Swami Detective // May 7, 2010 at 2:34 am

This is an interesting quote….Mystery school is alive only when the master is in the body.. When the enlighetened master is not there what can be provided is just the space where people can go , meditate and relate to fellow travellers.. How a dynamic mystery school can thrive without the Master in the same way it did when he was alive? You need Him to keep it alive [End quote]

Most people think that is what is happening at Pune resort, especially because it is no longer called an ashram and has fancy new facilities. Most people also think the publishing wing (OIF) is sharing accessible books about Osho too. Yet we see that there is a systematic misreperentation of his words. It is not just cutting out stuff to do with anything that may be conceived as distasteful devotional mumbo jumbo. It is also not just about propagating the general notion of devotional free ‘zen’ either.

Most interesting is Jayesh’s very own personal relevant view….He asks in this understanding that where Osho is used – be it in the name of a meditation center, a publication, a therapist’s title, or in any other context –that people coming find Him, His understanding, His proposal with all 24 karats. That nothing associated with Osho cause confusion to others coming about the essential direction of their path – particularly to His new people. [End quote]

If you have a look at the examples of systematic deletions from Osho texts (at the bottom of the last article), how can one maintain that 24 karat purity has been maintained. It is not even gold painted. It is fools gold!

Here is the next relevant view from Jayesh….He [Osho] shares that many of His people who were with Him in the body would not make the jump from the presence of the master in the body to the absence of the master in the body. That for the mind of many, the gap created would be too deep and too wide. That in the mystery of existence, they would not understand that they had received from existence exactly what was required of the Master’s bodily presence. And that in this pain of the mind they would travel the world sitting at the feet of every idiot – Osho’s words. Clear, accepting and compassionate.

He also says that His new people, who would be coming after He left the body, would not have the need of His physical presence – again in the mystery of existence, if they had that need they would have come earlier. He says existence calls people to the work of an enlightened One at exactly the right moment. That because of countless generations of religions and priests, we are conditioned that we need the other and as a result we give the other our responsibility. That his new people coming would be very fragile in their potential to be totally responsible and be courageous enough to walk alone, feeling the presence of the Master without the need of His body….

….perhaps you are not available now to His message to us all – present and future – that without the burden of His tortured body His presence will be more available to His people. [End quote]

So if you read a fancy advert in some New Age magazine in the West (or East), you probably would come to Pune resort thinking that it was a nice modern cult free space to meditate and hang out with fellow seekers. Well Jayesh has other ideas!

Kranti expresses a view that the living Master is extremely important, even essential. We can do some quote bashing on the subject but will that get anywhere? I would argue that it can reach a conclusion. At the end of his life Osho made it absolutely clear that there was to be NO spiritual successor. He did leave a group called the Inner-Circle. He however made it absolutely clear that this body was not a substitute for a spiritual successor, and that this group was to administer his practical affairs.

At one stage Jayesh (Chair of the Inner-Circle) was having some disobedience trouble with people visiting other living Masters (fake or otherwise). So Jayesh shuts this down by introducing his take on what Osho means to him (now that Osho has left the body). This is Jayesh’s own interpretation of Osho. As Chairman of the Inner-Circle he has a practical limitation to his mandate. Yet, he ignores this.

Here is the end of the letter from Jayesh that I have quoted….

With love to you,

Swami Anand Jayesh, Chairman,

On behalf of the Inner Circle.
[End quote]

You see it is Jayesh, as Chair of the Inner Circle, which has a practical mandate, who imposes his personal views of Osho on the entire movement (and others that become interested).

Kranti offers a quote that expresses an idea that Jayesh also likes very much, that of individual awareness. The trouble with this quote is that it focuses so much on this concept that it diminishes the importance of the Master, so much so that in the end Osho says that once the Master has gone, everything worthwhile has finished. (Remember that Osho left NO successor!)

The system that has been adopted for editing and compilation is such that the inclination would be in this instance to keep the first part of the quote, and then delete the last part. Then, when you put it all together, you get a non-devotional ‘zen’ impression of Osho, yet you still get to keep the Master (even now that he is dead). You see the last part of the quote actually completely discredits everything done after 19th Jan, 1990. That is why it should be deleted. Actually that is not entirely true. It discredits everything that seeks to create the impression of an Osho sannyassin as having spiritual authority (and spiritual superiority).

The simple fact of the matter is that Osho left a straightforward non-controversial road map. With no spiritual successor, the only scope is to protect and make available his legacy. There can be no interpretation or argument, even at the highest levels. The reason is because the highest level was a practical managerial administration (the Inner-Circle). If you understand the simple truth of being in the Inner-Circle, who would want the job anyway. It is simply to protect his property, make available his meditations, therapires, discourses, and publications, all with the aim of 24 karat purity. Jayesh is right about the 24 karat purity part. It is why anything other than editing for simple grammatical mistakes is not possible. Yet, vast editing and deletion and creation has been done.

Who would want to be in the Inner-Circle? Well just after Osho left the body Amrito (vice-chair) said that in White-Robe the following night he would explain the functioning of the Inner-Circle. Explain what, that you had just been given a boring practical job. Ah no, some people in the Inner-Circle were great devotees and disciples of Osho. They had imbibed the spirit of Osho for decades and were now saintly beings. So the secret that the work of the Inner-Circle is an entirely boring affair was kept a secret. This is the secret. The secret is already out, it is just that you have forgotten.

Then Jayesh and Amrito kicked everyone else out, and see the result. What do you think of Jayesh’s very own personal views about Osho. He is imparting his spiritual views on the Osho movement. He likes flash things hence you get either 5 stars or nothing, but he also likes to be the chief disciple of a Master that though dead, is still very much alive. Did you know that? Did you find that out when you read the latest Yoga journal or when you read the latest Osho texts that are subject to systematic deletion and editing?

What about when you make the journey to the Pune resort? Even then you will not have a clue. You will either have to visit the German Bakery, oops you can’t do that because it has been blown up. Oh well maybe ask a dissident, oops you can’t do that because they have all been banned or left Pune through issuing of threats and violence.

Hmmm, where is Jayesh?

Well, he is a busy finance guru and only works behind the scenes to make available a nice space for people to meditate and meet. You see, it is because he is humble and has no ego, unlike Keerti and Rajneesh and others.

Right so he has no spiritual interpretation of Osho that he secretly has imparted to me through the book I read?

Nahh, not at all.

Right, so the resort looks innocent enough, but actually the background is that the people higher up in management have a spiritual interpretation of Osho that fits with Jayesh’s, and they are also answerable to Jayesh?

Nahh, they are just individual meditators who have lived here in this closed world for decades and have no cultish bias.

Great, can I get a job?

Sure, by the way, what is your belief system? And have a drink of the contaminated drinking water. Oh, yeah and that explosion you heard, I think it was nothing. Hey lets go to the party!

Hey who is that guy he just slipped over the fence.

Ahhh, that was nobody, it was just your projection. You will learn in time.

Swami Detective // May 7, 2010 at 12:17 am

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).

Swami Detective // May 5, 2010 at 11:39 am

Kranti you can play semantics as much as you like, but it does not change the situation. Obviously if you are using the term devotion to refer to the negative tendency of excess worship, then yes devotion is not equated with love (or Zorba). If Osho was referring in any particular passage to the negative sense of devotion, then of course it would not be equated with Zorba or love. Devotion is today usually viewed in the negative sense, and so therefore it is more popular to consider oneself a great disciple rather than a great devotee. This does not change what I mean when I refer to devotion as the process of dissolution into the Master. It is the same as the path of love and the path of the Sufis.

Kranti has a definition of devotion as (negative) worship and putting the Master on a high pedestal. The term Zorba in Zorba the Buddha, the term surrender, and the term love, have the same meaning as described by Osho in the passages deleted from the Osho books. OK so it is love or surrender that has been cut out of the Osho texts. OK so it is Zorba that has been cut off the Osho texts and the Osho movement. Call it what you like, but the systematic deletion process in the two texts chops the Master in half, as per Osho’s own definition of Zorba the Buddha. It actually destroys the Master’s vision. Your negative definition of devotion makes no difference. I will call Keerti, Arun, Neelam, and Swami Rajneesh great lovers who have surrendered to Osho. The terms devotion and devotee have nothing to do with it at all. Many people (including from the Inner-Circle) that are representative of different dimensions of Osho have been forcibly removed. They have been kicked out, and the dimension of Osho that they are aligned with has been deleted from the Osho texts.

The editing of the texts is not what people think. Have a read! It is firstly removing love or surrender (what I also call devotion). It is, as Osho himself says, removing Zorba (love) from Zorba the Buddha. It has nothing to do with your ideas of love, surrender, devotion, or Zen. It comes directly from Osho’s explanation of Zorba the Buddha (equating Zorba with love), and the fact that the passages relating to love (which Osho uses interchangeably with the term surrender) have been removed from the texts. Of course there are other changes to the text that also completely change the meaning.

Admittedly I may be charged here with quote bashing. In reading the entire text, I consider the meanings Osho has given to be clear, and that I have here reflected this. OK so I am cleared of the worst grade of quote bashing, but still the charge is there. The reason is that there are probably numerous references to Zorba being this or that. This is likely the case, yet this ironically only reinforces the central argument anyway.

Osho is clearly a complex and multi-dimensional fellow, and so to make any major changes to anything in his discourses (and his legacy) is an affront to its integrity. In the texts I referred to Osho moves swiftly through so many different issues. If through this process he let’s say addresses the issue of rebelliousness (or perhaps corrupt politicians or priests) on any number of occasions, then I simply cannot delete these references without changing the meaning of the entire passage.

The references are interwoven in a complex web. It is not like Osho will just give a great spiel on one issue alone. He was a rambling forgetful genius. He had the unique quality of prolific rambling on an array of subjects with who knows what changes in depth of meaning (and style of delivery). It is like a magical bundle of knotted twine that is impossible to unwind. Yes you can point to different parts of the bundle of twine. What else can people do? Who has the intellectual genius to fathom but a small fraction of what Osho offers? Yet this does not mean you can cut off the bits you like with a pair of scissors, and then place these bits together to make a new piece of string. This is what is happening with the type of editing of texts that I have looked at. This destroys the meaning of the message and the integrity of the discourses.

Kranti you consider the objections to editing to be based on worship or what you negatively refer to as devotion (“how dare you touch…”). So have you considered the objections? Have you looked at the editing? Or, did you simply pass judgement on the objections without being informed? Actually that is what you did, and do you know what that is? It is called blind judgement. You are saying yes to editing and no to the objections without knowing yourself anything about the matter. This means you have a conditioning in favour of the Pune resort and team. This is called devotion (in the negative sense). You are a great devotee of Amrito, ha ha!
Have you met Keerti or been to the centre in Delhi? Have you met Arun or Rajneesh? How much time have you spent with Amrito, or indeed at the resort? You have strong views based on nothing but reading books that you have no idea how heavily or in what way they are edited. You are the essence of devotion (in the negative sense). The blind worships the blind.

Of course you say you would like to know more, and do not want to comment. All this after you have made great comment. You are not only a great devotee, but also a great hypocrite.
Shantam, not for your sake but rather for the sake of those that might start believing you false claims, I am not Abhay. As the great master Hitler knew only too well, if you repeat a lie often enough it shall become the truth. You ask will anything change. Will you?

Shantam, His people can speak (or not) what ever they like. That makes no difference to who Osho was, and what he said. It does not change the fact the Osho declared there be no spiritual successor and that the Inner-Circle was not a pseudo-guru group, but a practical managerial group.

Since you are a great lover of Osho (what I call a devotee) you might like to share quotes that highlight love or surrender. That is well and perfectly good. Since Jayesh is a great zen disciple he might like to share quotes that highlight meditation or awareness. (Of course he is actually a great devotee, in the negative sense).

Trouble is, what has happened is that in discourses that interweave many different perspectives, the particular references to love or surrender (and also death, social theory, and rebelliousness, etc.) have been cut out. When you read through the amended text, it gives the false impression that you are viewing something that is complete and whole, when it is clearly not. Even if a book states clearly that it is a compilation, this false impression is still there.

The point of a compilation is to provide an impression without losing the essential message. Yet, as explained previously, with Osho’s style of lengthy intertwining complexity, and with the style of ‘compiling’ being one of cutting out particular references as the arise, the essential meaning is lost. It is not like Osho talks only about ‘zen’ one day, and the next day he talks only about ‘devotion’. So many issues are intertwined in any given discourse, such that compilation based strictly on one subject matter (in the way done in the texts I have looked at) gives this subject matter new meaning, and takes away the capacity to give meaning to the subject matter that has been deleted.

If I read a quote from OshoWorld.com, then I know that it is just a fragment that of course supports their position. If I read a quote from Osho.com then of course I know that it is just a fragment that of course supports their position. (Unless, like most happy fools I am naïve and stupid). In the case of the two texts however, when I read them I start with the assumption that I am reading something that is offering a general and comprehensive perspective of Osho’s understanding, yet what I get is actually an expansion of one perspective (or fragment), at the expense of other perspectives. In this lies the deception, and the injustice to the meaning given by Osho. It changes the meaning! It is the same as the quote bashing that takes place here and all over the place. A fragment of Osho is used to justify your position in an argument. It takes Osho out of context and gives the words a new and slanted meaning.

The books that have amended Osho’s words in this way should have a warning something like that on cigarette packets. WARNING: Reading is a mental health hazard. It should also say that the view offered is a biased and false impression created by personally motivated systematic deletions (and additions), and does not reflect the views of the so denoted author (Osho), but rather a cult of narrow minded corrupt fascist pseudo-Zen psychopaths.

Lokesh, it is clear that at certain times Osho’s discourses reflected certain practical realities rather then deep spiritual truths. For example, when The Ranch imploded he took to providing different types of explanations to the various interest groups (to either get rid of them or again try and draw them back into the fold). Imagine Osho back in Pune after all the dramas of The Ranch. The guys image was in tatters. If he wanted to attract some more people he had a little bit of explaining to do I should think (of course not to himself, but to us worldly folk who by the way are not enlightened, but are also not entirely stupid).

When for example in the early days Osho stopped travelling around India and decided to settle and create a community, then of course he would need people with practical skills to support this. It wouldn’t be much good if everyone wanted to either touch his feet or sit 24/7 in zen. I find it difficult to draw from this that at the end of calculation table when The Ranch imploded, that Sheela came out with a score of 99 percent positive. I consider that maths to be devoid of any common sense.

It makes me think of Jayesh. I wonder why?

Swami Detective // May 5, 2010 at 1:29 am

How’s business DumbYam?

Swami Detective // May 5, 2010 at 1:26 am

Shiva and Sheela were religious orientated power hungry psychopaths capable of crimes I prefer not to imagine. The Waco siege was mentioned previously. What about Jonestown? So Sheela spent some time in jail and Shiva went off to a psychiatric institution. Still, after so many years have passed, most people would say the pair remain in the least quite disturbed. Though they may be still power obsessed and nuts, at least they are now relatively harmless.

What about the next bunch of bozos that came to power? Any substance abuse going on there? Any illicit sexual relations? Any propensity to violence? Any lack of judgement, especial in testing circumstances? Any lack of commonsense?

With the exception of the live-in Pune resort part of the gang, the movement is quite dispersed. If there is a religious extremist mentality like in Waco or Jonestown, yet with a dispersed power base, how does that unfold? Do all the jet-setters fly in on new years eve for a special siege celebration? Does a person who got taken by an advert in some American yoga journal become the new profile of siege victim?

How’s about you folk stop tryin ta save the planet, stop living in decades old delirium, and have a look at one is going on HERE & NOW!

Swami Detective // May 5, 2010 at 12:13 am

I just released a block-buster e-motion pic called “Bla bla bla, save the world, save America, save Osho from the saviours, and make the biggest uninformed sweeping generalisations.”

Lokesh, you wonder about Osho letting Sheela and Shiva and other pSychos close to him. You yourself used to sit at the back of discourse, and laughed when Osho blasted the little huddle of front-rowers. He said they were close to him cause they needed him the most.

What about the quote from Ramoda….He (Shiva) can come again and be my bodyguard. Nobody else will accept him as a bodyguard, because that is the easiest place from which to kill a man…
What is your take on that one? I read it as the bodyguard killing the Master scenario. Osho here demonstrates a clear awareness that Shiva is not only a nutcase, but also potentially capable of killing him. Yet still Osho would welcome him back as his bodyguard. Argue all you like, but one basic fact is that Osho was capable of identifying psychopaths, and allowing them to get close to him. You can postulate why from that basic standpoint.

Alok John you take the Chinese story about the old man and his horse completely out of context. The story points to non-judgement about that which you do not know, not creating false beliefs. It also is partly to do with accepting situations that are outside your responsibility and control. What do you think would have happened if in the story Sheela came along and said to the old man, I am going to break your son’s legs and steal your horse?

Kranti, it is time for a quote bashing competition. Here is a quote from Osho that has been (randomly) deleted from an Osho book called Life’s Mysteries.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THE DISCIPLE’S LOVE FOR THE MASTER WILL NOT BE THE LAST BARRIER IF LOVE AND AWARENESS CAN GROW TOGETHER?

….Zorba is love; Buddha is awareness. It is easier to grow one, but is far more juicy to grow both together. And if both together can be grown, then the master will not be the last barrier, because in love and awareness you will become one with the master.

On the path of awareness the master is a barrier. That’s why Buddha said, “If you meet me on the path, cut my head immediately.” That is the answer on the path of awareness, because in Buddha’s teaching there is no place for love.

There have been schools of love like the Sufis. A Sufi will not agree with this. He will say, “If the master meets you on the way, become one with him.” But if you are understanding my approach… it is a little bit complex, because I am trying that your love and your awareness both go hand in hand….The world has known both kinds of people — the lovers and the meditators — but the world has never tried both together. This synthesis will bring a new kind of man. For this kind of searcher, the master is not a barrier at all. [End quote]

There is some basic merit in the arguments about devotion becoming extreme, yet the same can be applied to zen. On one hand you can become overly obsessed with the Master, on the other hand you can become overly obsessed with the individual. So whatever path you are on, there are always challenges and dangers.

You may subscribe to the notion that Osho migrated from devotional style to zen style. Do you also consider that he shifted from Zorba the Buddha to something else? In the above quote Osho clearly aligns his approach with an integration of love (which I also link to devotion) and awareness. Those that argue that they are protecting Osho from the devotional dangers are actually throwing out half of Osho’s integrated approach. Who are you to do this?

The compilation of books that I have looked at seeks to take out all the aspects of Osho that related to love/devotion/surrender, among many other issues. The thing is, as aligned with the above quote, in Osho’s discourses these aspects are interwoven so many times with aspects of awareness/Buddhism/zen. So what did the compilers do? They simply chopped out the (irrelevant) words and sentences and paragraphs. This destroys the essence of Osho. Then, people like Kranti read the completely distorted texts, and come here on SannyasNews and denounce those people that try and express and balanced view of the whole of Osho. If Kranti has read the dissected text of Osho for 17 years, then he will believe deeply that this is Osho’s position. That is why he has not changed his position even a fraction since he has been here on SannyasNews.

This dissection of Osho creates a conflict in which people that would normally subscribe to a more Sufi style will be in one camp, and the ones that would normally subscribe to a more Buddhism/zen style will be in the other camp. This creates a religious divide the same as in Sunni and Shi’ite Islam.

At the bottom of the last article I list many quotes simply chopped out of The Book of Wisdom and Life’s Mysteries. It creates a totally biased impression of Osho.

As Osho says in the above viewpoint, his approach is an integrated one, of love and awareness. The lovers of Osho have been thrown out. Only zen remains. This zen style being pushed at the resort and elsewhere, along with the same thing reflected in the hacking up of Osho’s words, is plain and simple destruction of the essence of Osho. It also creates a split in the Osho movement that gives rise to religious fanaticism and conflict.

Swami Detective // May 2, 2010 at 11:42 pm

Swami Detective (SD): The following has been cut from the Book of Wisdom and Life’s Mysteries. Surrender is out, rebelliousness is out, reference to God is out. OIF is carving up Osho in a systematic manner to create their user-friendly fake nanno-Osho zen. Jayesh and Amrito are trying to create a mass religion based on Osho.

Reading the carved up words of Osho will create a bias in your mind, a bias that supports the arguments from Jayesh and Amrito about how they would like Osho’s vision to proceed. This bias is the essential nature of the turning of the tide from religiousness into religion. Of course they will say to you that they are trying to do just the same thing by streamlining Osho and weeding out all the devotees.

At the apex of Jayesh’s philosophy is an extremist religious notion, and one that he has sought to propagate from the highest to the lowest in his sphere of power. In the clique at the centre of power are people that are deeply devotional in psychological profile. The practical reality is that opponents have been removed through adoption of the concept of non-devotional zen, yet the truth is that the slide into devotional extremism is inherently possible in the central metaphysical position of Jayesh’s, and evident in the explanations and physical conduct of those in power. It is also evident in the systematic manner in which Osho’s words are being carved up.
SD: So what, is OIF going to threaten SannyasNews for allowing deleted words of Osho. Hahahaaa, what a joke! OIF, 24 carrot crap!

….It is only when you can trust the unknown that you can trust a master, never before it, because the master represents nothing but the unknown. He represents the uncharted, he represents the infinite, the unbounded. He represents the oceanic, he represents the wild, he represents God.

….That’s what sannyas is all about. Sannyas is going to undo all that the society has done. It is not just accidental that priests are against me, politicians are against me, parents are against me, the whole establishment is against me; it is not accidental. I can understand the absolutely clear logic of it. I am trying to undo what they have done. I am sabotaging the whole pattern of this slave society.

My effort is to create rebels, and the beginning of the rebel is to trust in oneself. If I can help you to trust in yourself, I have helped you. Nothing else is needed, everything else follows of its own accord.

….How does this poetry happen? It happens in surrender, it happens when the part gathers enough courage to surrender to the whole, when the dewdrop slips into the ocean and becomes the ocean.

Surrender is a very paradoxical state: on one hand you disappear, on the other hand you appear for the first time in your infinite glory, in your multidimensional splendor. Yes, the dewdrop is gone, and gone forever; there is no way to recapture it, to reclaim it. The dewdrop has died as a drop, but in fact the dewdrop has become the ocean, has become oceanic. It still exists, no more as a finite entity, but as something infinite, shoreless, boundless.
And remember, let me repeat it again: when you surrender to existence you are not surrendering anything real. You are simply surrendering a false notion, you are simply surrendering an illusion, you are surrendering maya. You are surrendering something that you never had with you in the first place. And by surrendering that which you don’t have, you attain to that which you have.

….You may be the last generation which has the possibility to rebel. And if you don’t rebel, there may be no more chances: humanity can be reduced to a robotlike existence. So rebel while there is still time! I don’t think there is much time left, maybe just this last part of the century, these coming twenty or twenty-five years. If humanity can rebel in these next twenty-five years, this is the last opportunity; otherwise people will be utterly unable to, their unconscious will dominate them. Up to now, the society has only been able to pollute your conscious mind — through education, through the church, through propaganda — but only your conscious mind; your unconscious is still free.

….If you are emptying yourself you will become more and more blissful, because you will become more and more spacious. You will become more and more available to God and to God’s celebration. You will become open to existence and all its joys and all its blessings.
….Beloved Osho, What os those who take sannyas in Poona, only to drop it back in their home environment

Anand Lionel, they are assholes. And they are assholes not because they drop sannyas but because they take it. Their idea is that by taking sannyas here they will gain something, and then back home they can drop it….This is how the mob mind functions. And sannyas is not for the mob mind, it is not for the sheepish mind. It is for lions….A lion, asking such a question?

….This is the beginning of real sannyas.

A middle-aged American lady whose husband had recently died went to a spiritualist to get in touch with him as she was feeling lonely. Contact having been established, she said, “Hello, honey! How you doin’?”Honey: “Fine. In fact I’m a hell of a lot better off than I was before.”Lady: “How do you pass the time, honey?”Honey: “Well, I wake up, make love, have breakfast, make love, have lunch, make love, have supper, make love, sleep, make love, wake up, make love — day in and day out.”Lady: “Where are you, honey? In heaven?”Honey: “No, I’m a bull in Koregaon Park, Poona.”

That possibility is there, you can misunderstand me. And there are also others at the other extreme. [Anybody who chooses one part of my teaching is bound to misunderstand me.]

SD: The words in block parenthesis have been retained.

….The fifth question:
Beloved Osho,
Why do You call people cabbages and assholes? It seems so disrespectful.
Anand Swaghat, cabbages are also people, and very innocent people. What do you mean, “It seems so disrespectful?” Disrespectful to whom? To cabbages? In fact it is more disrespectful to cabbages to compare them with men. What have they done?

Just look at man’s history, and the history of cabbages. You will not find more innocent people than cabbages, they are all buddhas — so silent, so happy, so meditative. And you are saying, “It seems so disrespectful.” To man?

And what can I do if somebody is an asshole? I am not condemning him, I am simply stating a fact. Do you want me to lie? An asshole is an asshole, plain and simple. And remember, it is perfectly okay to be an asshole.

But why, Swaghat, are you worried? Are you a cabbage or…?

….So, Krishna Prem, the controversies will become more and more. And because I am controversial, my people are bound to be controversial too. Because I am controversial, you will also be offensive, you will also have to suffer. You will also have to be ready to be persecuted in many ways.

But remember one thing. To live a life of compromise is worse than death. And to live a life of truth, even if it is for a single moment, is far more valuable than to live eternally in lies. To die for truth is far more valuable than to live in lies.

….That’s why love, which can open the gates of paradise, only opens the gates of hell….Man is very close to God, the closest. Hence the responsibility and the danger, the hazard, the adventure. You can fall. And what is the fall?…. It is not because you are lower than the birds, it is because you are higher and much more is required of you. It is because you are higher that God’s criterion for you is higher too….If the parents insist, “Cleanliness is next to God,” the children will start living in every kind of dirt.

….There is every possibility their love may go deeper than your love, may have a higher quality of intimacy, may have something more of poetry and more of God in it.

….Don’t make Wicked Jokes

SD: The above phrase is a deleted chapter title.

And, slowly slowly, I will turn the commune into an energy communication….That’s what you have to remember when you come to me for an energy darshan, for a “close-up.”…. When you are in an energy darshan with me, when you are partaking of something of my energy,….

The fifth question:
Beloved Osho,
How can we know the difference between surrender and dependency, not just with You but with all that comes up in our lives?

Veereshwar, the difference is so absolutely clear that once you have experienced surrender you will never miss understanding what is surrender and what is dependency.
Surrender is out of love, dependency is out of fear. Dependency is a relationship in which you are hankering for something, desiring something; there is a motive. You are ready to become dependent — that’s what you are willing to pay for something. Surrender has no desire in it. It is sheer joy, it is trust, it is unmotivated….

….That’s why it happens to many sannyasins…. Just now Haridas has said that he used to go outside the ashram; now it is becoming more and more difficult to go outside. Why is it becoming more and more difficult to go outside? Nobody is prevented from going outside, but it becomes difficult on its own, because you see so much nonsense — and you have to see it, because it is there; you have to listen to it.

SD: Here is a reference to the value of being in an ashram. Of course it has been deleted! Jayesh and others argue that Osho discarded the old ashram model, and replaced it with a more worldly (zen) vision. If this is the case, what is the need to hide the benefits of the ashram model? Are such statements now wrong?

….In the new commune we are going to introduce all kinds of meditations. Those who enjoy swimming, they will have opportunities to go for a swimming meditation. Those who enjoy running, they will have their group to run for miles. Each according to his need — only then this world can be full of meditation; otherwise not.

….The master is one who is not, the master is one who has already disappeared into God….When the disappearance also has happened to the disciple, the first experience is that of meeting and merger with the master — because the disciple does not know what God is, he knows only the master. The master is his or her God….Hidden behind the master’s hands were God’s hands, hidden behind the master’s words were God’s messages….Your prayer is going to be fulfilled in this life.

….Beloved Osho, Please explain the difference between a sannyasin and one who is not, yet lives with a deep commitment to truth.

….Unless you see somebody who has committed that suicide and still is — in fact for the first time is…. You will have to look into those eyes which have seen truth, and a glimpse of the truth will be caught through those eyes. You will have to hold hands with someone who has known, receive the warmth and the love… and the unknown will start flowing into you….

SD: Here Osho alludes to the necessity of a living Master. Of course this flies directly in the face of Jayesh’s deep insight into Osho that even people who have not met Osho can get everything they need from Him. This extreme devotional position also demonstrates a religious zeal at the centre of the current supposedly hard line non-devotional ‘zen’ style Osho model pushed by Jayesh, Amrito, and the team.

SD: Another theme not demonstrated is the seemingly taboo subject of death. Often times there a major deletions when this is mentioned. Hence in the book Life’s Mysteries, we have the following amendment.

I HAVE HEARD THAT YOUR SANNYASINS CELEBRATE DEATH.

I have heard that your sannyasins celebrate everything….

SD: More from Life’s Mysteries

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THE DISCIPLE’S LOVE FOR THE MASTER WILL NOT BE THE LAST BARRIER IF LOVE AND AWARENESS CAN GROW TOGETHER?

….Zorba is love; Buddha is awareness. It is easier to grow one, but is far more juicy to grow both together. And if both together can be grown, then the master will not be the last barrier, because in love and awareness you will become one with the master.

On the path of awareness the master is a barrier. That’s why Buddha said, “If you meet me on the path, cut my head immediately.” That is the answer on the path of awareness, because in Buddha’s teaching there is no place for love.

There have been schools of love like the Sufis. A Sufi will not agree with this. He will say, “If the master meets you on the way, become one with him.” But if you are understanding my approach… it is a little bit complex, because I am trying that your love and your awareness both go hand in hand….The world has known both kinds of people — the lovers and the meditators — but the world has never tried both together. This synthesis will bring a new kind of man. For this kind of searcher, the master is not a barrier at all.

SD: It is argued that Osho’s teaching evolved from devotion to zen. The above points to a different philosophical position from Osho about his own teachings. All this talk of love for the Master is not very helpful when you want to kick out all the lovers of Osho.

….I am not saying to you, escape from your love affairs: go deeper into them. I help my sannyasins to go into love, because I know love ultimately fails. And unless they know by their own experience that love ultimately fails, their search for God will remain phony.

….The difference between a politician and an English lady…
When a politician says yes, he means maybe. When he says maybe, he means no. If he says no, he’s no politician.

When an English lady says no, she means maybe. When she says maybe, she means yes. If she says yes, she’s no lady.

SD: Another recurrent theme is the deletion of crude references to politicians. Other rather crude jokes are also regularly dismissed.

….It happened that I was expelled from a college…. I was expelled from many colleges and many universities; that way it gave me great richness. Nobody has belonged to so many colleges and so many universities. In the city where I was there were twenty colleges; time came when not a single college was ready to accept me.

SD: The entire explanation of Osho being a very naughty boy has been deleted. It is of course bad for the image to reveal such things. Fancy Osho being ‘banned’ from all those universities.

….An American, a very devout Catholic, had tried for years to get a private audience with the pope. When his request was finally granted, he flew to Rome, and within the hour was kneeling before His Holiness. Kissing the ring after the pope had blessed him, the man said, “Your Holiness, I want you to know this has been the most inspirational experience of my life. I am deeply grateful. I would like to share my favorite story with you: There were these two Polacks…” “Excuse me, my son,” the pope interrupted, a little offended, “are you aware that I am Polish?”

“Ah yes, Your Holiness, but don’t worry. I will tell it very, very slowly.”

SD: It seems that politicians are not the only ones to be appeased through deletions.

OFTEN I HAVE THE FEELING THAT I AM NOT DOING SOMETHING I OUGHT TO BE DOING, OR DOING SOMETHING I SHOULD NOT BE DOING; THAT SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE AND FAST — A SCHOOLDAYS’ WORRY THAT I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE THE GRADE, THAT I MIGHT BE EXPELLED.

SD: Most of the answer to this question has been deleted. It discusses issues surrounding rebelliousness and guilt.

….You say, “I feel like the tiger in the story awakening to its true nature.” No Vasumati, that tiger has not felt anything awakening in him. He has just encountered the awakening — out of nowhere. The tiger was simply looking in the water, seeing the reflected face of the old tiger and his own. He simply gave a tremendous roar and the valleys resounded it. It was not a longing or a thinking or a feeling or a desire — “let us think about it, let us consult a few wiser people.” It was spontaneous, without a single thought. And that is the way to be awake.

Let your tiger explode into a wild roar. In that roar your false identity with a sheep will disappear, will be gone. It is not a decision by the mind, it is an outburst of the being itself.….You have become a thinker. To hell with all thinkers, just act. There is not much time to think about what is right and what is wrong….I think it is time, Vasumati. Do something, legal or illegal, but do it. Enough of thinking.

SD: This sounds a lot like Osho encouraging a disciple to be rebellious. Better delete that one, it might create fear of major civil unrest.

SD: Another theme I have noted is that, in highlighting a positive aspect, Osho first expresses the negative aspect. This can be considered repetitious, and so often times the negative is removed, especially if it has been talked about in general, leading up to the positive statement. It is considered redundant, yet I cannot see how anyone other than Osho can have the authority to remove it. Since he did not in his talks, then presumably he would not have considered it redundant (else why did he use this particular linguistic style).

….With an [un]alert mind the (same) energy becomes [violence; with an alert mind the same energy becomes] compassion.
() added[] deleted

….My only contribution to human evolution is a sense of humor. No other religion, no other philosophy has [accepted] (attempted) humor as something religious; it seems to them that it is something profane.

SD: The interchanged words are entirely different in meaning.

….You all have to risk, and you have to risk all that you have. And risk it with great joy! because what can be more joyous than to give birth to a new man, to become vehicles for a new man, for a new humanity?

It is going to be painful as every birth is painful. But the pain can be welcomed if you understand what is going to happen through it. If you can see the child coming out of it, then the pain is no more pain — just as the mother can accept the pain of the child’s birth. The pain is irrelevant: her heart is dancing with joy — she is going to give birth to life, she is being creative. She is making this world more alive; a new child is being born through her. God has used her as a vehicle; her womb has proved fertile. She is happy, in great joy. She rejoices, although the pain is there on the periphery. But when this great joy is there, the pain simply functions as a background and makes the joy even more loud. Remember…

My sannyasins can become an energy womb, an energy field. A great synthesis is happening here. East and West ARE meeting here. And if we can make this impossible thing happen, man will live in a totally different way in the future. He will not need to live in the same old hell. Man can live in love, in peace. Man can live in great friendliness. Man can live a life which is nothing but a celebration. Man can make this earth divine.

Yes: this very earth can become the paradise and this very body the Buddha.

….It is painful to be purified! It is like taking pus out of your body — it hurts. Although it is GOOD in the long run — if the pus is out, the poison is out and you will heal soon — but it hurts. To take the pus out is painful. But to leave it inside is to help it to grow; it will spread all over your body.

One can only be ready to go through purification if the desire is so total that one is ready even to die for it if that is needed. And it is a kind of death — because the personality that you have always thought you are will have to die. You will have to drop all that you are identified with. And THAT has been your ego. You will have to surrender all that you have been claiming up to now and bragging up to now; all that has been precious to you has to be dropped as utter rubbish. It IS painful. It feels as if you are losing your kingdom and you are becoming a beggar.

SD: This is the raw truth of the ultimate search. Better tone it down and make the spiritual search sound nicer.

SD: There are many other deletions (and additions) in the two texts I referred to.