The Life of Osho

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

The Life of Osho

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

As a backdrop to this analysis, I would like include some of forum's posts on Osho over the years. Most of the quotes are from David Q, with the exception of one I think.

Quotes:
Very much so. People can gain a taste of enlightenment and turn away from it out of fear and loathing. Flawed gurus, such as Osho, are a classic example of this. Out of their fear, they fashion a mild, diluted, distorted view of enlightenment tailored to bring them lots of egotistical benefits in the form of fame, worship, hedonistic pleasure, etc, and shield them from further contact with enlightenment.
Yes, the more advanced, spiritually-aware a person becomes, the greater capacity he has for evil. People such as Osho and U.G Krishnamurti would fall into this category.
He is probably attracted to Osho's playfulness. In my view, Osho was a very intelligent man who did, at one point, attain great insight into the nature of Reality, but became corrupted over time by his own charisma and the many egotistical rewards it brought.
Osho encouraged one and all to become his disciples which caused so many unregenerate persons to become important members in the commune. There were clashes of egos which resulted in discords and violence.
After watching quite a few Osho interviews on YouTube, I noticed a few things. First of all, Osho negated major conventional institutions such as marriage, and offered an alternative view of loving woman until there is no longer love, and then departing. However, he doesn't mention the potential problem of negative karma that can arise if the woman is not on the same page, or creates a lot of attachment in the process. Osho seemed to prefer to cause chaos and then try to teach out of it, he would allow students to become attached, and then break that attachment. He also choose not to discriminate on the quality of his students or followers, which was a very questionable decision on his part.

Moreover, he also offers an overly idealistic solution to abandoning marriage, such as simply allowing the community to raise children, which contradicts his other value of absolute freedom, the reason he abandons marriage in the first place. So he explains that marriage takes away freedom so it is a negative thing, yet he offers a pragmatic solution to abandoning marriage which also takes away some degree of freedom. A contradiction.

It is also debatable whether his ideal of community child rearing would ever work in practice. Most people who are interested in raising other people's children tend to have mental issues themselves, and the people who would actually make decent role models for children would often have other commitments and interests that would make them unavailable.

And to examine Osho's motives, perhaps his ideals of commune and non-attached romanticism may have concealed a deep loneliness Osho was unable to resolve. One thing that is rarely mentioned on the forum is that there is empirical evidence that loneliness is a strong hardwired biological impulse that may have evolved in the species to reinforce social behavior, social behavior that would increase the chances of the organism's survival. And so, as intellectuals we often casually glorify and romanticize the splendor of aloneness and solitude, but what I have learned is that the species is conditioned to avoid prolonged periods of solitude for fear of pathology, which in my opinion is a valid concern.

Now, given Osho's biological temperament, would he have been better off to simply live with one woman, continue to perfect his thoughts, while realizing that she was an attachment that he was ready to lose at any time, rather then going through the whole mess of commune experimentation, sexual orgies, unattached romanticism and all the rest of it.

I would argue that such behavior may not be the result of egotism, desire for fame, and some of the major deluded motivations, but given the quality of his mind, his motivation for such extreme behavior may have been more subtle, may have been caused by a continuous social discontent (nagging desire for social behavior) combined with unrealistic ideals used to replace the existing conventional institutions of culture.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:
.....In my view, Osho was a very intelligent man who did, at one point, attain great insight into the nature of Reality, but became corrupted over time by his own charisma and the many egotistical rewards it brought.
I pretty much agree here. But do you know of any enlightened men who haven't wound up out in left field, so to speak, to some degree or another? Meaning essentially that they were of no real value in the awakening or the enlightenment of others.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Animus »

I don't know much about Osho except what is written here, and apparently he had a variety of nice cars. But what intrigues me is the non-attachment to attachment and non-attachment to non-attachment that gets left out of the analysis.

Others will be attached to me, what can I do to prevent others from becoming attached? Perhaps I could distance myself from everyone who had such a tendency, but I will be attached myself to their attachment, I will be allowing their tendency to become attached to influence me by generating a negative-bias attachment. This could also be given as a non-attachment to non-attachment, as the principle of non-attachment itself is something one could be attached to, and that may be the cause of the negative-bias attachment generated when someone else presents an attachment tendency.

Would not, the truly non-attached person be also non-attached in the face of attachment?

With respect to marriage, I had a thought process I worked out, and it began with denying marriage on the grounds that it was ceremonious and inconsequential to whether or not two individuals remained partners. But then it occurred to me that the ceremony and the commitment themselves posed a significant psychological determinacy in the success of the marriage. Marriage could be an enlightened decision by two people to remain together, unabated by egotistical desire. Perhaps the woman I choose to marry realizes she is not the most beautiful girl in the world, and even if she was, I'd probably always have sexual desires for other women. Suppose she realized that each of us faces an upward struggle against infinity and that perfection was unattainable to most of us. Suppose she and I made a pact, to the best of our ability, to remain faithfully together, until such a time as death has occurred or the pact has been violated.

What is the prevailing 'enlightened' alternative? To avoid all attachment, while occasionally stumbling and falling in lust, with no other enlightened souls for support? Laboring under the illusion that detachment from attachment is the answer? I know for a fact my girlfriend has attachment tendency, a psychologist would say she has co-dependency disorder. But in the 8 years I've known her, I've seen some rapid changes taking place recently. She abandoned some of her beliefs and started reading a lot. She is realizing that she still implicitly believes a lot of things that she hasn't begun questioning. She learned to identify the psychological effects of PMS and has improved behaviourally during those periods. Her worrying about other's judgments has slowed down. And so on and so forth. For my own part, I try to help her and recognize my own part. Before things got heavy with us, I was doing a lot of "enlightened" things that weren't as enlightened as I thought, and her emotional reactions proved that to me. I discovered how attached I was to her thinking, and her feeling. When she gets upset with me, I say "Don't do that, that isn't justified. If you keep doing it, I'm leaving."

I know that at one time, sitting alone, reading, meditating, those were the best for me. But, I've learned a lot with my girlfriend that I probably wouldn't have otherwise. She isn't the most enlightened subject, but neither am I. In the Christian tradition, marriage, as given in the Bible, is a kind of compromise with our wicked selves. And its basically of the nature which I've described. You make a pact with each other to fight your wicked self, and help each other to fight the fight. Its not about crazy sex in bathroom stall at the local drive-thru wedding chapel in Vegas. Its not really light-hearted at all. Its just been distorted.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Animus »

I would like to add that perhaps in the enlightened marriage, the individuals realize an infinite distance between egos and that egotistical satisfaction is not even possible Perhaps they realize that the pact itself is an illusion. Who could speculate on their future self? The pact on applies to the moment in which it is given, and the rest of the time it is taken on faith. That is the understanding I have with my girlfriend. I do not possess her, she does not possess me, as individuals there is an infinite gap between us, the closest we can get is in equivalence of mind. We help individualize each other, while establishing a connectivity between individuals, rather than being co-dependent. Although she is co-dependent, which means she struggles a lot with the arrangement, but never-the-less recognizes the truth of it. I struggle a lot with the arrangement, it is a lot harder than I thought. I flip between attached and detached, and hardly find myself non-attached. But I didn't recognize the difference on my own either. I couldn't be attached, detached or non-attached to something I never entertained. I'm pretty good at being non-attached to ideas though, seeing as they have been my entertainment for a lot longer.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Animus,

I also suspect that the arrangement of marriage is not absolute 'evil' because one can essentially cause pathology upon themselves with the alternative if their biology isn't strong enough. Some individuals may have light conditioning, and can tolerate such a thing. However, possible attachments arise out of preferring solitude over other people as well. I think it is important that your being can handle whatever circus is happening outside of you without invoking a lot of emotion, desire, and reaction. And a woman and children will test you to your absolute limit. In my opinion, marriage is a possible challenge for the rational person who cannot handle long term solitude without contact with other people. At least with marriage, It forces the male to sacrifice his own basic needs for others, live minimally, and try to inspire the others in the home to think more rational.

Osho argued that marriage causes all sorts of pathology in children. However, it is not 'the marriage' itself. Marriage is just an institution, it is just a promise to stick around to accomplish a variety of survival related tasks. The problem is when you have two irrational people living with each other who do not know themselves, and then they attempt to raise children.

He also states that marriage doesn't expose children to enough people, and exposure to people increases the cause of rationality, and so on. However, I don't really know if that is true either. If a child is exposed to 50 or 100 irrational people, it doesn't really matter, especially if he lacks the intellectual capacity to be critical of behavior and thought.

Not to mention Osho created a much larger scale circus with his decisions, after he was very critical of the circus of marriage. My main point is that his alternative to conventional institutions failed miserably if you examine his life.

What I suspect is that when one discussing how one ought to live, there isn't just one path. Moreover, within the 1-5% of the population that show a deposition for rational thought, there will be quite a bit of variation in physiology. And variation in physiology will result in differences in preferences for behavior. However, there will be a common universal agreement of the foundation, but the individual path may vary.

One other thing that is important to mention about marriage - (or long term living with another person) is that the relationship becomes very mechanical and habitable over time, and the flame of attachment burns out with that, which makes the arrangement less of a attachment. However, I still see it as an attachment, and there will be suffering when it is lost because the mind becomes accustomed to a certain pattern, and when that pattern drastically changes, there will be anxiety and suffering for a bit until one readjusts, but the more conscious one is of the process, the less of an impact will will have when it happens. However, that is not to say that it is a perfect arrangement, but it maybe a necessary coping mechanism for those who feel the need to be social, but do not have a circle of intellectuals.

However, David makes some valid points about Osho. Crap people bring out crap behavior in you if you are not prepared. I think Osho found himself in the situation where he was a star surrounded by black holes who were constantly feeding star dust back into his gravitational pull, and so part of his folly is the result of allowing that process to occur. Classic failed guru dynamic.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, David makes some valid points about Osho. Crap people bring out crap behavior in you if you are not prepared. I think Osho found himself in the situation where he was a star surrounded by black holes who were constantly feeding star dust back into his gravitational pull, and so part of his folly is the result of allowing that process to occur. Classic failed guru dynamic.
No matter how learned, brilliant, or insightful they may be; weak, cowardly, pap-smeared, celibate men haven't been, nor will they ever be, effectively instrumental in bringing the Light of love, truth, and understanding into our cold, dark, and decaying world.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Bob Michael,
No matter how learned, brilliant, or insightful they may be; weak, cowardly, pap-smeared, celibate men haven't been, nor will they ever be, effectively instrumental in bringing the Light of love, truth, and understanding into our cold, dark, and decaying world.
Not sure if this is a criticism of Osho or David. However, regardless of the target, getting through to the masses is pretty hopeless regardless of your unique intellectual deposition. In my opinion, Osho choose the more exciting path, the one riddled with pointless karma and unnecessary confrontation with people who didn't have a prayer for rationality to begin with.

At least, in present times, one can create YouTube videos or write on messageboards, which can be viewed privately at a later date by others. Technology has basically taken the ego out of creating a craft or art to serve as a teaching tool for the few who can learn.

Osho existed in the same time as individuals such as J krishnamurti, where due to the limitations of technology, there was pressure to lecture and form an audience, which results in all sorts of ego reinforcing patterns for both the student and the teacher. It is more difficult to that to happen through long distance technology, which is a good thing.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Not sure if this is a criticism of Osho or David. However, regardless of the target, getting through to the masses is pretty hopeless regardless of your unique intellectual deposition. In my opinion, Osho choose the more exciting path, the one riddled with pointless karma and unnecessary confrontation with people who didn't have a prayer for rationality to begin with.
It's a criticism of whomever the shoe may happen to fit.

The problem with them all, beside typically being celibate, is that they are little more than spiritual entertainers. They appealed merely to the heads of their listeners but they could not reach deep into their hearts. Which is what must be reached if a radical and revolutionary psychic change is to ever take place in people. Without which there'll be no new being, no recapturing of that long-lost dimension of love and purity of the mind, the heart, and the human spirit.

Upon Krishnamurti's death Osho considered him a mere entertainer who could not "touch the human heart" and a "collector of corpses". Which Krishnamurti himself reportedly somewhat admitted. And while I find that these things were certainly true, I find the same things were also true of Osho. And then there was the time Krishnamurti said Osho was a "criminal". So in this whole so-called enlightenment business what we continue to have is the pot calling the kettle black, while the fact remains that nobody anywhere seems to have both oars in the water. And regardless of the "more exciting path" you say Osho took, along with his extraordinary brilliance of mind, when the curtain closed he didn't produce any goods either. One might add here that while perhaps Krishnamurti may have been "too serious", Osho most surely became far too frivolous and downright reckless and irresponsible. And neither of them ever found the right balance or the right approach for the genuine awakening of others.

Personally, and on the other hand, I find that both of these men (along with many others), and in spite of their shortcomings and my criticism of them, were very helpful to my own spiritual awakening, growth, and development. But then I had undergone the life-changing shift of consciousness before I ever came in contact with them or their works.
____________________________________________________

"Just three days before J. Krishnamurti died, one of my friends was with him; and he reported to me that his words to him were very strange. Krishnamurti was very sad and he simply said one thing: "I have wasted my life. People were listening to me as if I am an entertainment."

"Krishnamurti's teaching is beautiful, but too serious. And my experience and feeling is that his seventy years went to waste because he was serious. So only people who were long-faced and miserable and serious types collected around him; he was a collector of corpses, and as he became older, those corpses also became older."

"Krishnamurti failed because he could not touch the human heart; he could only reach the human head. The heart needs some different approaches. This is where I have differed with him all my life: unless the human heart is reached, you can go on repeating parrot-like, beautiful words—they don't mean anything. Whatever Krishnamurti was saying is true, but he could not manage to relate it to your heart. In other words, what I am saying is that J. Krishnamurti was a great philosopher but he could not become a master. He could not help people, prepare people for a new life, a new orientation."

Osho

http://www.oshoworld.com/biography/inne ... amurti.txt
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Animus »

Hmm ,I don't find Jiddu to be overly intellectual.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

Animus wrote:Hmm ,I don't find Jiddu to be overly intellectual.
He was after he got hooked up with David Bohm. But this really didn't matter all that much since he had some other strikes against him.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Animus »

Bob Michael wrote:
Animus wrote:Hmm ,I don't find Jiddu to be overly intellectual.
He was after he got hooked up with David Bohm. But this really didn't matter all that much since he had some other strikes against him.
Well, I'm only really familiar with Think on these things. It wasn't overly intellectual.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bobo »

Animus wrote: Would not, the truly non-attached person be also non-attached in the face of attachment?
How do you define attachment?
If you are not non-attached you are attached. If you don't strive for non-attachment you will be attached forever. When all attachment is gone attachment to non-attachment will go by itself. (I'm talking about personal attachments.)


On relation between individuals that can reason:

Things which have 'sameness' are related. A relationship must be more of sameness between equal things, like 'between such humans I relate more with this one'. Man may value some conditional thing in a woman in order for them to be fit for a relation and vice-versa. When those conditions are met between partners the relation is allowed to be. If you don't have some of those conditions but pretend to have the cost of sex is the cost of your character. Character being consistency with your values, with the only thing of real value being truth (Problem: What is true? And sameness as ego validation...). No assumptions by partners are permitted on a consensual relationship, they need to be reached by mutual understanding, if not abuse is being commited. Only by understanding those conditions (for the start of a relation) may change. So a prior fundamental to a relationship is that if conditions change one can break unilaterally the relation or not (it seems not on marriage). What seems is that any emotional being and relation can't accept unilaterally break (and is there any punition for non-consensual break?). A consent to abuse or a consent to the break of the consent would be the insanity of marriage. For any relation to be healthy emotions must not be dominating but reason. And can the conditions for the start of a relationship be conditional (opposed to mutual understanded)? Those too seems that must be mutually understanded at least for a long term relationship (and to be based on character), which seems not to be the base of a monogamous relationship.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by David Quinn »

Bob Michael wrote:
Ryan Rudolph wrote:However, David makes some valid points about Osho. Crap people bring out crap behavior in you if you are not prepared. I think Osho found himself in the situation where he was a star surrounded by black holes who were constantly feeding star dust back into his gravitational pull, and so part of his folly is the result of allowing that process to occur. Classic failed guru dynamic.
No matter how learned, brilliant, or insightful they may be; weak, cowardly, pap-smeared, celibate men haven't been, nor will they ever be, effectively instrumental in bringing the Light of love, truth, and understanding into our cold, dark, and decaying world.
Are all celibate men cowardly and pap-smeared, by definition? What about celibate men like Jesus, Buddha, Huang Po, Hakuin, etc?

There is a harshness in your attitudes in this issue - towards the "head", towards the wisdom of lofty discernment and non-attachment - which suggests fear, that deep down you're simply trying to defend your own attachment to womanly embrace and sexual relationships.....

-
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

Animus wrote:Well, I'm only really familiar with Think on these things. It wasn't overly intellectual.
'Think On These Things' was copyrighted in 1964. All of its contents coming from talks to students, teachers, and parents in India prior to that time.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

David Quinn wrote: What about celibate men like Jesus, Buddha, Huang Po, Hakuin, etc?
I know nothing about the last two men, but I'd venture to say they all fell short of the full glory of God or the Infinite.
David Quinn wrote:There is a harshness in your attitudes in this issue - towards the "head", towards the wisdom of lofty discernment and non-attachment - which suggests fear, that deep down you're simply trying to defend your own attachment to womanly embrace and sexual relationships.....
"Lofty discernment" and "non-attachment" rings to me of cowardice and irresponsibility. And I'm not defending anything, just stating my views which are the result of years of awakening, struggle, suffering, change (some major), study, observations, mistakes (some major), living a vagabond lifestyle (though fully earning my own keep) for 16 years, character building, etc. While knowing in my heart of hearts that my views, which are the result of these many trials and tribulations, are in alignment with those of God or the Infinite. And trust me there's no fear here whatsoever of letting-go of anything. Those necessary and painful hurdles have all been crossed long ago. Though fine-tuning of the organism continues on, and will until my last days.
Last edited by Bob Michael on Fri Dec 24, 2010 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2282
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by jupiviv »

You can't be afraid of letting go of an attachment if you don't know that you have that attachment.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

jupiviv wrote:You can't be afraid of letting go of an attachment if you don't know that you have that attachment.
Yes, that is very true.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by David Quinn »

Bob Michael wrote:
David Quinn wrote: What about celibate men like Jesus, Buddha, Huang Po, Hakuin, etc?
I know nothing about the last two men, but I'd venture to say they all fell short of the full glory of God or the Infinite.

So this is the default position with you, then? You've already judged everyone within the entire human race, without bothering to check all the evidence?

Bob Michael wrote:
David Quinn wrote:There is a harshness in your attitudes in this issue - towards the "head", towards the wisdom of lofty discernment and non-attachment - which suggests fear, that deep down you're simply trying to defend your own attachment to womanly embrace and sexual relationships.....
"Lofty discernment" and "non-atttachment" rings to me of cowardice and irresponsibility.
Developing a clear, unbiased mind which sees things truly is a sign of cowardice and responsibility..... ?

Somehow, I don't think so.

And I'm not defending anything, just stating my views which are the result of years of awakening, struggle, suffering, change (some major), study, observations, mistakes (some major), living a vagabond lifestyle (though fully earning my own keep) for 16 years, character building, etc.

We can all call upon experiences of this kind. It means nothing. What matters is how how rational and truthful we are in the here and now, and how much in tune with the Infinite we really are. And I'm having problems with you on this count.

I think you've made some significant strides, but you're too quick to make judgments about a wisdom that currently goes against your current values and extends far beyond your current view of things. You've acheived much, but it's causing you to be too dismissive towards those who have achieved so much more.

Why settle for crumbs, when there is so much more to be had!

-
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

David Quinn wrote:So this is the default position with you, then? You've already judged everyone within the entire human race, without bothering to check all the evidence?
While (much) evidence checking is certainly necessary in order to attain to oneness with the Infinite, once one attains this oneness, or gets sufficiently close, evidence checking is no longer necessary. One intuitively and clearly knows.
David Quinn wrote:Developing a clear, unbiased mind which sees things truly is a sign of cowardice and responsibility..... ? Somehow, I don't think so.
I do, certainly if one cannot or will not LIVE "things truly" AND fully.
David Quinn wrote:We can all call upon experiences of this kind. It means nothing. What matters is how how rational and truthful we are in the here and now, and how much in tune with the Infinite we really are. And I'm having problems with you on this count.
I think living experiences mean everything. Talk is cheap - actions speak far louder than words. And the more life experiences a person has under his belt the better value he will be to others in their own awakening and spiritual development.
David Quinn wrote:I think you've made some significant strides, but you're too quick to make judgments about a wisdom that currently goes against your current values and extends far beyond your current view of things. You've achieved much, but it's causing you to be too dismissive towards those who have achieved so much more.

My judgments of others and their integrity or the lacking thereof haven't been made quickly. For instance 15 years or so ago I felt that Krishnamurti was a living Christ and I often told others so. But as I continued to develop and grow along spiritual lines I now clearly see him as but another failed messiah. One who was never able or willing to give all the strings to God, if you will. Which I come to see is similarly true of virtually all the rest of the so-called spiritual giants. And as Nietzsche once said, "One repays a teacher(s) badly if one remains only a pupil." I too have observed and taken into account the negative karma that eventually came into the lives of many of these men. The Infinite is not one to play games with, as sooner or later he wins every time.
David Quinn wrote:Why settle for crumbs, when there is so much more to be had!
I have the gold, David, believe me. And a wonderful woman by my side to boot. Which again is one of the main reasons all the celibates fell short of the glory of the Infinite. Along with failing to ever produce a body of perfected souls or genuine free spirits.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by David Quinn »

Bob Michael wrote: And a wonderful woman by my side to boot.
Does your joy in life depend on this woman remaining by your side? Is she propping you up? How unconditional is your love of reality, really?

-
User avatar
Nick
Posts: 1677
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 8:39 pm
Location: Detroit, Michigan

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Nick »

Bob Michael wrote:I think living experiences mean everything. Talk is cheap - actions speak far louder than words. And the more life experiences a person has under his belt the better value he will be to others in their own awakening and spiritual development.
What if one's life experiences consist of being raped, molested as a child, and abused? Do you think those kinds of experiences are going to help advance one's spiritual development, let alone allow them to help others with theirs?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Bob Michael wrote: And the more life experiences a person has under his belt the better value he will be to others in their own awakening and spiritual development.
One could just as easily make the case that the more life experiences "under the belt", the more one becomes a collector of them, attached to the memories and status one has assigned to them, or wearing them as scalps to prove how seasoned a warrior one has become, thereby closing the mind to anything fundamentally challenging.

All this child's play has to go first if one doesn't want to become a living dead stumbling block on the road for everyone and oneself. If a mind would be so inclined, awakening and development could just as well happen in a closet-sized universe.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

David Quinn wrote:Does your joy in life depend on this woman remaining by your side? Is she propping you up? How unconditional is your love reality, really?
Actually I spent most of the day out in life by myself, and I had a wonderful day, an exceptionally fine day. If my wife died tonight I'd continue to be fine. I'd simply accept it as God's will and get on with my life. And the same thing is true if my 4 sons from other marriages died tonight. Actually I have virtually no contact with any of them and it's like they don't even exist. Me and He is the only relationship that really matters. Everything else in my life stems from that relationship. Though I really don't expect my wife to die just yet. I feel we have a big job to do in the service of God and some of our fellow suffering human beings.
Animus
Posts: 1351
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:31 pm

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Animus »

It's not much of a love for reality if you reject what it has to offer in the thingness of your existence.

If reality can be broken down into appearances, the infinite and the void, and all you worship is the infinite and the void, then you left out 1/3 of what reality is.

Or, to put it in these terms.

If the world consists of something external, something internal, and a link between them, and all you worship is the internal and external, then you left out 1/3 of what the world is.

Or, to put it in these terms.

If reality consists of the principle of unity, the principle of division and that of connection, and all you worship is the unity and division, then you left out 1/3 of what reality is.

In any case, if you leave out the world of attachment, the world of appearances, and reject its place in divinity, then you must be leaving something out. If, experimentally, you removed any one of the elements, you could not have divinity at all.
User avatar
Bob Michael
Posts: 692
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 2:08 am
Location: Reading, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: The Life of Osho

Post by Bob Michael »

Nick Treklis wrote:What if one's life experiences consist of being raped, molested as a child, and abused? Do you think those kinds of experiences are going to help advance one's spiritual development, let alone allow them to help others with theirs?
I was referring to the life experiences of a man or a woman who goes on to becoming enlightened. The more living experiences they have the greater the help they can be in the enlightenment of others. Those who unfortunately suffer such traumatic childhood experiences like you mention will in all likelihood never become enlightened or genuinely spiritually developed human beings.
Locked