the disciple. The guru doesn’t go looking for disciples. The Dalai Lama’s recipe is to “spy” on the guru for at least ten years. Listen, examine, watch, until you are convinced the person is sincere. In the meantime, treat him or her as an ordinary human being and receive the person’s teaching as “just information” (p. 182).

Marion Caplan’s (2002) response to the challenge of gurus is that seekers should aim for a “conscious discipleship that is fully empowered, intelligent, and discriminating.” This, she says, places “the power and responsibility back into the hands and heart of the disciple.” But engaging in guru-disciple relationships from what she calls an “empowered perspective” presupposes a level of maturity and discernment, too often lacking in beginners or new converts—the sort of person I was at the outset of my long and rocky journey.

What was thought to be a passing fad of the 1960s and 1970s has not disappeared. People still go to India and elsewhere to surrender their minds to gurus—even to those who have been exposed as frauds, charlatans, liars, and hypocrites. In addition, many self-styled false messiahs have emerged in the West. Increasing numbers of New Age teachers and leaders of groups, workshops, and seminars who claim “this is it,” “this will change your life,” “here is the way,” continue to mushroom. They are not all harmful, of course, but what seekers need to be wary of are those groups whose leaders proclaim to be God incarnate and expect to be worshipped and treated as such. Invariably, they have ended up exploiting their followers sexually, emotionally, and financially. Rather than spiritual lights, these gurus have turned out to be deluded con men; a few have been downright psychopaths.

The guru-disciple relationship is probably the most authoritarian of all in its demands for surrender and obedience. Hence it can be the most destructive. And so far from achieving the enlightenment and freedom that many of us “wannabe” spiritual pioneers of the 1970s sought (and were promised), we experienced mental imprisonment and confusion. We were seduced by yogis and swamis telling us what we wanted to hear: that we were special and that they were God incarnate. Our need was our downfall. If and when we escaped, the questions that often lingered were “What if it is just me, something wrong with me? Have I failed, given up too soon?”The Potential for Abuse in the Guru-Disciple Relationship

[Selkie]

Posted by loveoflife (here)
What i find interesting about this thread is how people are able to judge anothers spirituality/enlightenment without knowing all the facts...

Facts? Here are some facts:

...No hard evidence that Rajneesh had sex with his disciples? Well there is no stack of porno movies of him having sex, but certainly enough sannyasin girls have told me about their encounters with him, including the early grabbing stage of his sex life and the requests for disciples to have sex in front of him. I get e-mails every year from a few sannyasin girls who had group sex with him during his “Tantra Group” years in Poona. What do people want for proof?...

http://www.icsahome.com/articles/the...e-garden-en4-3

Posted by loveoflife (here)
...Then how others can asses how a spiritual person should act, by what criteria, and where did that preconceived standard come from?

We can judge ("assess") them by their acts, just like we judge anyone else. Just because a person is seen as "spiritual", or claims they are "spiritual" does not mean that their behavior should be judged any differently than anyone else's, and what you are suggesting, perhaps without realizing it, is no less than a double-standard for judging behavior: one for the "spiritual" and another for everyone else.

Posted by loveoflife (here)
...Osho is an iconoclast and a rebel, who took on all the worlds religions and politicians.

If only that were true. In actual fact, he acted just like them. The only difference is that he does not seem to have been a pedophile. But then, neither are all of them.

Posted by loveoflife (here)
... As someone mentions earlier in the thread to form an opinion based on media reports of a controversial figure like him is surely is to be misinformed.

In the media he was known as the sex guru, out the many books of his published, (of which he wrote none they were all transcripts of his discouses), only one had sex in the title, one of his earlier books. 'From Sex to Superconsciousness' was enough for the label to stick and it was a book about transcending sex.

Again, here is that eye-witness testimony:

...No hard evidence that Rajneesh had sex with his disciples? Well there is no stack of porno movies of him having sex, but certainly enough sannyasin girls have told me about their encounters with him, including the early grabbing stage of his sex life and the requests for disciples to have sex in front of him. I get e-mails every year from a few sannyasin girls who had group sex with him during his “Tantra Group” years in Poona. What do people want for proof?...

http://www.icsahome.com/articles/the...e-garden-en4-3

Doesn't sound very transcendent to me.

[Selkie]

Posted by greybeard (here)
...A sick chicken can produce healthy eggs.

Chris

Wouldn't you have to eat the egg, or at least crack it open, to know whether it was as sick as the chicken, or not?

Very few here seem to want to crack open the egg that is Rajneesh, but when you do, you find a bloody yolk. Pretty disgusting, I would say.

[Selkie]

Posted by Delight (here)
These massively confusing characters like Osho, Sai Baba and many many more cannot do without those who would follow them. They are using other's weakness and exploiting gullibility.
I have met only a few very striking humans about whom I was not sure...

"Is this a Saint or a Sociopath?"

One my friend, the local "teacher" in the Gurdjieff Foundation. This organization started in 1953 (Gurdjieff died in 1949) under the direction of Madame Jeanne de Salzmann. It was a very self approving group and thought itself elite as an organization. It used to be important to the Fourth way WORK that some direct lineage be established. This even though Gurdjieff dissolved the New York connection himself at one point.

My devoted "fourth way" friend was confusing but enjoyable. I loved him and being near him and he had mighty big flaws. He embraced a brand of "trickster" energy, turning conventionally givens upside down inside out and backwards....calling the game of his life "controlled folly". He embraced the work and lived it as a "road map". I think he lived large. IMO we admire this element of huge character more than any other aspect. My friend had talents of creating and leading.

Disgraceful "gurus" who have hurt others have this also in common....THEY LIVE LARGE. People feel something different with them and tolerate them much more than they will a less informative and enthusiastic person. I know that "Osho" channeled well. The large gifts are IMO what allows the whole belief that they must be "enlightened". And perhaps these humans have seen the light and now use the knowledge?

Gurdjieff had tremendous charisma...the energy surplus that attracts people and makes people feel special.
The flamboyant Gurdjeffian style (IMO) included bursts of temper, larger than expected recovery from disaster, extremes of affect, falling in love frequently with multiple affairs (his family and his wife were also important to him) and heavy drinking. He would throw everyone out at times. He used the money of the followers. Some were "hurt".

We label sociopathy when the people can be hurtful and very unpleasant. We still like charisma which is apparenetly an attribute of the sociopathy spectrum. energy does not equal goodness....We (IMO) are impressed by audacious and seemingly "freed up"people and those who cannot feel look very free..... Our "need" to have what we suspect others have and we have not is the set up of the con.

...The guru-disciple relationship is probably the most authoritarian of all in its demands for surrender and obedience. Hence it can be the most destructive.

The Potential for Abuse in the Guru-Disciple Relationship

(my emphasis)

A guru who has sex with followers is like a therapist who has sex with clients. It is more akin to incest than it is to an adult/adult relationship because the follower has accepted the guru as an authority figure. One** cannot put someone in a position of surrender and obedience and, at the same time, expect them to refuse sex, not to mention that gurus often re-label sex as something else to lower the followers' guard and make them feel wrong and bad for refusing.

** I am not referring to the author of this post, btw.

[greybeard]

Posted by Silkie (here)

Posted by greybeard (here)
...A sick chicken can produce healthy eggs.

Chris

Wouldn't you have to eat the egg, or at least crack it open, to know whether it was as sick as the chicken, or not?

Very few here seem to want to crack open the egg that is Rajneesh, but when you do, you find a bloody yolk. Pretty disgusting, I would say.

Silkie the teaching is the egg I refer to and those that I have cracked open are valid.
He is dead and gone--murdered or not---a higher justice, Karma takes care of everything---eventually.
Nothing and no one escapes the consequences of their actions.

It seems its possible to reincarnate as non human--ie animal.
So if the vibration of his spiritual energy fell to such a great degree that's a possibility.

I would not spend my time investigating the past evils of the world, rather know about the great achievements of the human race as a whole.
Consciousness is rising and that seems to me to be the important thing as it is happening in the present moment.
There in lies the peace of the world.

Chris

[Delight]

Maybe the Universe balances the actions of one like OSHO. It is not so much my interest to focus on the evils but I will admit I am a little obsessed by the pattern presented. I think the giving over of power of the followers seems to me to be the important thing as it is happening in the present moment.

Basically how can 99 be controlled by 1 (one guru to 99 followers etc.)????????????? Look and see countless stories here and everywhere of variations of power given to the stars of our choosing. We feel we must worship to get the reflected glory or attonement. Then "the stars" become beings beyond criticism in many minds.

It happens now in politics, religion, new age and anywhere a charismatic and facile speaker or set of ideas can overwhelm the inner voice of knowing. The collective focus makes a megalomaniacal force that has only an interest in keeping itself going.

My main concern is how to balance OUR response to megalomania. It will always start small and build and at every step needs the energy of others to feed its dynamic.

Already convinced of lack, the lacky seeks to make good. Not out of strength but out of weakness the offering bowing and scraping and sacrificing for the "greater good"

We are not to blame for this obvious program. But I think we have to face facts: being beguiled drives the whole sordid engine of false glamour and tricks.

What I notice in myself and in humans is the desire to surrender authority because of a feeling of being power-less. I am concerned about "Following" as a quality of being is misguiding us. As a characteristic, the follower is seeking second hand from a source that appears to have something to grant.

In exchange for vicarious power, I give my self away, work night and day to support the agendas of others, am persuaded by glamours and beguiled by superficial values, fail to feel adequate without approval from a god authority? All these attributes will be calculatedly used against me sending me to the same dead ends.

What is not seen is that this authority shines from OUR energy of attention.
IMO to each be our own source would change the collective dynamics for the good of ourselves and others. How we may uncover the power we feel we have not available is my question.

I am really tired of what I already know. I want to learn something new. I would love to see what it is like to have each of us feeling the juice ourselves.

[greybeard]

Delight
I agree that its a mistake to give ones power to another--this leads to stagnation and worse.
Its one thing to follow teachings quite another to follow, to put some one on a pedestal.
The Buddha said "Put no head above your own" very sound advice.

As for combating megalomania, it is my choice not to give it energy by fighting it---fighting is the same energy that feeds the ego/megalomania.
My choice is to grow to know this self regardless of exterior conditions
I believe in "Be the change you want to see"
Its in my signature, which I try to follow as best I can.

Best wishes
Chris

[Selkie]

Posted by greybeard (here)
...and those that I have cracked open are valid.

So, then, you are simply making generalizations?, hoping that what was true of them is also true of Rajneesh? But this thread is not about generalizations or those other ones you speak of, whoever they are. This thread is about Rajneesh, and when you crack that egg, it is rotten inside.

Posted by greybeard (here)
He is dead and gone--murdered or not---a higher justice, Karma takes care of everything---eventually.
Nothing and no one escapes the consequences of their actions.

Are you referring to death? If so, that is not Karma, it is simply death.

Posted by greybeard (here)
It seems its possible to reincarnate as non human--ie animal.
So if the vibration of his spiritual energy fell to such a great degree that's a possibility.

First, let me say that I do not believe in Karma. Having said that, though, animals may live hard and (at times) brutal lives, but they are innocent, so Karma would not apply to them as vehicles of Karmic justice (unless maybe Rajneesh gets eaten by a tiger in his next life as a human).

But actually, from the standpoint of Karma...even though I don't believe in it...perhaps the life of Rajneesh this time is a Karmic punishment for something he did in a previous life...maybe as an even more corrupt spiritual con man than he was this time around (except he got away with it). One can only hope.

Posted by greybeard (here)
...I would not spend my time investigating the past evils of the world...

Even though the saying goes that those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it, and that investigating the past might help you to avoid Karma (even though I don't believe in it)?

[Selkie]

Posted by Delight (here)
Maybe the Universe balances the actions of one like OSHO. It is not so much my interest to focus on the evils but I will admit I am a little obsessed by the pattern presented. I think the giving over of power of the followers seems to me to be the important thing as it is happening in the present moment.

Basically how can 99 be controlled by 1 (one guru to 99 followers etc.)????????????? Look and see countless stories here and everywhere of variations of power given to the stars of our choosing. We feel we must worship to get the reflected glory or attonement. Then "the stars" become beings beyond criticism in many minds.

It happens now in politics, religion, new age and anywhere a charismatic and facile speaker or set of ideas can overwhelm the inner voice of knowing. The collective focus makes a megalomaniacal force that has only an interest in keeping itself going.

My main concern is how to balance OUR response to megalomania. It will always start small and build and at every step needs the energy of others to feed its dynamic.

Already convinced of lack, the lacky seeks to make good. Not out of strength but out of weakness the offering bowing and scraping and sacrificing for the "greater good"

We are not to blame for this obvious program. But I think we have to face facts: being beguiled drives the whole sordid engine of false glamour and tricks.

What I notice in myself and in humans is the desire to surrender authority because of a feeling of being power-less. I am concerned about "Following" as a quality of being is misguiding us. As a characteristic, the follower is seeking second hand from a source that appears to have something to grant.

In exchange for vicarious power, I give my self away, work night and day to support the agendas of others, am persuaded by glamours and beguiled by superficial values, fail to feel adequate without approval from a god authority? All these attributes will be calculatedly used against me sending me to the same dead ends.

What is not seen is that this authority shines from OUR energy of attention.
IMO to each be our own source would change the collective dynamics for the good of ourselves and others. How we may uncover the power we feel we have not available is my question.

I am really tired of what I already know. I want to learn something new. I would love to see what it is like to have each of us feeling the juice ourselves.

What you say is true. And it is also why gurus secretly hate and are contemptuous of their followers. See Sam Vakin's Malignant Self-love: Narcissism Revisited.

What makes cults so dangerous to their followers is that the cult faces totally inward. All experience is defined by doctrine. Perception itself is controlled by doctrine. I know, because I have been in a cult. A cult is a self-sealed system

http://cultresearch.org/pdf/bc_in_csr.pdf

in which freedom of thought and action are systemically undermined. That is why so many cults emphasize "mindlessness". Because when you are mindless, you have lost your way to categorize your experiences, and so you can be raped and not know it until years later, after you regain your critical capacities. Abusive families operate the same way. Everybody knows this.

[Michel Leclerc]

Dear all, I am having trouble with the unreflected way the word "psychopath" is being used on this thread.

It seems to serve as a double for "scapegoat", "rotten apple" etc.

I am a fan of etymology: a psuchopathès (not a word of classical Greek, though, but coined in its moulds) means "somebody whose soul is suffering".

Honestly, my soul is suffering a lot. I am under the impression that this is also true for the forum members posting here.

I guess we are all psychopaths.

[Selkie]

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
...I guess we are all psychopaths.

No, we are not. They are a very specific group, about 1% of the general population. Do a search. You will find tons of info. There are lots of links just in this thread where you can start to learn about them.

[Flash]

Psychopaths, in the English/French meanings are people who have no empathy. I will not be looking at classical Greek or Latin for definition, they are dead languages. I will look at living languages.

a person who is mentally ill, who does not care about other people, and who is usually dangerous or violent - Merriem Webster dictionary

they are 1 to 4% of the population no more, have caracteristic brain anomalies and genetic ones as well. Nothing to do with a suffering soul. If you have a suffering soul, you are not a psychopath by definition. They are a breed by themselves. And they often breed together, so the offspring have the same disease, we call that bloodlines.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that we are all the same, because every single one of us is different to start with, but has some commonalities with others. Psychopaths are different too and have some commonalities that makes them have others around them suffer, because of them.

Posted by Michel Leclerc (here)
Dear all, I am having trouble with the unreflected way the word "psychopath" is being used on this thread.


It seems to serve as a double for "scapegoat", "rotten apple" etc.

I am a fan of etymology: a psuchopathès (not a word of classical Greek, though, but coined in its moulds) means "somebody whose soul is suffering".

Honestly, my soul is suffering a lot. I am under the impression that this is also true for the forum members posting here.

I guess we are all psychopaths.

[loveoflife]

It would imagine that those who are interested in the defamation of Osho are quite pleased with the the manner in which they have dominated this thread, well done and congratulations for keeping his name alive.

I would also imagine that Osho is also pleased with this thread, he does like to evoke a response/reaction and whether it is positive or negative does not matter as they are two sides of the same coin, there being one energy with two complimentary opposites.

Many of the accusations against Osho were perpetrated by Ma Anand Sheela while he was in silent retreat for several years in Oregon. From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneeshpuram

As Rajneesh himself did not speak in public during this period and until October 1984 gave few interviews, his secretary and chief spokesperson Ma Anand Sheela (Sheela Silverman) became, for practical purposes, the leader of the commune.[3] She did little to defuse the conflict, employing a crude, caustic and defensive speaking style that exacerbated hostilities and attracted media attention.[3] On September 14, 1985, Sheela and 15 to 20 other top officials abruptly left Rajneeshpuram.[3] The following week, Rajneesh convened press conferences and publicly accused Sheela and her team of having committed crimes within and outside the commune.[3][9] The subsequent criminal investigation, the largest in Oregon history, confirmed that a secretive group had, unbeknownst to both government officials and nearly all Rajneeshpuram residents, engaged in a variety of criminal activities, including the attempted murder of Rajneesh's physician, wiretapping and bugging within the commune and within Rajneesh's home, poisonings of two public officials, and arson.[3][10]

Sheela was extradited from Germany and imprisoned for these crimes, as well as for her role in infecting the salad bars of several restaurants in The Dalles (the county seat of Wasco County) with salmonella, poisoning over 750 (including several Wasco County public officials) and resulting in the hospitalization of 45 people. Known as the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, the incident is regarded as the largest germ warfare attack in the history of the United States. These criminal activities had, according to the Office of the Attorney General, begun in the spring of 1984, three years after the establishment of the commune.[3] Rajneesh himself was accused of immigration violations, to which he entered an Alford plea. As part of his plea bargain, he agreed to leave the United States and eventually returned to Poona, India. His followers left Oregon shortly afterwards.

Anyway this is all history, there is no trace of the organisation as it existed then left, only a few centers that do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.



It does seem that those who are against him are more obsessed with him than those who are for him and that those who attack him know little of his wisdom and teaching preferring to focus on the negative external events that happened around him while ignoring the positive.

Notice how little counter arguments there are to the accusations on this thread, those who understand the man know better that to their waste time.

Love him or hate him. Oshos legacy lives on in his words and meditations.

Osho’s “Ten Commandments”

In his early days as Acharya Rajneesh, a correspondent once asked Osho for his “Ten Commandments”. In reply Osho noted that it was a difficult matter because he was against any kind of commandment but, “just for fun”, set out the following;


1 Never obey anyone’s command unless it is coming from within you also.

2 There is no God other than life itself.

3 Truth is within you, do not search for it elsewhere.

4 Love is prayer.

5 To become a nothingness is the door to truth. Nothingness itself is the means, the goal and attainment.

6 Life is now and here.

7 Live wakefully.

8 Do not swim—float.

9 Die each moment so that you can be new each moment.

10 Do not search. That which is, is. Stop and see.

He underlined numbers 3, 7, 9 and 10.The ideas expressed in these Commandments have remained constant leitmotifs in his movement.

[greybeard]

loveoflife I consistently defend the teaching--I cant condemn or praise Osho as I did not know him.
You obviously know a lot about Osho ---I dont

I will say though Media reports of a negative nature can not be trusted.
The general public are gullible and tend to take the written word as gospel.

Its easy for TPTB to target and destroy the reputation of an individual through the press..
The biggest fear they have is mankind waking up spiritually
Osho's teaching certainly is a wake up call.

Chris