Kranti I mention other key figures in the movement to create a perspective against the view that everything is run by Jayesh, Amrtio, and the team.
You chose to indirectly criticise and therefore neutralise what I said about the editing out of issues like love, surrender, and Osho’s equating love with the Zorba part of Zorba the Buddha. You chose to do this by changing the equating my use of the term devotion with Osho’s use of the terms love and surrender. You created a diversion of the main subject by going into a general critique of devotion (worship). I presented the case by using the term devotion (rather than love or surrender), and it appears that that is a word you don’t much like for some reason.
Yes you have offered a quote which focuses more on individual awareness, where as I offered a quote that focused on a balance between love and individual awareness. Of course I am sure I could find a quote that focuses more on love alone as the path. Obviously the more the focus on individual awareness the less the need for the Master, and that is whether or not the Master is in the body.
If Osho gave a discourse which spoke of both the issue of love and awareness together, and also of individual awareness (just like your quote), what would happen if I cut out your quote when I did the compiling? If I did this systematically, and then a whole bunch of people read it, then this bunch of people will have a collective belief system based on this. Then when you say that Osho was all about individual awareness you will be laughed at by the Osho community. This systematic bias is what Jayesh and Amrito are doing with their editing and compiling. You support there views probably in large part because you have been exposed repeatedly to their unbalanced and biased media.
From your quote you seek to justify the de-Ohoisation process at the resort. I ask, how is it that other quotes that offer an alternative viewpoint are somehow invalid. Of course at the end of your quote you introduce a view of the movement around Osho coming to an end with him leaving the body. From here you argue de-Oshoisation is OK, yet you also support the process undertaken by Jayesh, Amrito and team (both at the resort and in general). You can’t have it both ways!
If you like the meditations at the resort and are not interested in anything to do with other aspects of Osho, then it is likely that even if you were with Osho (when he was in the body), you would have been there primarily for the meditations (and the women). Your quote fits with what you like about Osho. Osho has offered so many other approaches (including the Love/Zorba the Buddha) approach. You, and nobody else, has the authority to delete these from Osho’s legacy. Of course if you want to set up a centre that fits with what Osho meant to you, go ahead. If you hand out a holy bible at the front gate that is a biased cut and paste job that deeply undermines Osho’s message, that is not OK. It is also not OK to do it in Pune, because Pune was the only place that Osho left to offer his complete package. Of course Pune has been over run by a bunch of zealous bigots that are full of zen and worship hyprocisy.
How is it also OK that the entire meaning of Osho’s words are changed through the editing process? There are clear examples of this in the deleted quotes at the bottom of the last article.
How also do you fit in the viewpoint from Jayesh that Osho as a being is fully available to all seekers on the path (not just his awareness, not just his energy field, but someone his entirety), such that even newcomers need not go to any other of the living (fake) gurus around the place?
So the roseflower has gone, the mystery school has gone. Funny enough I would agree with you on that one. What are you doing arguing here then? Why did you go to Pune? Why, when you were pinned down for your inconsistencies did you finally admit that you had a bias towards Amrito? Had you met him when you said this? This seems strange to me?
Kranti simply because I make a comment that appears to be in conflict with Osho somehow makes everything that I have set in a positive way invalid? For starters there is no conflict because, as I explained, it is likely that he viewed Sheela as 99 percent useful in the beginning, and 99 percent pain in the ass in the end. Of course, as I also explained, Osho had to try and justify The Ranch implosion to his people (the sane ones that is). This general need gave rise to a series of discourses that had a practical motivation that was probably more political than spiritual. You jump to conclusions in order to criticise when the answer is all ready in front of you. You did the same thing with Swami Rajneesh.
Kranti, you differ from your bosses on the issue of the Master after leaving the body. You do this through your own misuse of Osho quotes. It is OK to chose the words of Osho that support your view, and that you follow this. It is not OK that you try and force others to adopt this view and live accordingly, especially when it is so obvious that Osho has offered many other views on the subject.
Yes it is dangerous to change anything that the Master has left behind. Good point, and this is why when it is so clear that major changes have been made this should stop. The compilations which have a deep bias through systematic deletion and change of meaning should be removed from circulation. They can create a bias in the mind of the reader. This bias is the basis of a belief system, a cult, or a religion. The bias and deletion in the books is the same as in the Inner-Circle and the Pune resort. If it continues, and with Pune resort has the physical centre, a new and dangerous cult/religion will be born (has been born already actually).
No comments:
Post a Comment