Who digs osho here?

[chilli]

"...I dunno why any1 should doubt someone just for the mere fact they believe they are god incarnate. Jesus reckons he was god incarnate, god made flesh.."

I thought this was precisely why many people do doubt him.

[The Dude]

"...I dunno why any1 should doubt someone just for the mere fact they believe they are god incarnate. Jesus reckons he was god incarnate, god made flesh.."

I thought this was precisely why many people do doubt him.

that is true, that WAS and IS the reason.. because people are too literal, time to become symboliterate

[devance]

I understand perfectly.

Sex and drugs.

So I am not a guy that was invited into the world of such.

Unattractive and not uppermiddle class.

Theres demons that will hurt you and theres God and the Angels that will help.

Anything else is some type disneyland fantasy.

Everything supposedely will work out by some sort subconscious [gestalt] and instinctual way.

Good luck with the Jungian way.

Your going to need it.

So thats the difference.

[Guest homoGenius]

A Nepalese friend I had at uni believed in a charlatan by the name of SAI BABA who was huge in the 70's and 80's but is old now. The stories about him abound with very humorous things. My favorite is that SB would have the ability to materialise from thin air gold objects for wealthy devotees. Rings, bracelets and necklaces.......... and to his undoing....... watches. Now these watches happenned to be Seiko watches and funnily enough these watches had serial numbers and "Made in Japan" engravings on them. Funny that isn't it when they're supposed to be divinely materialised objects. When I told this guy the story he was strangely unphased.

[komodo]

i never accepted guru teachings. theyre too specific, for that person in that place and at that time. i agree with the buddha though, that real knowledge is gained through personal experience, not through some teaching.

also, so many gurus turn out to be complete dickheads and charlatans, how risky (and to me, unneccesary, but maybe i've been lucky enough to be able to shape my own path ok) it is to place total trust some other human being to shape your whole philosophy of self and life. sai baba a good example. i've heard direct accusations of sexual assaults and child abuse against him, and i've seen plenty of video footage exposing his clumsy illusionist tricks.

i hear osho once described his pune commune as "a spiritual disneyland for disaffected first world yuppies". make what you will of that.

the money thing bugs me with sannyasins. i dont know the teachings as its before my time and i have had no interest in the cult beyond a psychological curiosity i have for all centrist group philosophies, but i've heard it said that sannyasins think 'wealth generation' is ok, and to become wealthy for ones own satisfaction is a good thing. living in a world of massive social injustice, economic inequality and environmental degradation, i find that kind of thinking disgusting, along the lines of the 'greed is good' mantra.

on a lighter note, its nice to get high and have sex, chant, dance around, express your body. too bad that good stuff couldnt have come along without the weird pseudo-spiritual doctrine, utopianism, politics, money, etc.

Edited May 17, 2007 by komodo

[The Dude]

i've heard it said that sannyasins think 'wealth generation' is ok, and to become wealthy for ones own satisfaction is a good thing. living in a world of massive social injustice, economic inequality and environmental degradation, i find that kind of thinking disgusting, along the lines of the 'greed is good' mantra.

If everything comes at a cost then personal greed is never good. it's pretty simple that the gift that keeps on giving is... fucking giving!! taking and seperating and owning is what fucks shit up for everyone. share the costs share the love, share the wealth, sharing is caring.. DO WE NOT CARE? DO WE NOT CARE?

But yeah totally agree with the above sentiments, gurus have run their own life they may have many lesson but you should remmeber to learn your own. Having said that, if you make mistakes or have gone the hard road and have overcome your challenges, it's irresponsible to NOT allow others to learn from your experience.

[nabraxas]

THE NEED FOR A GURU

For a beginner in the spiritual path, a Guru is necessary. To light a candle, you need a burning candle. Even an illumined soul alone can enlighten another soul.

Some do meditation for some years independently. Later on, they actually feel the necessity of a Guru. They come across some obstacles in the way. They are unable to know how to obviate these impediments or stumbling blocks. Then they begin to search for a Master.

Only the man who has already been to Badrinath will be able to tell you the road. In the case of the spiritual path, it is still more difficult to find your way. The mind will mislead you very often. The Guru will be able to remove pitfalls and obstacles, and lead you along the right path. He will tell you: "This road leads you to Moksha (liberation); this one leads to bondage". Without this guidance, you might want to go to Badrinath, but find yourself in Delhi!

The scriptures are like a forest. There are ambiguous passages. There are passages which are apparently contradictory. There are passages which have esoteric meanings, diverse significance, and hidden explanations. There are cross-references. You are in need of a Guru or Preceptor who will explain to you the right meaning, who will remove doubts and ambiguities, who will place before you the essence of the teachings.

A Guru is absolutely necessary for every aspirant in the spiritual path. It is only the Guru who will find out your defects. The nature of egoism is such that you will not be able to find out your own defects. Just as a man cannot see his back, so also he cannot see his own errors. He must live under a Guru for theeradication of his evil qualities and defects.

The aspirant who is under the guidance of a Master or Guru is safe from being led astray. Satsanga or association with the Guru is an armour and fortress to guard you against all temptations and unfavourable forces of the material world.

Cases of those who had attained perfection without study under any Guru should not be cited as authority against the necessity of a Guru; for, such great men are the anomalies of spiritual life, and not the common normality. They come into existence as spiritual masters as a result of the intense service, study, and meditation practised in previous births. They had already studied under the Guru. The present birth is only its continuative spiritual effect. Hence, the importance of the Guru is not lessened thereby.

Some teachers mislead their aspirants. They say unto all: "Think for yourself. Do not surrender yourself to any Guru". When one says, "Do not follow any Guru!", he intends to be the listeners' Guru himself. Do not approach such pseudo-Gurus. Do not hear their lectures.

All great ones had their teachers. All the sages, saints, prophets, world- teachers, incarnations, great men, have had their own Gurus, however great they might have been. Svetaketu learnt the nature of Truth from Uddalaka, Maitreyi from Yajnavalkya, Bhrigu from Varuna, Narada from Sanatkumara, Nachiketas from Yama, Indra from Prajapati; and several others humbly went to wise ones, observed strict Brahmacharya, practised rigorous discipline, and learnt Brahma-vidya (the science of God) from them.

Lord Krishna sat at the feet of His Guru Sandeepani. Lord Rama had Guru Vasishtha who gave Him Upadesha (spiritual advice). Lord Jesus sought John to be baptised by him on the banks of the river Jordan. Even Devas (celestial beings) have Brihaspati as their Guru. Even the greatest among the divine beings sat at the feet of Guru Dakshinamurti.

A neophyte must have a personal Guru first. He cannot have God as Guru to begin with. He must have a pure mind. He must have ethical perfection. He, must be intensely virtuous. He must be above body-consciousness. Then alone can he have God as Guru.

HOW TO CHOOSE YOUR GURU

If you find peace in the presence of a Mahatma (great soul), if you are inspired by his speeches, if he is able to clear your doubts, if he is free, from greed, anger, and lust, if he is selfless, loving, and I-less, you can take him as your Guru. He who is able to clear your doubts, he who is sympathetic in your Sadhana, he who does not disturb your beliefs but helps you on from where you are, he in whose very presence you feel spiritually elevated-he is your Guru. Once you choose Your Guru, implicitly follow him. God will guide you through the Guru.

Do not use your reason too much in the selection of your Guru. You will fail if you do so. If you fail to get a first-class Guru, try to follow the instructions of the Sadhu (a spiritual person) who is treading the path for some years, who has purity and other virtuous qualities, and who has some knowledge of the scriptures. Just as a student of the Intermediate class will be able to teach a student of Third Form when a professor with M.A. qualification is not available, just as a sub-assistant surgeon will be able to attend on a patient when the civil surgeon is not available, this second- class type of Guru will be able to help you.

If you are not able to find out even this second-class type of Guru, you can follow the teachings contained in the books written by realised saints like Sri Sankara, Dattatreya, and others. You can keep a photo of such a realised Guru, if available, and worship the same with faith and devotion. Gradually you will get inspiration, and the Guru may appear in dream and initiate and inspire you at the proper time. For a sincere Sadhak (aspirant), help comes in a mysterious manner. When the time is ripe, the Guru and the disciple are brought together by the Lord in a mysterious way.

Sri Swami Sivananda

http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/guru.htm

but i've heard it said that sannyasins think 'wealth generation' is ok,

--as i pointed out before, true sannyasins are those who are

integrated into the spiritual world after wholly giving up material life.

, most orange people do not fit this description & referring to them as sannyasin seems insulting to true seekers. Edited May 17, 2007 by nabraxas

[occidentalis]

the money thing bugs me with sannyasins. i dont know the teachings as its before my time and i have had no interest in the cult beyond a psychological curiosity i have for all centrist group philosophies, but i've heard it said that sannyasins think 'wealth generation' is ok, and to become wealthy for ones own satisfaction is a good thing. living in a world of massive social injustice, economic inequality and environmental degradation, i find that kind of thinking disgusting, along the lines of the 'greed is good' mantra.

I don't think you can equate "wealth generation is Ok" with "greed is good" - wealth generation is not necessarily greed. There is enough 'wealth' or potential wealth in the world for everyone to have a bit. It's only when some get greedy that others miss out.

[komodo]

hey creach

can't say i agree. wealth is an abundance of items of economic value, not just "a bit" of sufficiency, everyone in the world can't have a wealth of these items, the embodied energy cost is too high and the planet can't handle the polluting byproducts. not to mention the fact that wealth is taken, not created, from labour and raw materials, provided by the poor. the abundance of the first world wealthy is an unsustainable exploitation of single-bottom-line production, that ignores social and environmental costs.

nabraxas, if gurus lead by example, osho was teaching that wealth was ok. maybe you mean something else by sannyasin, i'm just going on stuff i've heard about the followers of osho doctrine.

[Torsten]

wealth is an abundance of items of economic value, not just "a bit" of sufficiency, everyone in the world can't have a wealth of these items, the embodied energy cost is too high and the planet can't handle the polluting byproducts. not to mention the fact that wealth is taken, not created, from labour and raw materials, provided by the poor. the abundance of the first world wealthy is an unsustainable exploitation of single-bottom-line production, that ignores social and environmental costs.

In general practical terms I agree that this is how it is, but that does not mean it should be the definition. For example, a self sufficient organic/biodynamic gardener who makes lots of money selling his organic produce while actually improving the environment [provided he actually is doing so], surely doesn't fit your definition.

[occidentalis]

OK

perhaps I should have stated that my definition of wealth is probably very different to that held by australian/western society in general. Wealth to me is providing the basics (and being able to afford to do that properly) plus just a little bit more for fun. What more does anyone need?

[The Dude]

OK

perhaps I should have stated that my definition of wealth is probably very different to that held by australian/western society in general. Wealth to me is providing the basics (and being able to afford to do that properly) plus just a little bit more for fun. What more does anyone need?

Hehe depends how much fun you 'need' and how much it costs...

[nabraxas]

nabraxas, if gurus lead by example, osho was teaching that wealth was ok. maybe you mean something else by sannyasin, i'm just going on stuff i've heard about the followers of osho doctrine.

have i really not made it clear? what i'm saying is that it is wrong to call all ov Osho's followers sannyasin, because sannyasin is a hindu term which

symbolizes the conception of the life of a monk, a person now integrated into the spiritual world after wholly giving up material life.

Obviously the majority ov orange people do not fit this description. Edited May 21, 2007 by nabraxas

[komodo]

wealth is not just a bit, its a lot! you can use it as an adjective even, to say "a lot": "a wealth of concerns".

its a good example torsten, but im still working off the ownership idea; that wealth isnt just a movement of energy but a pooling of it, a dragons hoard of 'stuff', and too much stuff in one place = not enough stuff somewhere else. i'm all for holistic abundance, just not personal private wealth.

[The Dude]

i'm all for holistic abundance, just not personal private wealth.

bloody commy, what is this holistic hippie shit?

[komodo]

hah, this from the dude who said "share the costs, share the love, share the wealth, sharing is caring.. "

holistic i mean big picture. something like cooperative generation of more diversity and pleasureable living for all beings within range of trickledown effect, as opposed to competitive exploitation of other beings for personal pleasure. expansion vs. contraction.

Edited May 28, 2007 by komodo

[The Dude]

im more holistic than you! hehe

holistic warefare.. um wtf that mean, do i need to give everything up and share everything with everyone? cuz i could do that, but wat about holistic thinking about say .. a metaphysical higher dimensional reality that informs our perceptions of existance, is that a part of holistic thinking? Say re-uniting the Physical effects of reality with their Spiritiual cause, i think that's holistic.

btw i dont give a shit about osho but gimme a sex + drug cult any day just no suicide please.

[paradox]

A few months back i read some of osho's stuff, at first i really digged it & thought he was pretty cool, some of his meditation tequniques sound pretty interesting and i still think he's alright, but after i read some stuff, i looked up some of film footage of him & stuff & i just sorta get a weird vibe from him, like he's a bit of poser or something. not quite genuine.

before reading this thread i didn't know anything about his following and all that business.

One of my friends was into him a fair bit a couple of years ago & he said that after a while he just got turned off him.

After reading some of his stuff, i believe he's an interesting character, & he has some good things to say, but he

seems more like an intellectual rather than an enlightened master (or some such thing).

He was one of the 1000's of other "guru's" who have turned spirituality into business.

[Guest Øskorei]

The Bhagwan Shree Rashneesh (let's not bullshit here with the name "Osho" being that its the same dude) liked to drive a different one of his 100 Rolls-Royces every day. In fact the R-R company were once quoted as saying that he was their biggest customer.

The combined church, commune and 'investment corporation' posted financial statements to the IRS in 1983 with assets valued at USD$70million and a nett worth of USD$35million.

Although members of the worldwide commune living outside of Rashneeshpuram were part of the structure, it was expected of them to attend regular festivals & celebrations - which had to be booked through Rashneesh Travel Corporation and charged a fortune. many members were 'ordered' to go into debt so they could attend. In one year alone, the "Third Annual World Celebration" raked in a profit of over $7million.

Osho/Rashneeshi is about as spiritual as the scabby athlete's foot fungus growing between my toes. Anyone want a holy flake ? Only $1000.00. Will be sent with a certificate of authenticity.

Greedy, manipulative megalomanic might be an appropriate term for the Bhagwan.

[paradox]

woh, hahaha

a friend just gave me a book called Bhagwan the god that failed & shit, crazy story. what a dodgy bastard. smart maybe, but dodgy.

[ThunderIdeal]

sai baba did attract lots of americans in the past. while a western family would be stoked that they would receive so much attention from him, he would sexually assaulting their children. nevertheless he has a huge indian following. actually india has a big problem with self-proclaimed god-men who become popular performing tricks, and there are groups who go around explaining how their tricks are simple magician fair. sai babas most famous trick was to give birth to a golden egg from his mouth, which is highly symbolic or something to hindus i'm not sure why. anyway, here's the story if i'm not mistaken: he always put a handkerchief in front of his mouth to wipe away drool repeatedly, and then he would basically put it up to his mouth to catch the egg but the egg would have already been concealed in the handkerchief. this eventually got some attention so he attempted the trick without the handkerchief. i think there is footage of this. he looks to be having some kind of trouble then he collapses or something, and is quickly carried away by his many handlers or carers or whatever. i guess he tried to actually regurgitate an egg and it got stuck.

i have some adi dasamraj incense sticks which have a leaflet telling his story. he is from new york. the problem i have with god-men ties in with what dude says. god-men make claims like merely being around them, thinking of them (sending them money) etc is like a fast-track to enlightenment, a kind of opportunity that only comes around once every few hundred years at best. either that or they claim that a god-man is the ONLY way to enlightenment. this is my problem with jesus as stated in our current bible: he says that the only way is through him. would we even recognise one if there was a real god-man, with all of these charlatans about?

gurus are considered very important in hinduism, not that it means you are wasting your time if you don't get one. you are supposed to get one with a proper lineage or whatever, like a list of their guru and their guru's guru all the way back to lord caitanya or earlier not sure. the logic being, as i understand it, that you get proper teachings, whereas if you just read hindu texts they are open to misinterpretation. that makes a bit of sense, but the system would be far from flawless. unfortunately as somebody already mentioned, you are expected to give yourself over to this person completely. not to god, but to a person whom you must take for granted is a god's staff-bearer.

i can only see it as a personal endeavour, or one shared with other people but not directed by them. listening to a master is one thing but giving yourself over to ANYBODY is asking for trouble IMHO, because that person might just be an ordinary person, in fact, that's fairly likely. there's a difference between accepting guidance and blind faith (in a human being).

[chilli]

"he attempted the trick without the handkerchief. i think there is footage of this. he looks to be having some kind of trouble then he collapses or something, and is quickly carried away by his many handlers or carers or whatever. i guess he tried to actually regurgitate an egg and it got stuck."

That is so fucking funny, I'd love to see that footage, all I could find on youtube was THIS... still pretty hilarious, but I'd quite enjoy watching this idiot choke on a golden egg.

BTW has anyone else noticed that Osho looks exactly like a cross between Donald Sutherland and Snoop Dogg?

[ThunderIdeal]

HAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

i've never seen that footage, classic.

i found the video for you. if you want to arrange some way to swap it that's fine.

i got the story backwards though. originally he did the trick by regurgitating, until the collapsing incident. after that is when he started using the hankderchief (which is one EXTREMELY thick cloth in the video you posted).

Edited June 10, 2007 by ThunderIdeal