Talk:Rajneesh

Corrected some language errors

Hello friends. I made a correction regarding the meaning of the word 'osho' in Japanese and Chinese, pursuant to my correction of a similar error in the disambiguation page for 'osho.' I can't speak to whether 'osho' acquired the meaning of 'friend' or 'ocean' after it was adopted by Rajneesh, but it certainly has neither of these meanings in Chinese or Japanese. See the above disambiguation page for the correct Japanese meaning.

--Gunnermanz 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you are correct in stating that "Osho" does not have the meaning in Japanese that sannyasins attribute to it. At least I have been unable to find an English-language source on the net that would indicate any such use in Chinese or Japanese zen traditions. Note though that the alternative etymology "oceanic" has nothing to do with either language, it is simply about the sounds being similar. Historically, this was the earlier explanation given for the name in Osho's publicity materials, the other one came later. For a while, the statements drew attention to William James' term "oceanic" as the explanation of the name, and then added something like "Later, Osho came to know that Osho is also an ancient term used for a Zen master in certain traditions ...". It should be noted that factual inaccuracies of many sorts abound in Osho's oeuvre, and that Osho was quite conscious of it, and indeed considered it a part of his teaching. If he told a story by Turgenev, his version would have characters in it that were not in the original; if he told a story from Gurdjieff's life, it would be found to be factually impossible (though somehow quite representative of the spirit of Gurdjieff's teaching), and so forth. This can be quite annoying to the literal-minded, but has its own charm. I would advise anyone against using Osho as a source of academic work on the history of religion, though he makes excellent source material for an inner understanding of these traditions. Jayen466 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for comments

Thank you for your comments Jayen. My only intention here was to clear up the meaning of the Sino-Japanese word in this and other entries, particularly the entry for 'Osho' (not related to Rajneesh). By the way, I don't think R was the incarnation of evil, but I wonder why there are no links to Web sites critical of him, of which there are many. Is that in line with NPOV policy? Regards, --Gunnermanz 07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gunnermanz, No -- Wikipedia guidelines on External links say, "Avoid giving undue weight on particular points of view." See Wikipedia guidelines on External links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. Other considerations are the guidelines on Reliable Sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -- in particular the notes given there concerning self-published sources, e.g.: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference." Primarily, we are trying to provide information, rather than judgment, which should be left to the reader. I have added a couple of NPOV links today; but generally, external links should be balanced. If you can think of good sites with a negative slant that fulfil the Wikipedia criteria, kindly add them. Jayen466 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Reality as I see it rationally

There is a lot of analysis about Osho, lots of judgement etc passed , lots of POV. My question to all of you is simple, if his books and talks have made an iota of difference your head , it is good enough. When I look at the world today , I feel all so called religions are failures as people have become more violent and animal like. None of the so called religious leader are more than attntion seekers or as we saw in the US chruches molestors.

So extract the best of what Osho had to say and worry about your own salvation instead of wasting time by micro analyzing an original thought provoker. Anandakshar 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC) AnandAkshar

Original research

You cannot claim that there was an attempt on his life because of "Provocative statements of this type" unless you back it up with a source. Sfacets 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/28605046.cms quotes the would-be assassin Vilas Tupe as saying he undertook the attack ‘‘because Rajneesh was a CIA agent.’’ (!!!) I believe during the actual attack (which is recorded on video) Tupe said that Rajneesh could no longer be tolerated because he was "against Hinduism". So the link to "provocative statements" was overstated and I am happy for this passage to remain as it stands. Jayen466 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Separation of Osho and his followers; change of article's title

I feel some of the content of this article might be better housed in the Wikipedia entries on Rajneeshpuram and the Osho-Rajneesh movement. While Osho was a guest at the Rajneeshpuram commune, he took no personal part in many of the matters detailed on this page, and indeed only came to know about them after the event, as did most other residents of Rajneeshpuram. Please let me know if there are any strong objections to migrating some of this content to the Rajneeshpuram and Osho-Rajneesh movement articles, or if you have ideas about how this should be handled. Jayen466 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively there could be a Ma Anand Sheela (or Sheela Silverman) article/biography, since she was the instigator and center of those events. Whichever, it doesn't really belong in this biography page as Osho was incidental. jalal 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There is a "Ma Anand Sheela" page at present; however, it does not contain any information and redirects straight to "Rajneesh". If the page for Ma Anand Sheela is expanded, this will be a living person's biography and require extra care. Given this caveat, I am in agreement.

Furthermore, I feel the title of this present page is inappropriate. I suggest having "Rajneesh" automatically redirect to "Osho" and migrating this article's content there. Given that the vast majority of people looking for "Osho" in Wikipedia are likely to be looking for Osho, the author, rather than Osho, the Japanese Buddhist term, the Osho disambiguation, which is the present job of the "Osho" page, could be achieved more satisfactorily by including a line at the top of the "Osho" page saying:

This is the page for Osho, also known as Rajneesh Chandra Mohan and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. For the Japanese Buddhist term, see "Osho (Japanese Buddhist term)".

Hence I propose creating this latter page, entitled "Osho (Japanese Buddhist term)", with the information presently given at "Osho".

This, incidentally, is how the problem is dealt with in the German Wikipedia. Jayen466 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We had a discussion about a name change a while back. Can you show that "Osho" is more commonly-used in the Englosh-language than "Rajneesh". Our WP:NC says, in a nutshell:

• Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

Checking what links to "Rajneesh" or to the "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" redirect, it looks like that name is far preferred by editors. The relative usage is probably different in German. -Will Beback · † · 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's possibly an age thing. People under the age of about 30 will only know the name 'Osho', while people who were around in the 70s and 80s will recognise both names. As time moves on the name Osho will become more commonly known, so it makes sense to use it for the article. jalal 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Some google research (google.com), please verify for yourselves:

Osho -- 2,900,000 matches

Rajneesh -- 569,000 matches

"osho commune" -- 21,500 matches

"rajneesh commune" -- 430 matches

osho "times of india" -- 856 matches

rajneesh "times of india" -- 566 matches (note that rajneesh is a common Indian name and many of the matches are about other people)

osho "indian express" -- 1,300 matches

rajneesh "indian express" -- 1320 matches (note that rajneesh is a common Indian name and many of the matches are about other people)

Site search on the website of "The Hindu" newspaper (www.hinduonnet.com): 558 matches for Osho, 326 for Rajneesh, again many of these for other people named Rajneesh

In the contemporary Indian press, Osho is standard today. Samples of Osho's writings regularly appear in Indian national dailies, always with the attribution Osho. Hundreds of books by Osho are available in India and all around the world, all under the name Osho, none (or very few) under the name Rajneesh. Jayen466 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonably persuasive, to me at least. BTW, when it's time to move an article please have an admin do it so that the article histories can be handled properly. -Will Beback · † · 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, will do. Sorry to have jumped the gun; I took the lack of response to the proposal for a lack of interest.

For reference, here is an example of an Osho quote that appeared this month as part of the Times of India Editorial: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1067673.cms Another Times of India quote is included in the article's references. Osho has considerable public standing in India today. "While many typically conservative Indians originally rejected Osho's eccentric ideas on sex, he is today held as a national treasure, with admirers including India's Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh." http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/01/1093938975666.html Jayen466 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other views then? If not, I'll put in a request for the move to be made. Sfacets? What do you think? Jayen466 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that Osho is a more popular form of referring to Rajneesh, agree to the proposal to move the article - however the name 'Rajneesh' should still be featured prominently in the article, as it is still widely used. Sfacets 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, we seem to have reached agreement. I understand Will Beback is an administrator -- Will, would you be able to perform the move for us? And are there still major NPOV concerns that need to be addressed in the article?

Sfacets -- I am looking into the newspaper question, have contacted a friend in India for up-to-date information. Unless I hear anything definite that we can use, I would say the passage is fine as it stands right now (and better than before for being more precise). Jayen466 02:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Move complete. -Will Beback · † · 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OSHO is and was a controversial figure. Whether you agree with his teachings or lifestyle one thing is clear, he introduced many to the benefits of mediation and self discovery. Until you have experienced the bliss of silent meditation at a deep level and for a sustained period I think it is pointless to comment on this man. It is all too easy to be distracted by the hoopla and to miss the message. His aim was always to bring people to their silent center to their inner beauty. I never studied under him but in a much different 'school'. It is only recently I have been reading his discourses. Without meditation you will NEVER understand him, yourself or the world. Peace.

````Dougbm````02/02/07

I just included a heading to clarify visitors to the article about the original meaning of the word "Osho". It was missing and is IMO needed to avoid furthering the misinformation that runs amok. Luis Dantas 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I had it in the back of my mind to return to this. I created an article "Osho (Japanese Zen term)" a few days ago. (The info is the same as on the disambiguation page.) I have now put a link to "Osho (Japanese Zen term)" on the disambiguation page. Jayen466 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sfacets,

re the library, since the library is only accessible to subscribed members and there is a fee involved, I thought, on reflection, that the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links applies –

"Sites requiring registration Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers."

Hence I deleted that part of the link description that specifically referred to the charged library service. But if you'd rather have it as it is, fine by me as well. Jayen466 12:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are correct, I hadn't noticed that you had edited the link itself, only the description, my bad. Sfacets 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased

This article lists in detail anything positive about the man, while barely mentioning the poisonings and making them sound hardly connected to him at all. The negatives deserve equal attention with the positives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.34.183.71 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

He was never accused of these crimes, so I think the mention is proportional. The article lists the facts -- what his philosophy consisted of, and what happened. Jayen466 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hassan and Rick Ross

The following text

• Osho is listed in the lists of people and groups maintained by exit counselors Steve Hassan [1] and Rick Ross [2]. They however state that a group is not a destructive cult just because it is mentioned in these lists.

was deleted with the suggestion that this should instead be mentioned to the Osho movement article. On the other hand the second link talks about the person also, not just the movement. The issue here is the accusation of being a cult, and the leader is an important aspect of a cult. --Knverma 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

-- The links cover a lot of ground, but in the whole they focus on the group. In particular, much of the information pertains to a period after Osho died. It seemed more relevant to post it in the article about the group (or cult) Osho movement and leave this as a biography of the person. Osho himself had no interest in leading a cult. jalal 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I will follow your suggestion to put this only in the Osho Movement article. Still I add a small remark here that a person's intentions, however noble, do not determine whether he is a cult leader or not. --Knverma 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoga quote

Knverma, hi -- I removed the sentence about the importance of the master and the related yoga quote, which is from 1973; Osho ran the whole gamut of possible standpoints on the master-disciple issue, starting out with Krishnamurti's position (never become a guru or disciple) to becoming a fully fledged guru himself and then stating that the master-disciple paradigm was obsolete. So if we want to cover this topic, then I think we would have to cover the full range of his opinions on this. Jayen466 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think his views about teachers are significant enough deserving discussion. We could have a subsection giving his views on this topic and perhaps how they changed gradually. I have read only one book of his, so I invite further inputs from other books. -- Knverma 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a subsection on this might make sense (any other views?); I have access to the online archive and could try to research some quotes in this regard over the next couple of days. Jayen466 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Have been busy with work ... will try to get onto it this week. Thanks for the revert earlier. Jayen466 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No rush, we all have enough other duties. --Knverma 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knverma, Well, I have now done a little research ... the problem is, I could keep going for months and not exhaust it. :-) In fact, I think that the section would be too big to be included in the article itself, the overall balance would go. And there is really no way to summarise or systematise this material. So I suggest we leave it here. Best wishes, Jayen466 19:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC

• Yes, that's a lot (I have not yet finished reading it, will do it later!). Well, from the little I have read of him, I am not really in a position to know which quotes are representative from different time periods. So I won't comment further, for the moment at least, and see if others have any suggestions. Thanks for your effort! --Knverma 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• In fact, one suggestion that I could give is to give one short quote from each of the three different time periods you mentioned. I will let you and others look into it further. --Knverma 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here goes:

Osho on the master-disciple relationship

Below some quotes on the master-disciple relationship.

If someone is eager to be a guru and if someone is eager to get a guru, this state of dependency can happen. So do not make the mistake of becoming a disciple or making somebody your guru. But if there is no question of a guru or a disciple, there is no fear of dependency. Then the person from whom you are taking help is simply a part of your own self that has traveled ahead on the path. Then who is the guru and who is the disciple? (1970)

The relationship of guru and disciple is harmful. However, a non-related relating between a guru and the disciple is very beneficial. Nonrelated means there are not two; relationship is where there are two. We can understand if a disciple feels the guru to be a separate entity from him, because the disciple is ignorant. But if the guru also feels the same, that is too much. Then it means that the blind is leading the blind -- and the blind man who is leading is more dangerous, because the second blind man has total trust in him. There is no spiritual meaning to a guru-disciple relationship. Actually, all relationships are the relationships of power. They are all relations of power politics. (1970)

All relationships are binding, whether they be of husband and wife, father and son, or guru and disciple. Where there is relationship, there is slavery. So the spiritual seeker has not to form relationships. If he keeps the relationship of husband and wife there is no harm; it is not a hindrance because this relationship is irrelevant. But the irony lies in the fact that he renounces and drops out of husband-wife, father-son relationships to form a new guru-disciple relationship. This is very dangerous. (1970)

There are people all around who are out to destroy your individuality, who are trying to enslave you and turn you into their camp-followers. It is their ego trip; it gratifies their ego to know so many people follow them. The larger the number of followers, the greater is their ego. Then they feel they are somebodies people have to follow. And then they try to enslave those who follow them, and enslave them in every way. They impose their will, even their whims on them, in the name of discipline. They take away their freedom and virtually reduce them to their serfs. Because their freedom poses a challenge to their egos, they do everything to destroy their freedom. All gurus, all masters do it. This statement of Krishna is extraordinary, rare, and it has tremendous significance. No guru, no master can have the courage to say what Krishna says to Arjuna, "Be immaculately yourself." Only a friend, a comrade can say it. And remember, Krishna is not a guru to Arjuna, he is his friend. He is with him as a friend and not as a master. No master could agree to be his disciple's charioteer as Krishna does with Arjuna in the war of the Mahabharat. Rather, a master would have his disciple as his charioteer; he would even use him for a horse for his chariot. (1970)

A sect is not going to emerge in the wake of our efforts, because no one is my disciple and I am no one's guru or Master. And if I am offering to be a witness to some people taking sannyas, it is because, right now, they cannot connect with God directly. And I ask them to be on their own and not to disturb me any longer when they become directly connected with the supreme. I don't want unnecessary troubles, I have no axe to grind. It is great if you can relate with existence on your own; nothing is greater than this. Then the question of someone being a witness does not arise. And it is of the highest. (1970, on the day he first initiated disciples into neo-sannyas)

He who is revered with instinctive spontaneity is a guru. He who has to make known his gurudom, knows well, within himself, that he is not a guru. (1972)

Surrender means to be yielding, to allow faith to happen. It means to be receptive, to be unguarded, to be vulnerable, open. If you come in contact with a Buddha, with a master, yield to him. Don't resist him, because you are resisting yourself, you are fighting against yourself. If you resist a master you are not allowing him to work; you are not helping him to help you. You are creating problems, unnecessary anxieties, unnecessary barriers. You already have too much nonsense. Don't create more barriers. The master will have to do much work upon you as you are, even if you have surrendered. If you are non-surrendering, you are creating unnecessary troubles and it will become impossible to help you. You are working against yourself. (1973)

A disciple means one who is centered, humble, receptive, open, ready, alert, waiting, prayerful. In yoga, the Master is very, very important, absolutely important, because only when you are in a close proximity of a being who is centered your own centering will happen. That is the meaning of SATSANG. You have heard the word SATSANG. It is totally wrongly used. Satsang means in close proximity of the truth; it means near the truth, it means near a Master who has become one with the truth -- just being near him, open, receptive and waiting. If your waiting has become deep, intense, a deep communion will happen. (1973)

If one knows how to be a disciple, the master is revealed everywhere. The real question is of discipleship. This is why Nanak called his disciples sikhs. 'Sikh' derives from shishya -- disciple. Learn to be a shishya, and the master is available everywhere; even a stone wall will become a master, even a rock will become a master. And if one does not know how to be a disciple, then even a master is no more than a stone wall. (1974).

You ask me, What type of play are you playing with us? Certainly, it is a play. I am not serious. And if you are serious, there is not going to be any meeting with you. Seriousness does not cross my path at all. I am absolutely non-serious. This is a play. And I would like to call this play 'the mad game'. The word 'mad' I have coined so: 'm' stands for the master and 'd' stands for the disciple. The master-and-disciple game! It is a mad game! I am an expert in being a master. If you are also ready to become a disciple, here we go! (1976)

Between the master and the disciple -- if the rule of the game is followed rightly -- devotion arises. That is the fragrance, the river that flows between the two banks of the master and the disciple. That's why it is so difficult for the outsider to understand. But I am not interested at all in the outsider understanding it, it is a very esoteric game. It is only for the insiders, it is only for mad people. That is why I am not interested even in answering people who are not insiders, because they will not understand. They do not have that attitude of being in which understanding becomes possible. (1976)

The ordinary victory is always wrong victory, wrong, because it is not really happening; you are only imposing it on the other. It is a coercion, it is violence. The other is silent but will wait for its time. The other is silenced but not won over. The other is not yet a friend... and this is no way to make friends; this is the way to make enemies. Then what is right victory? Right victory is totally different. It is out of love, it is through love; it is not coercion on the other. It is not in any way a rape on the other's being; on the contrary it is a surrender. When a lover surrenders to his beloved or a disciple surrenders to a master or a devotee surrenders to god or a poet surrenders to the beauty of the world, whenever there is that surrender, it is right victory. (1978)

The function of the master is precisely that: to call the disciples to the real life -- ordinarily they are dead. Ordinarily you only appear to be alive; don't be deceived by the appearance. You function like a robot, efficiently, but it is not life. You have not tasted life yet. Life has the taste of eternity, not of time. Time is death. In Sanskrit we have one word for both, for time and death -- kal. It is very significant. It must have been because of the mystics' experience. time is death. To live in time is not to live at all; to go beyond time is the beginning of life. That is the meaning of the parable; it is a metaphor. Lazarus represents all the disciples, Jesus represents all the Masters. and what transpired between Jesus and Lazarus transpires again and again between every Master and every disciple. The disciple lives in his grave; the Master calls him forth, wakes him up. (1980)

The day I started initiating, my only fear was, "Will I be able to someday change my followers into my friends?" The night before, I could not sleep. Again and again I thought, "How am I going to manage it? A follower is not supposed to be a friend." I said to myself that night in Kulu-Manali in the Himalayas, "Don't be serious. You can manage anything, although you don't know the A-B-C of managerial science." (1984)

I would have loved not to be associated in any way with the word religion. The whole history of religion simply stinks. It is ugly, and it shows the degradation of man, his inhumanity, and all that is evil. And this is not about any one single religion, it is the same story repeated by all the religions of the world: man exploiting man in the name of God. I still feel uneasy being associated with the word religion. But there are a few problems: in life sometimes one has to choose things that one hates. In my youth I was known in the university as an atheist, irreligious, against all moral systems. That was my stand, and that is still my stand. I have not changed even an inch; my position is exactly the same. But being known as an atheist, irreligious, amoral, became a problem. It was difficult to communicate with people, almost impossible to bridge any kind of relationship with people. In my communing with people, those words -- atheist, irreligious, amoral -- functioned like impenetrable walls. I would have remained so – for me there was no problem – but I saw that it was impossible to spread my experience, to share. (1985)

I had always wanted not to be a master to anybody. But people want a master, they want to be disciples; hence, I played the role. It is time that I should say to you that now many of you are ready to accept me as the friend. Those who are in tune with me continuously, without any break, are the only real friends. (1985)

I am not going to create popes, shankaracharyas, Ayatollah Khomeiniacs; each and every sannyasin who loves me individually inherits all the treasures of my being, experience, love, blissfulness. Nobody is going to be the priest. Then you create another Vatican. We are tortured by these popes, shankaracharyas, imams, rabbis. It is time that man is freed from all these fetters. It is out of my love that I want you to be free, totally free, no dependence, no father figure, nobody between you and your truth, no mediator. That's why I will destroy everything that can create the old mistake all religions have fallen into. (1985)

... the spiritual evolution of man has passed through many stages. Its ultimate stage is where the master and the disciple should be just friends, because the whole idea of the master and the disciple is based on a subtle spiritual slavery. The disciple surrenders. The master provides all kinds of devices so that the disciple disappears as an ego. But there are dangers. The danger is – and it is not only theoretical; the danger is very practical, and it has happened almost all over the world throughout the centuries – that instead of the ego disappearing, the individual disappears and the ego remains. Instead of disappearing, it becomes very subtle; it becomes holy, it becomes religious, it becomes spiritual. (1986)

In the silences of the heart, there is a meeting between the master and the disciple. Both know that something has moved, some energy has been transferred, transmitted. The flame that was asleep in the disciple is asleep no more; it has jumped into aliveness and consciousness. This is the transmission of the lamp. But you can do it only if you have it. A strange situation is needed: the master has to have it and the disciple has to be ready to receive it. Nothing is said, nothing is heard and the dialogue is over. (1988)

The master's function in Zen is to force nothingness into your experience, or in other words, to bring you to your own nothingness. The master devises methods, and when they become old and routine he drops them, finds new methods, new ways. (1989)

The master functions as a friend. He holds your hand and takes you on the right path, helps you to open your eyes, helps you to be capable of transcending the mind. That's when your third eye opens, when you start looking inwards. Once you are looking inwards, the master's work is finished. Now it is up to you. (1989)

"Unknown hidden interesting information"

To the anonymous editor at 80.254.135.177 repeatedly posting a link to a pdf download claimed to contain "unknown hidden interesting information" about Osho's work: "unknown hidden interesting information" is, by definition, "Original Research", i.e. precisely the type of information that Wikipedia is NOT for. You may not be familiar with the term "Original Research". Here is its definition, as given in the Wikipedia policy document on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research –

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

This is exactly what your document amounts to. It is a synthesis of published material which advances your personal position and reading of Osho's oeuvre. And your personal position is no more important than that of anybody else. Therefore, it deserves no special place in an encyclopedia article, which should be a balanced reflection of reliable, published sources, rather than a platform for personal theories. Jayen466 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Followers

Any mentions of Sloterdijk or other famous personnalities who continue to discuss and support the Rajneesh' philosophy/thought ?

I've added a mention of Sloterdijk, with source. Jayen466 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rich man's guru quote reinserted

Hi, re the rich man’s guru quote, the context in the source quoted originally is this:

Q: IF I MAY FIRST FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION CONCERNING COMMUNISM THAT A COLLEAGUE OF MINE ASKED YOU BEFORE. YOU SAID THIS MORNING THAT MESSIAHS, PROPHETS, INCARNATIONS OF GOD ARE CHEATING US, KEEPING US REPRESSED AND PREVENTING US FROM REBELLING AGAINST THE STATUS QUO. YOU SAID THAT POVERTY AND HUNGER ARE NOT A BLESSING. BUT COMMUNISTS HAVE SAID THESE SAME THINGS FOR MANY YEARS AND HAVE TRIED TO DO SOMETHING TO ELIMINATE POVERTY AND HUNGER. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?

A: Yes, they have tried to eliminate... not poverty, but richness. And they have eliminated it. Now the whole of communist Russia is equally poor. That gives a certain satisfaction, of course, but it is not my goal. I want to destroy poverty.

I am all for the rich man. I am the rich man's guru.

The Last Testament, Vol. 1, Chapter 3

This is clearly a reference to “material richness”. Other quotes relating to this matter are:

Q: THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT YOU AND YOUR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWING ARE EXTREMELY WEALTHY. IF IT'S TRUE, WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?

A: My people are rich. In fact, only the very rich, educated, intelligent, cultured can understand what I am saying. Beggars cannot come to me. Poor people cannot come to me. The gap is too big. They can hear me but they cannot understand me. So it is natural: I am the rich man's guru.

The Last Testament, Vol. 1, Chapter 1

In the following quote Osho himself refers to the controversy around his "rich man's guru" status:

I cannot say that, that meditation will fulfill your physical needs. It is impossible for me to cheat in such a way. So even in India, while I was traveling, I was speaking only to the very rich people. I was condemned as the rich man's guru. I said, "This is not a condemnation, this is really the fact. I am the rich man's guru because only the rich man can understand what I am trying to say, to convey.

"The poor man has needs, I know. But what I can offer to him will not meet his needs. I am not for him. Mother Teresa is for him, I am not for him. What can I do if I deal in some higher things? I don't own a grocery store. I cannot give you anything less than ultimate consciousness. But for that you have to be hungry -- and you are not hungry for that. I have something to offer to you; but you are not ready to receive it, so it is not my fault."

Naturally, people from all over the world started coming to me, but these were all from rich countries, rich cultures, well-educated, very intelligent people, young people. To them I could convey. Something was possible now; they were ready, they were open, they were finished with the marketplace, the pleasures of the body and the pleasures of the mind. They had had enough of it. They were at a point that if something else was not possible then only suicide was the way to get rid of this whole nonsense called life.

From Darkness to Light, Chapter 29: History repeats itself, unfortunately, Question 1

He explains further what he means here:

That's why I say if a rich man does not become religious he must be extraordinarily stupid, and if a poor man becomes religious he must be extraordinarily intelligent. Because when you have, it is very simple to see the arithmetic that nothing has happened; but when you don't have, then just to visualize and just to think in imagination that even by having it nothing is going to happen, is very difficult. A lurking doubt will remain inside... maybe there is something in it; the whole world is running after it: "Are they all fools? Am I alone the wise man? Then why is the whole world running after riches, money, power, prestige?" It is very difficult. When you live in a palace you know that life does not happen just by living in a palace. But when you live on the road, you live in a slum, it is very difficult to understand that just by living in a palace nothing happens. That's why I told you I am a rich man's guru. But only for that rich man who has understood that he is not rich is there the possibility of opening into the religious dimension. When he has understood his inner poverty, only then. So whosoever understands that he is poor, and he has nothing, and this world cannot give you anything, is capable of making a contact with a Master. There is no other way.

Sometimes it seems very hard. Listening to me, sometimes you become very disturbed. The moment I say that I am only a rich man's guru, of course you become disturbed. You are not rich; then am I not your guru? But you misunderstood me. You could not get the point of it.

Many times it is happening: I say something, you hear something else.

The Discipline of Transcendence, Vol. 4, Chapter 2, Question 3

So I have reinserted the quote, since it was an actual controversy surrounding his name (this is, after all, the Controversy section), but have changed the reference to From Darkness to Light. Jayen466 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurdjieff

There are 1865 references to Gurdjieff in the English-language Osho archive. Jayen466 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Child abuse

Why there is no mention in this article (neither in the Osho movement one) about the sexuality habits of Osho followers ? Female teens of 13 were sexualy abuse in the Osho commune of Amsterdam (and certainly in other commune aswell). This fact is unequivocally presented in the docmutenry of the dutch realisator Maroesja Perizonius Child of the commune [3][4].

There is a clip from and link (pay-per-view) to the programme here. I haven't seen it yet, but will try to have a look at it over the next few days. Jayen466 09:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Is it possible to say something about his strong homophoby ?

"If you want to be angry, be angry against Jesus Christ. Be angry against all the founders of religions. They all say, "Believe and you will be saved." And I say to you, "Believe and you are drowned." I say to you, "Doubt, because that is something that you have come with. Nature has provided you a method for inquiry. Doubt is a method of inquiry." In ten thousand years of religious history, religions have not contributed anything -- except AIDS, homosexuality, lesbianism, sadism, masochism, wars, discrimination -- all kinds of crimes: killing millions of people, burning living people. They are all based on belief. Science -- which is based on doubt -- has contributed within three hundred years everything from the smallest safety pin to the rocket that reaches to the moon. If you count the blessings that science has showered on you you will be surprised. Your clothes, your glasses, your watches, your health, your medicine, your food -- everything science has improved. Science has only been unsuccessful in improving you, because all the religions are sitting on your neck. I want you to get rid of all the religions and become a scientific seeker. "