Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

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 [1][2].

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)

Since you never got back about this subject, I've included the real link and description. The clip from the link you have is on YouTube, and not the original source. The clip shows only the best things about the ashram in the couple minute opening, and not what the content contains. The pay-per-view can be found here and is called "Child of the Commune." One will have to do a search to find it there.

Here is what the clip's description includes:

Story

"Child of the Commune" is a personal story of a woman whose mother joined the commune when she was six years old. They left the commune when she was 14.

Social Interest

This shows what life was like in the commune, in more than one country, from many sources. The guru's teachings are defined in this documentary.

Commentary: I watched the film after paying a fee. It was a woman's quest to find out why her mother and other commune adults had acted irresponsibly in sending youth to the commune school in England (and also abandoning them at the Oregon ashram, where they never saw their real parents). The mother admits in the film to having walked in on her 13 year old daughter engaged in sexual intercourse with an adult from the commune and did nothing to stop it. It describes this as a common occurrence with all the girls of that age at that school. It also described the child labor, that they were sent to "school" for three months but in fact worked from 5:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. and later every day. Their only schooling was about one hour a week. Osho claimed that they needed real life lessons, which is why they made them work instead of traditional schooling.

Parents signed consent forms for their young children to have contraceptives administered, a document that the woman in the film had shown her mother. Her mother denied ever having signed anything, and in fact, denied any knowledge of any problems. Even when confronted why the mother didn't intervene in the young teen's sexual activities, the mother gave her daughter the blame, saying the teen wanted it that way.

When showing coverage of devotees greeting Rajneesh, the compulsory act at gunpoint, was exposed.

There are numerous references to responsibility in the film. Parents would abandon their children and live at the adult commune.

Coverage of these topics seems paramount to a full picture of Rajneesh's life.

Solarain (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is the more obvious charge that most children at Bhagwaan's communes were routinely neglected and basically just left to wander about. The deliberate anarchy of the adult's led to a very poor environment for raising children. Tim Guest's book for example would be a good example of this (He also describes children of 8-10 being sexually active at the ranch, including with the adults, so I would revise that figure downward.) http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Orange-Growing-Guru/dp/015603106X--77.101.56.9 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Homophoby

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. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In Iran, the punishment for homosexuality is death -- although because of this punishment, more Iranians are homosexual than anybody else. Because when something is so dangerous, people become interested: "Naturally there must be something in it. When the punishment is death, that means there must be something higher than life in it, more than life in it. It is worth taking the risk!"

But why should people be worried about others? About everything the society remains alert: nobody should have his own individual way about his sex, about his love, about his clothes, about his way of talking, manners. Every society imposes a fascist rule on its members. It destroys much that is beautiful. (Osho, Ah, This!)

In the West, if you are walking hand-in-hand with a woman no problem arises, because the society is also the same. But walk hand-in-hand with a man, two men walking hand-in-hand, and people start looking at you. Something is wrong -- you look homosexual, you look gay. It is dangerous!

Now homosexuals have been one of the tortured minorities in the world, very much tortured. In some countries they are killed. In some countries, for example in Iran, if it is found that two persons are living as homosexuals or lesbians, then the only punishment is death. What nonsense! They have not committed any crime against anybody, they have not harmed anybody! Two men living together, or two women living together, this should be nobody else's business. But there is a great fear of homosexuality, and the reason is that homosexuality has been repressed down the ages. ...

The homosexual has a very different lifestyle, and you are heterosexual. He belongs to another religion, he has another politics, he is not a man like you. The moment somebody says that he is gay, a gap arises, a great gap. Now how can you communicate?

But all these fears have to be dropped; these are all defense measures. They simply show that you are not yet settled in your being -- afraid any outside influence may take you away, off your ground. (Osho, Be Still and Know)

... Homosexuals are called "gay" people. They are really gay! The heterosexuals look so sad. Whenever you see a couple you can immediately know whether they are married or not: if they are sad they are married, if they are looking dull and dead they are married. Marriage kills all joy for the simple reason that it creates so many conflicts. Hence all societies have condemned homosexuality, for the simple reason that if it is not condemned, what will happen to reproduction? In the past it had some meaning, but now it has no meaning.

Now the day has come when homosexuality CAN be accepted, should be accepted as a natural outlet of your sexual energies. I am not against it, I am not for it either. I am simply saying that if you have to live your sex you can choose your style, you are free to choose your style. If you decide to be stupid, at least you should be given the freedom to choose what kind of stupid you want to be! I give you total freedom.

My effort here is to help you to go beyond it, so if you are homosexual you have to go beyond homosexuality, if you are heterosexual you have to go beyond heterosexuality. And there are other people also who are neither, who are autoerotic, autosexual. They have to go beyond their autoeroticism. Man has to transcend sex, whatsoever kind of sex it is, because unless you go beyond your biology you will never know your soul. But meanwhile -- before you go beyond -- it is your freedom to be whatsoever you want to be.

You say, "I am homosexual. I feel terribly oppressed and stricken by the stigma of homosexuality."

There is no need to be "terribly oppressed." You must be accepting people's condemnation. Deep down somewhere you are also against it; otherwise, why feel oppressed? If people are against, let them be against! You need not declare to everybody that you are a homosexual. You need not move with a flag that you are a homosexual! You can remain a homosexual. Of course, you cannot hide it because your sex style changes your body language. The way the homosexual walks is totally different from the heterosexual; the way he talks is totally different. And he looks so gay, so happy!

So you will have to remain a little less happy, that's all. Don't look so happy, and walk a little more consciously, that's all. (Osho, The Way of the Buddha)

I could find you dozens and dozens of quotes of this type. Jayen466 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Editors Please note

Without doubt Jayen is an Osho disciple operating on this wiki item as a protector of Osho's name, I imagine this is why he also saw to it that the documentary that was linked to this page was pulled by Osho International, and why he resists the inclusion of anything that might be seen to tarnish his gurus image; irrespective of it's relevance or pertinence.

This also explains why the entire article rests heavily on citations from one publication (Fox) and a large number of self-published (and auto-biographical) items; despite the existence of dozenS of academic writings that offer a less rose tinted version of particular events.

There is a persecution complex at play here, I mean is there really any rational explanation for a sentence like this: His followers succeeded not only in rationalising the disastrous scandal in the United States, but in making Osho a heroic martyr who had been unjustly persecuted by the oppressive, imperialist U.S. government

So what is the point in all of this? Well simply that if this individual is allowed to monopolize this article and control how it is edited a "fair and balanced" perspective will never be arrived at. He has already attempted to quickly usher through a peer review but failed.From what I can see there is a suppression campaign being waged by Osho International Foundation. This is being aided and abetted by followers such as Swami Jayen.

Semitransgenic (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read and abide by WP:NPA, in particular [3]. Thank you. The sentence you quote above is taken as close to verbatim as allowable from the cited University of California Press publication. -- Jayen466 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that we should somehow ignore your affiliation with OIF? Your views on this Osho matter are significantly biased; by your devotional adherences. As such, this discounts the usefulness of your contributions, especially as your goal appears to be that of protecting your masters good name at all costs. This serves only to exacerbate the POV issue associated with this page.Semitransgenic (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So let's look at the sentence above, the book from which it is taken is basically a general overview of Tantric practice and contains approx. 365 pages, 8 of which deal with Rajneesh. On one of those 8 pages there is 1 paragraph that expresses the authors personal opinion, he is surmising, note he begins the paragraph with the word 'perhaps'. You also use another biased opinion to back this assertion, that of Swami Annad Jina, again we are supposed to accept that a devotee can offer objectivity. I find this dubious to say the least. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the verbatims from the book cited; I reckon it will pass as fair use if I quote it here:

---

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Rajneesh phenomenon lies not so much in his scandalous career in America, but in his remarkable apotheosis and rebirth upon his return to India. A truly global Tantric guru, Rajneesh made the journey from India to America and back to India again, finally achieving even more success in his homeland, perhaps in large part because of his status as a figure who had a massive U. S. and European following. Rather incredibly, his followers were not only able to rationalize the disastrous scandal in the United States, but even to make Rajneesh a heroic martyr who had been unjustly persecuted by the oppressive imperialist U. S. government: “[The Ranch] was crushed from without by the Attorney General's office… like the marines in Lebanon, the Ranch was hit by hardball opposition and driven out. ” 122 ...

Rather remarkably, however, Osho seems to have become only more popular since his death. Indeed, he has published perhaps more books and received more acclaim as a disembodied photograph or video image than he ever did while still incarnate.

Publication Information: Book Title: Tantra: Sex, Secrecy Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion. Contributors: Hugh B. Urban - author. Publisher: University of California Press. Place of Publication: Berkeley, CA. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 242.

---

It is an academic source, and it is on topic. I do not think the passages sourced to this departed from the meaning of the original. -- Jayen466 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, it's still the guys opinion, I've read the chapter in full, it's actually not very academic by European standards, fact is, disect the language and it's basically conjecture, he makes a number of claims and supports none of them, and rounds it off with a quote from another biased source, but if you are going to fish from something like this, you can't object if I join you.Semitransgenic (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, any published view is someone's opinion, isn't it, and I am sure the University of California will be untroubled by your assessment that they are "actually not very academic". And no, I don't object if you fish from academic sources; I believe using academic sources is good practice. -- Jayen466 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi- the appropriate place to discuss potential or alleged conflicts of interest is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please limit the discussion on this page to how we can improve this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Beback this is an ongoing POV issue so quit with your weighing in on something you haven't even taken the time to look into properly.Semitransgenic (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on the content dispute. I'm telling you to stop discussing editors on this page. "Comment on the edits, not the editors". Further off-topic discussions of editors will be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with/never heard of

Jalal, for your reference, the relevant passage in Fox that this was sourced from is, "As the epitome of the alternative spiritual health resort, the Poona commune exudes prosperity and is becoming one of the main tourist attractions of India. Fifteen years earlier, the majority of ordinary South Asians wanted nothing to do with the commune; now they too are coming to pay their respects in increasing numbers." (Judith M. Fox, Osho Rajneesh, Studies in Contemporary Religion Series, Signature Books, 2000) -- Jayen466 11:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But it seems clear to me that the majority of South Asians had never heard of Osho. We are talking about a large percentage of the worlds population here. If Ms. Fox had stated that 'majority of Puneites' had wanted nothing to do with Osho, then that is believable. Just because someone writes something down, doesn't mean we should suspend our critical faculties. After all, if she wrote that Osho walked on water, we would be right to question that. And probably not use it as an authoritative quote. jalal (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Swami number two on this one.Semitransgenic (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

who is "Swami 2"??? jalal (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

dude, that's you! Semitransgenic (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't just make this up. If we want to say that most people in South Asia hadn't heard of Osho, then we have to find a source that says that. And we can't say it and then cite it to Fox, who said something else. Better then to drop the statement altogether. (As for "critical faculties", I would suggest a perusal of WP:OR.) -- Jayen466 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough. It should be removed. Unfortunately that means the next sentence needs to be reworked a little to make sense. But no biggie....(I couldn't find any mention of critical faculties on WP:OR).jalal (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of critical faculties on WP:OR): Exactly. ;-)) -- Jayen466 13:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

Semi, the matter with the encounter groups is now mentioned twice – once in 1971-80, and once in the first sentence of 1981-1990. Chronologically, it belongs in the seventies, since the practice of allowing physical confrontation in the groups had been discontinued by January 1979 (FitzGerald, TNY, 22/9/86, p. 84, Fox p. 17). Re drug use, Fox mentions that drug use and even tobacco were banned in the ashram itself (Fox p. 18–19). However, quite a few visitors were hippies putting in a stopover in Pune on their India trip, and I dare say that smoking hasheesh might have been relatively common in that demographic in the seventies – if not in the ashram itself, then outside it. -- Jayen466 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence merely suggests that things had come to a head, and gives examples of problematic issues. I don't see the problem with this. Also, the drug issue is broader than a few dudes smoking spliff. There are drug running allegations, which are already mentioned in the article, so I don't see the issue. If you want more to back this up, not a problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, the legacy section features no information about the split, are you intending on dealing with this? It is relevant. I know little about the details yet so you could save me the trouble and make a start. Also the copyright cases should be mentioned.Semitransgenic (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing

Okay, let's standardise on the Harvard format from now on. For ease of reference, I append the relevant section from the WP:HARV below:

---

Complete citations must be provided, in alphabetical order, in a References section following the text.

For a book: in the case of (Author 2005a) and (Author 2005b), this might be:

• Author, A. (2005a). Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4
• Author, A. (2005b). More Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4

For an article: in the case of (Traynor 2005) or (The Guardian, December 17, 2005), this might be:

• Traynor, I. "Judge tells Ankara to decide on fate of leading author", The Guardian, December 17, 2005.

---

-- Jayen466 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1 million or 1.5

As you've correctly noted, Carter contradicts himself. It's ironic that he has the cash amount to the dollar, but gains half a million in the space of a few pages.

OTOH, these here also make it 1 million --

• http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv60199
• http://wweek.com/editorial/3118/6081/story.php?story=6104

Can't find a reference saying 1.5m. What have you got? -- Jayen466 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

no idea, I thought you had it wrong, 1, 1.5, much of a muchness, basically a bunch of expensive jewelry Semitransgenic (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

New material added, for discussion

The following passage just added contains a number of inaccuracies. I propose we discuss these sections here and bring them up to scratch.

---

The group very soon ran into difficulty with the local community regarding land use laws and over time became increasingly antagonistic towards it's American neighbors. They clashed first with the local residents of Antelopes peaceful retirement community, whom they attempted to displace and push out using terrorist tactics. These began initially with activities such as dumping animal parts on the lawns of local officials and then escalated, in an attempt to effect the outcome of county elections, to a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, using (salmonella); an incident that resulted in the poisoning of seven hundred and fifty individuals and which is one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans

Osho ended his period of silence in October 1984. In July 1985, he resumed his daily public discourses in the commune's purpose-built, two-acre meditation hall. According to statements he made to the press, he did so against the wishes of Ma Anand Sheela (Sheela Silverman), his secretary and the commune’s top manager. By this time the community had also come under serious investigation by the U.S government, specifically around the issue of the interlock of the Rajneesh Church and the city of Rajneeshpuram, and it's claim to tax-exempt status (in 1986, the state attorney general finally decided that Rajneeshpuram violated the church state separation clause of the Constitution). Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities - which included, among other charges, counts of electronic eavesdropping, immigration conspiracy, lying to federal officials, harboring fugitives, criminal conspiracy, first-degree assault, attempted murder, burglary, racketeering, and arson.

The commune's management team (who were suspected of carrying out of said crimes) left the U.S. in September 1985, fleeing for Europe. Osho then convened a press conference and called on the authorities to undertake an investigation. This eventually led to the conviction of Ma Anand Sheela and several of her lieutenants. Following this, in late October 1985, Osho was arrested in North Carolina as he was allegedly fleeing America, en route to the Bahamas. However, with the U.S. government having no evidence to prosecute Osho for more serious offenses, he was instead accused of immigration violations. Osho, on advice from his lawyers, entered an "Alford plea" – through which a suspect does not admit guilt, but does concede there is enough evidence to convict him. He was finally given a suspended sentence, fined $400,000, and deported from the United States with an order not to attempt to return for at least 5 years.

Although Osho was not directly implicated in the more serious crimes his reputation suffered tremendously, especially in the West. The movement, the state attorney general concluded, had become sociopathic. At this point, with relation to the question of whether or not Osho had endorsed Sheela's criminal activities, even amongst some of his followers, opinion was divided; others simply questioned Osho's intentional abdication of responsibility as a means of deflecting culpability for the actions of his disciples.

In late December 1988, he said he no longer wished to be referred to as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and shortly afterwards, took the name Osho. This was undoubtedly a step to salvage his reputation and protect his personal charisma; the fall out from Sheela's conduct having the potential to both threaten and discredit his position. He at this point disassociated himself from the organization and religion, Rajneeshism, which had in effect suffered an institutional "loss of charisma."

---

To be commented below. -- Jayen466 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

funny you should bring this up because a lot of it uses your sources. So are you now disputing your own source material? Gimmie a break, show what's wrong then do your revert, as it stands it's better than the crap that was there orignally Semitransgenic (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Much of Latkin's "Seeing Red ..." is available in Google Books: [4]

The article by Palmer (who is also the editor of The Rajneesh Papers, btw, whence the quote of Anand Jina) is here in Google books.

"Feelings after the fall" by Latkin et al. is available here

Carter is not available online, I believe, but I for one have a copy here. -- Jayen466 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting with the first sentence, then, Latkin also addresses the antagonism, hatred and prejudice the commune experienced from the local population -- hate mail, bullet-holed road signs in Rajneeshpuram, fundamentalist Christians driving through Rajneeshpuram, reading from their bibles and declaring Bhagwan to be the devil (p. 352), the bomb placed in the Rajneeshees' Portland hotel, etc. There were two sides to this conflict, and Latkin brings this out quite well. You only represent one side of Latkin's analysis. -- Jayen466 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The passage you source to Carter, p. 63-64, is not present on these pages, so at least the page references are wrong, if not the content. At any rate, Carter also covers the other side of the conflict, such as the declaration of an "open season on the central Eastern Rajneesh, known locally as the Red Rats or Red Vermin" circulated in Oregon gun clubs, offering advice on "gut shots", "dressing out" and the use of a Rolls-Royce as bait (Carter, p. 203). In addition, the sociological analysis of this conflict belongs in my view more properly in the article Rajneeshpuram, since Osho's actual involvement in these matters was minimal, apart from gun shots directed at the vehicle accompanying him on his drives through the Oregon countryside (as reported by Milne). -- Jayen466 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Latkins conclusion. It's pretty clear what he has to say.Semitransgenic (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Portland Bomb, you have an item elsewhere supporting the accusation that this was an inside job on another, another disputable topic. Considering this was the most notable period in his life, and the period that has gernerated the most coverage, it is of particular importance that it be addressed in detail on his page. You are persistently trying to gloss over this fact.Semitransgenic (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that Osho was involved in these matters, this has always been covered in the article. I am simply against giving undue weight, in this article, to crimes that he was never accused, let alone convicted of. So yes, in that sense, I am interested in protecting his name. As for the Portland bomb, IIRC it was placed by a Californian fundamentalist; he injured himself in the process and was caught. -- Jayen466 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the following: "However, with the U.S. government having no evidence to prosecute Osho for more serious offenses, he was instead accused of immigration violations." I think it is accepted by many that if they could have done him for the crimes they would have, but there was no evidence, so instead they got him for what they could, this is not a stretch of the imagination nor is it propaganda. However the sentence: "Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities", is misleading so it will be changed.Semitransgenic (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find further details on the Portland bomb in the Wikipedia itself Jamaat_ul-Fuqra, search for Stephen Paul Paster. jalal (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Latkin:"It is important to note that understanding the causes of the hostilities is by no means an excuse for the Rajneeshees' behavior. Let us not forget that the people in the neighboring town of Antelope lived in terror of the Rajneeshees, that Rajneeshee leaders admitted responsibility for poisonings within and outside the commune, and that the state spent millions of dollars on the Rajneeshee legal cases."

Latkin:"The enormity of the crimes perpetrated at Rajneeshpuram surprised many individuals. Although there were discussions about storming- the commune to arrest Rajneesh, the precipitious fall of Rajneeshpuram and the revelation of the enormity of crimes committed by the Rajneeshees came as a surprise to scholars, law enforcement officials, and the news media. This failure to predict the intensity of Rajneeshpuram conflict might be due in part to a tendency to underestimate the power of religious beliefs to influence behaviors. This article provides an analysis of several features of the Rajneeshpuram conflict, yet the role of religiosity in the conflict has not been fully elucidated. A final caveat is that although the Rajneeshees held negative attitudes toward outsiders, most Rajneeshees at Rajneeshpuram were indifferent to the intergroup conflict. It was not real to them. They were unaware of criminal activities and unconcerned about intergroup tensions. For example, although sannyasins at Rajneeshpuram could buy a daily Oregon newspaper, few did. The outside world, the political world, was not relevant to their spiritual pursuits and yearnings for personal growth." Semitransgenic (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The crimes at and around Rajneeshpuram should be documented in the correct place Rajneeshpuram. This page is a biography page. jalal (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as stated earlier, "Considering this was the most notable period in his life, and the period that has generated the most coverage, it is of particular importance that it be addressed in detail on his page". Also, one has to consider that Rajneeshpuram was, in a sense, a material manifestation of Osho's narcissistic delusion, his "vision". People with vision tend to keep to their eyes on the ball; instead Osho got lost up his own arse and abdicated responsibility for the realization of said vision to others. This is noteworthy in a biographical context.Semitransgenic (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(It's language like this which discredits you as having your own private agenda here.) BTAIM, I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, but the documentation for R'puram has it's own place and there is no good reason that I can see for duplicating it. Rajneeshpuram was more likely the 'narcisstic delusion' of his followers, but I don't want to turn this into a discussion forum. Lets try and stick to facts and objectivity and keep our personal trips to one side. jalal (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the euphemism, it's simply a quick way of expressing a particular view of events. This view can be legitimatized by many informed accounts, as well as religio-psychological interpretations of the matter. You are a devotee, therefore your objectivism is skewed. I am interested in facts, but when I arrived at this page it was a bunch of crap, as one editor put it "This article is a joke - it is pure hagiography". The personal trip is necessary, otherwise individuals such and you an Jayen will promulgate the official OIF version of events, in an attempt to rewrite history. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

SemiT - I'm not a devotee, I've no idea where you get that idea. I'm interested in having a fair and accurate biography of Osho, a man I've met and admire. Nothing more, nothing less. "This article is joke" and other similar comments are invariably by anonymous IP posters. You at least have a name, although you don't declare what you agenda is here. jalal (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My agenda is simply to get all the information on the table and let people decide for themselves. I'm here without affiliations of any description, figuring things out as I go, trying to broaden my understanding of this matter, whereas devotees seem interested in only one version of reality and would rather that others never look beyond this; this has been demonstrated time and time again here. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The attempted murder charge against Sheela concerned the poisoning of Osho's personal physician by Sheela and Co. It is incorrect to imply that Osho was investigated for trying to murder his own physician, he wasn't. He wasn't indicted or otherwise accused of involvement in the salmonella poisoning, either, or the attempts on the Oregon officials, having alerted the authorities, almost a year after these events, to these matters, in the September 85 press conference; the investigation followed as a result of his statements. Until then, the salmonella poisoning was believed to have been due to food contamination by food handlers; the poisonings of Hulse and the other official had not been recognised and investigated as such at the time. -- Jayen466 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The passage "... shortly afterwards, took the name Osho. This was undoubtedly a step to salvage his reputation and protect his personal charisma; the fall out from Sheela's conduct having the potential to both threaten and discredit his position. He at this point disassociated himself from the organization and religion, Rajneeshism, which had in effect suffered an institutional "loss of charisma."" is an anachronism; the name change occurred 1989, several years after said disassociation from Rajneeshism etc. The juxtaposition is yours, and not present in the source quoted. -- Jayen466 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

funny you should bring this up because a lot of it uses your sources. So are you now disputing your own source material? Gimmie a break, show what's wrong then do your revert, as it stands it's better than the crap that was there orignally: "Using" sources does not mean copying <ref>source</ref> content and putting it into text that has nothing to do with what these sources say. Pages 63 and 64 of Carter (referenced three times in the proposed new text passages above as footnote ^[2]) cover Osho's relationship to the Janata government and Morarji Desai, and contain no comment on the time period you are writing about. This is getting quite tedious.

Your text continues,

Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities - which included, among other charges, counts of electronic eavesdropping, immigration conspiracy, lying to federal officials, harboring fugitives, criminal conspiracy, first-degree assault, attempted murder, burglary, racketeering, and arson. The commune's management team (who were suspected of carrying out of said crimes) left the U.S. in September 1985, fleeing for Europe. Osho then convened a press conference and called on the authorities to undertake an investigation.

Again, the same source ref is given, which does not back up a single one of these statements. Moreover, the time scale is completely wrong. Osho and his disciples had not "come under investigation" for electronic eavesdropping, first-degree assault, attempted murder, or arson, and the commune management team in particular had not come under suspicion of any of these crimes when they left in September 1985. There were immigration-related investigations, and these were justified, since there were a number of sham marriages in the commune designed to circumvent immigration restrictions. Sheela and Co. apparently believed their arrest because of immigration-related matters was imminent, and this was one reason for their leaving when they did. The investigation of electronic eavesdropping, first-degree assault, attempted murder, and arson began after their leaving and after the September 16 1985 press conference, in which Osho told the media that he had, in the days following Sheela's departure, received information from sannyasins coming forward that crimes had been committed, and listed these in detail to the press – i.e. electronic eavesdropping, first-degree assault, attempted murder, the 1984 salmonella poisoning in The Dalles, and arson (Carter p. 230, FitzGerald, The New Yorker, 29 Sept. 1986, page 108). After coming forward with this information, at no time was Osho considered a suspect in these crimes. (In my view, it would have made no sense to convene the press to tell them of all these undiscovered crimes committed a full year prior if he had been the perpetrator.) In addition, the murder attempt had been directed against his personal physician, a person who enjoyed and continued to enjoy Osho's closest trust to the day Osho died, and the electronic eavesdropping activities extended to Osho's own bedroom. Again, no one suspected or accused Osho of having planned that one. Almost everything you have written here is mis-attributed, garbled and at variance with the relevant literature. -- Jayen466 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

actually smartass, I have the original texts, simply forgot to adjust the page numbering will be addressed. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad you elaborated on that because the "coming under investigation" bit it is taken almost verbatim from the text you were propounding the validity of yesterday, namely, Hugh B. Urban: Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion. So suddenly his opinion is not good enough for you? It's acceptable for you to cherry pick and interpret as you see fit but, you resist the attempts of others to do likewise. Yes there is an error with the time line it will be addressed. Where are your sources to backup the reasons for Sheela et al leaving, and Oshos rationale behind making the announcements when he did (how long he had known, what he knew, and how he came to know it are not explored). The investigation by the FBI included Oshso, there was due suspicion (if not why all the claims claiming he was "persecuted" when he actually got off with a slap on the wrist?). Semitransgenic (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kindly cut the invective. As for Urban, you simply look at the sources and establish where they agree or disagree. (So I guess some exercise of critical faculties is required, even for Wikipedia. :-)) Urban wrote in 2003, that is twenty years after these events. Sources like FitzGerald and Carter are more reliable for 80s events, since they were based on copious and intense first-hand research. When it comes to events in 2003, these are things that Urban researched himself, and as his presentation matches other contemporary accounts such as Fox, as well as journalistic evidence, I consider him reliable for this time frame. As for the reasons for Sheela's leaving, I'll have to get back to you, I can't remember off-hand where that is. As for Osho's rationale, perhaps you are right that the FBI looked at his potential involvement too -- I have no source either affirming or denying that. What is certain is that he made the statements when he did, a year after these uninvestigated crimes had occurred, and that no charges against him ever came forth in these matters, not even after Sheela's lie-detector testimony in 1986 (Carter p. 237). The charges brought against him were restricted to immigration matters (and subject to a plea bargain). -- Jayen466 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Sheela: When Sheela and fifteen other sannyasins left the ranch in mid-September [1985], their main motive, according to the testimony of sannyasins, was to escape indictment for immigration fraud by a federal grand jury—an indictment they supposed would be announced by October 3rd. (They had the date wrong; the announcement was planned to come down by November 1st.) FitzGerald, The New Yorker, 29 Sept. 1986, p. 119. (Also available in FitzGerald, Cities on a Hill.) -- Jayen466 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, despite any personal theories I have regarding Osho, I think we can all agree that he was one smart cookie, I think we can all also agree that the US government are a sneaky shower of cunts, so are you seriously telling me you think they did not suspect Osho was up to no good? irrespective of whether he actually was or not (that boils down to a matter of opinion, Sheela still maintains she was acting under orders). In a criminal investigation such as this, anyone closely involved would be initially considered a suspect, therefore it is not incorrect to say Osho was investigated - even for the attempted murder of his own doctor, as stupid as that may sound - that's simply par for the course, he was interviewed, as others were. He was not prosecuted for the more serious crimes, this does not mean to say that he was not investigated for them. I fail to see how you can refute this. As for Urban, he is telling us nothing new, he cites two people, a swami dude and Carter, you cherry picked because you identify with his bias. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheela still maintains she was acting under orders: You may be surprised to know that Sheela also still maintains -- not credibly, in my estimation, but that is neither here nor there -- that

• no Rajneeshees were ever involved in the salmonella poisoning,
• it was just the food handlers' fault (which was the conclusion of the original health authorities investigation in 1984 (Carter, p. 224))
• she and her colleagues simply got framed.

There is a very recent video interview with her available on http://www.zouddha.com (you have to register to see it). So even if she says she did what she was asked to do, this does not include her role in the salmonella poisoning, since she denies any such role. To my mind, she is an unreliable witness one way or the other. Otherwise, I can follow your reasoning above. Cheers, -- Jayen466 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In relation to Osho's proclamation of innocence we find this: "That glib profession of innocence didn't impress all who heard it. After all, it was Sheela alone who had the privilege of private conversations with the guru during his self-imposed silence of three years. Furthermore, Sheela has been abroad this year, mostly in Europe and Australia. But Bhagwan insists that Sheela had "become addicted" to power and fame and was dissatisfied with playing second fiddle since he began to speak again.Skeptics, and enemies, wondered aloud whether the media-savvy Rajneesh and Sheela might have concocted the whole thing to defuse and divert immensely negative PR against the group, painting Sheela a scapegoat and Rajneesh the innocent victim of her ambitions. Others think he could be paving the way for leaving Oregon should current problems get too hot, sending Sheela and funds ahead. "The movement is in trouble," said Margaret Hill, former Antelope mayor, "and Bhagwan is trying this means to rescue it." A Hawaii librarian scoffed, "He can't think we're going to believe that he rides around in all those Cadillacs [sic] and runs those businesses and didn't know about these things. Nobody's that gullible." Her sentiment was echoed by Diane McDonald, a critic from Madras, Oregon: "It just doesn't wash." She noted a month ago Rajneesh himself publicly said of Sheela, "I have been preparing her like a sword. I told her to go out and cut as many heads as possible." http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1985/11/1985-11-08.shtml

The question of gullibility is a an important one, if we concede that Osho was an intelligent man (some might argue enlightened), how could he possibly have missed what was happening around him, did he really just watch cartoons, pop Valium, and inhale nitrous oxide while things were melting down outside? I'm sorry but it just does not add up. If this were a politician there would be no mercy with the accusations of corruption, and people would get to the bottom of it, why is this unacceptable in the case of an alleged holy-man? Religiosity is interfering with the process of analysis at hand, again that is why I find it difficult to accept that key editorial decisions should be determined by devotees. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Osho never claimed to be a holy-man, on the contrary, he described holy-men as phoney. Your comparison with politicians is basically valid. But in the case of Richard Nixon, for example, they had tapes proving his involvement. Sheela claimed to have such tapes, but apparently could never produce them, even when producing such tapes might have helped her own defence. If there had been such tapes proving Osho's involvement -- and his living quarters were bugged by Sheela -- then he would deserve everything you could throw at him, just like Nixon, but the facts of the matter are different. -- Jayen466 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of Osho's denial of saintly status, but many appear to have lost this point entirely, they refuse to accept that he was simply a smart guy who weaved a huge web based upon the mythologizing surrounding his alleged saintly status (despite the fact that he denied it!) From what I can see he let that happen, and he sold (literally, it all cost money, and still does) a dream based upon a utopian ideology, yet when things went pear shaped, he failed to accept responsibility for the consequences of his roleplay, he simply got in his jet and split. I see both sides to the cosmic play in all of it but that does not make any of it justifiable, in human terms; someone simply saying "ha ha what a funny joke Bhagwan played on us all" really does not wash when you look at the degree of negativity the situation engendered, the fallout was considerable, but it seems many want to ignore this fact. I do not see this as the behavior of a master (religious exemplar); irrespective of his denial of having assumed this role Semitransgenic (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

editorial decisions should be determined by devotees.: Do you think I never had doubts about Osho? Yes, I went to Pune 28 years ago, as a nineteen-year-old, and was bowled over by his presence. But much that happened in the years following did not add up, and I have not been back to Pune since. So my critical faculties are quite intact, and I am researching these matters as much for myself as for Wikipedia. And for me the jury is still out on what exactly Osho was. At any rate, though, he was a most remarkable man. -- Jayen466 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial decisions should be made on detachment and facts. A devotee could never be objective. If after the voluminous accounts of problems in that community, one feels he was a "remarkable man," it still shows that same bias in his favor. This is not good editorialism. People have been bowled over by the power and presence of numerous con artists and lunatics - just look at the Jim Jones[[5]] suicides or decimation of the Jews in support of an extremely charismatic leader. The way we feel is not a gauge for objectivity. In this sense, the jury is not "still out," but in fact, your very next sentence contradicts the first: that you still feel he's a remarkable man. This contradictory nature seems to be quite a phenomenon with Osho, as he appears to have reaped what he sowed in spades based on the crimes committed allegedly by his devotees. I remember the Charles Manson case, where his followers were found guilty of crimes he influenced them to commit, as if under a spell of hypnotism (drugs didn't help matters). There are many parallels but this is on a grander, more chaotic scale. I forgot my login password, otherwise I'd post under my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.235.146 (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox

The reasons I like the book by Fox are

• it has good academic credentials – Fox is a Doctor of Sociology of Religion who teaches (or taught) at the London University's Department of Study of Religions (School of Oriental and African Studies),
• it's recent, so it has the benefit of hindsight, covering the whole span of Osho's life,
• it is well-researched – there is almost nothing in it that I could say is factually wrong.

That is in contrast to people like Urban – the other day I read this priceless description of Dynamic Meditation in a paper of his: ... a method called ‘Dynamic meditation’ (its original name was ‘Chaotic’ Meditation). As a kind of ‘microcosm of Rajneesh’s outlook’, its explicit purpose was to ‘shock habitual patterns of thought and behavior’, and so open the individual to ecstatic freedom and liberating bliss.69 This involved four stages: first, basic concentration on the breath to achieve a deep state of relaxation (!); second, letting the body go, ‘without restrictions’, ‘allowing the body to do whatever it wants’, including dancing, gyrating, laughing, crying, shrieking or rolling around on the ground, allowing the inner Shakti to move spontaneously through the body; third, asking oneself the question, ‘Who am I?’ (????) And fourth, entry into profound meditation, in which practitioners ‘merge with Cosmic Consciousness’ and realize the unity of the Self with Absolute Reality: in such a state, ‘you are no longer confined to anything . . . you have become infinite, liberated’. I don't know if you ever have done Dynamic Meditation, but if you have, you'll realise that this description of it bears only a mosts superficial and partial resemblance to the actual thing. So on second thoughts, I am inclined to agree with your assessment of Urban's scholarship in this field. ;-) There are excerpts of the book by Fox here; it's well worth the few quid it costs. Among other things, I had long planned to rewrite the section on Osho's philosophy drawing on the first chapter of this book, because it does quite a good job of covering the ground, but then got caught up in other things. -- Jayen466 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about Fox, or her book, other than it is a 57 page biography, but academic credentials mean little here because as you well know many academics (writing about Osho) are ex-Osho devotees, or admirers of one description or another, not that there are any judgments to be made about that, it just brings their intentions under scrutiny (of course the converse is also true but most of the disgruntled followers writings appear to be in the popular press domain). Urban seems to have a good understanding of Eastern Mysticism in general, particularly Tantra (and the dangers of Tantric practice when used without a very strict student/disciple relationship), so his analysis of Osho within that context is useful, I also thought his essay Zorba The Buddha: Capitalism, Charisma and the Cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, is useful in terms of it's assessment of the comodification of spirituality and how this relates to the Osho(registered trademark) phenomenon.

For instance: Rather than a ‘routinization of charisma’ what we find in the Rajneesh movement is a kind of ‘commodification’ and ‘commercialization’ of charisma. Bhagwan offered (and sold) his followers the promise of the same charismatic authority and divine freedom which he himself enjoyed (though, in practice, this authority could never actually be attained by any of his followers). Moreover, charismatic authority became the basis for a new kind of bureaucratic organization in Rajneesh’s world-wide network of commercial enterprises—an organization characterized by a high degree of fluidity and flexibility, able to adapt itself rapidly to meet the changing demands of its consumer market. I think this is a valid proposition partcularly if you accept that Osho consciously incorporated elements of the Human Potential Movement and later stuff from Esalen or what have you, as a means of baiting a Western following. Why are Westerners unable to see that gurus have been big business for centuries in India and that in the 20th Century the West was ultimately seen by many of them as the market to crack if they expected to make it big. Plus you have all the deeply ingrained Judaeo Christian expectations of the second coming to exploit, how many maitreya's have we got now? Osho was canny, the organisation didn't just appear out of nowhere, he had a hand in building it, this notion that he was somehow floating around on a little cloud while self-organising systems emerged as various corporations is a fallacy from what I can see. There also appears to be a concerted effort to separate the man from the mission (corporation) so that this mystical aloofness can be maintained as a selling point. Then again who knows maybe there is evidence that he was just floating around on a little cloud (other than the nitrous oxide fueled one he came to use) and stuff "just happened". Personally, I'm not buying this interpretation because I credit the man with intelligence, quite a remarkable intelligence at that, and I think he had a very clear vision of what he wanted to achieve materially, and how he would set about doing it, but it really seems like people don't want to deal with this fact, and are offended by the suggestion. I call that denial.Semitransgenic (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed the Fox examples, but wasn't convinced by the tone, i came across thisthe other day and it seems very informative, at least the background to Osho, and pretty neutral, plus it's from an Indian source. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

academic credentials mean little here because as you well know many academics are ex-Osho devotees, or admirers of one description or another, not that there are any judgments to be made about that, it just brings their intentions under scrutiny This is a wonderful circular argument to exclude any positive accounts. Any positive accounts must be biased, because the authors did not dislike the subject. (Even if some of the authors were "ex-devotees", which to my knowledge none of them are, sociologists of religion have long observed that apostates write the most critical accounts.) -- Jayen466 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"because as you well know many academics (writing about Osho) are ex-Osho devotees"; which academics are you thinking of here? I can't think of one, let alone "many". jalal (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

here's a few: James S. Gordon, Mary Garden, Elizabeth Puttick, Jack Rains, Margot Anand, Swami Anand Jima. I'm sure we could rustle up a few more with a search or two.Semitransgenic (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe James Gordon (who ran the White House Commission on Alternative Medicine a few years ago, if I am not mistaken) actually ever became a sannyasin; he said he was touched by Osho, but stayed aloof. You're correct in the case of S A Jina (Robert Gussner, Harvard alumnus, Professor at the University of Vermont, wasn't aware of him). Margot Anand I thought made her living running tantra workshops, was not aware she does academic work. The other three names I am not familiar with at the moment. -- Jayen466 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to academics that we are using as sources here. jalal (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be about a positive account, it should be about a factual account. There is a lot of mythologysizing, much of which is steeped in mystical ambiance and therefore ignores the real world facts of the matter. A lot of money was involved, Osho made a lot of money, and that money was used to work towards a material realisation of his "vision", the heavens didn't simply rain good fortune upon him, the social climate of the time, Western counter culture, and the New Age movement, all had role in this, and Osho was well aware of Western spiritual trends, the Western mindset, and how it might be exploited for profit; and how that profit might then be used to influence society, but all of this is currently ignored in the biography. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This view that reduces everything to a simple matter of earning money is present in some commentators, such as Urban, and it may reflect your view of the matter, but I think it is probably a minority view (as such it can still be mentioned here, with attribution), and certainly not the only view. Palmer for example explicitly states, "this study is not meant to imply that Rajneesh is acting out of secular motives rather than responding to an inner religious drive." (my italics). Etc. -- Jayen466 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

not simply earning money in the mundane sense, maybe you miss my point, it was goal directed material acquisition, the goal being to reshape society, at least that's what it looks like to me. The whole changing self to change society dictum and what have you. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, thanks for the clarification; I did miss your point. It seems plausible to me that he might have had such a goal -- he talked about it often enough, about wanting to bring about that "quantum leap" that he thought was needed in order to attenuate divisions and conflicts between cultures, nations, religions, "isms" etc. And he tried to bring about a synthesis between East and West, wanting each to appreciate what the other had to offer; attempting a sort of translation of each into the framework of the other; recommending science to the east, a sense of the sacred to the west; etc. And as Heelas points out in his book on The New Age, he did end up having a significant effect, at least on New Age thought. -- Jayen466 01:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the best way to deal with the POV issues might be to divide the article into three major parts:—

1. Biography, this to be written in as neutral and factual a tone as possible

2. Osho's philosophy

3. Reception, reflecting the various POVs that exist in the relevant literature (including Urban's view of a money-making scam, but also the more sympathetic academic views of Fox et al. and the published views of followers) with attribution to the respective authors

Generic issues (such as whether all "Godmen" are frauds etc.) should be covered elsewhere.

Any comment? -- Jayen466 13:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2. and 3.:  Done. -- Jayen466 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Generic issues (such as whether all "Godmen" are frauds etc.) should be covered elsewhere. The question relating to whether or not Osho was a fraud is most certainly valid. I don't think Urban is suggesting it was a "scam" nor am I, Osho supplied spiritual goods and services, and made a lot of money doing so, that's simply business. However, the claims regarding "enlightenment", being a "maitreya", and various other mystical posturings are all dubious in my opinion, I think he was remarkable scholar, a notable philosopher, and a canny marketeer, but I am skeptical of anything that points towards him having saintly status. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in presenting Osho as a saint. Khushwant Singh IIRC said he should be assessed for his intellectual contribution; I personally have no problem with that. If a label is needed, I would prefer mystic. Even thinker or philosopher would be preferable to saint! And as for his claims to have hosted Buddha's spirit and all the rest of it, don't you get the joke? Four days later he said he threw Buddha out because Buddha could not get used to the Jacuzzi and gave him a headache with all his remonstrations about bathing being too much of a luxury! Yes, Osho sometimes played with stuff like Nostradamus, but he also made it quite clear what he thought of Nostradamus -- not much. So while he sometimes made big claims, he was also on hand to pull the carpet out from under those who believed in them -- deconstructing them as fast as they went up. That is why it is a fallacy to look at such things in isolation. -- Jayen466 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at what is left of his teachings after his own deconstruction I cannot help but think that while there is good and new in his teachings "what is new is not good and what is good is not new". He either deconstructed those claims of enlightenment, etc. (which would mean he should not be referred to in this way) or he was serious with at least some of those claims in which case one could perceive him as a simple lunatic. I agree there is some intelligence and wisdom in this type of self parody, which one might perceive as his only true teaching. It is the very basis for both his economic success and for his ability to never be held responsible for his doing. I will refrain from citing Goebbels to illustrate this further. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

The whole issue seems still unresolved. Dividing the article like that is clearly no solution as a song of praise in two parts cannot be undone in the end. As is the entry still lacks objectivity and almost none of the issues raised are resolved. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Whether or not it is a 'solution', it is an improvement in readability and flow. I also think that we've all lost track of what issues that have been raised need resolving. Maybe 62.47.5.186 could elucidate? jalal (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Necessary edits would be so many I still beleive it would be less work to completely rewrite it. There is literally no paragraph where I would not have multiple objections. As an example one of the picture captions (the one that reads like an advertisement) and the summary section in the second part are completely inappropriate. Alot of objections raised have also never been properly addressed even though reputable sources exist. This concerns among others sexual practices with children, the way children were treated in general in the Osho community and armed guards coercing both children and adults into greeting him (which he cannot have overlooked). Just compare the article about Al Capone with this one. Just like for Oshos crimes, there was no solid proof of Capones crimes at his lifetime. Taking the stand that allegations without proof are void is all that saves the main author from revealing the truth to a casual reader. A neutral way of describing all raised allegations within the article (and not in a separate section) would enable unbiased readers to form an opinion of their own. Currently most raised issues are immediately followed by many carefully raised objections. The style of writing is the one of a preacher or politician trying to force a message. A neutral way of presentation looks different. Some of this could even be remedied with more neutral wording. I am willing to suggest such wording but it would be a lot of work. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Teaching section

I was asked for examples of improvements above and will use this section as an illustration of criticism that has been raised which does not relate to criminal charges and other aforementioned things.

I choose the teaching section as it is in sore need of additional references. It more or less relies on one reference which seems to have considerable bias. One of the things that should be pointed out is the imminent self contradiction and inconsistency - claimed by his followers as a feature - which has been widely critizied and which has been interpreted as signs of megalomania or resulting from drug abuse. (This does not seem far fetched when comparing some of his writings at young age to his later works.)

Some examples:

He has not only "spent a lifetime challenging systems, institutions, and governments that he considered to be atrophied, corrupt, neurotic", he also had followers that could have been described that way.

Saying that "his teachings were not static but changed in emphasis over time" is one interpretation. Another possible interpretation would be to say they were inconsistent and self-contradictory. This is an accusation that has been so prominent that it should be mentioned. (This is also something that would not be found with J. Krishnamurti whom he is compared to in the next paragraph.)

Saying that his work is "impossible to cover in full" should not be necessary as this is true for any busy persons work - especially where an encyclopedia is concerned. The same holds true for the next sentence. The article should not focus on our lack of ability to present things in full detail.

Saying that "it must be remembered that his teachings were not presented in a dry, academic setting" should not be raised as an excuse either. It has nothing to do with an account of his teachings. It merely serves as an excuse for those who want to be blinded.

I could continue this for the whole teaching section. If you strip it down to the factual there is almost nothing left. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Are his many titles appropriate?

Looking at [6] I doubt that Osho should be called like this. Did he give himself that title? Was he merely called like this by his followers? Could this be considered offensive to traditional Hindus? I just immagine how I would perceive someone callling themself god and cannot see a big difference. Can someone clarify this? (Tarsilion (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Determining the appropriateness of the title is probably beyond the scope of this article. To clarify, if you're speaking in generalities (i.e. do people get offended when anyone gives themself the title Bhagwan) then that information probably belongs on the Bhagwan page. If you mean, were or are there specific people who objected to this man's use of the title then we would need a published source where that person or person's specifically objected. Currently, the article does not state how he got the title, just that he did. Someone might wish to expand it to include that information. Perhaps a to-do list is appropriate for this article. Whether or not it's offensive also seems irrelevant to me, unless we have a published article which documents that people were offended by it.TheRingess (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that a title whose appropriateness cannot be determined should be removed. Wikipedia is by now an often referenced source and no one should be called the equivalent of "god" without at least some basic consensus within the group usually using the title (Hindus, Buddhists). One could also write that he called himself like that and was called so by some of his followers. As is it adds to the lack of neutrality for this article. (Tarsilion (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

I do not agree regarding appropriateness. That he called himself Bhagwan and that other people called him Bhagwan is documented and seems relevant to the article. How he acquired the title is also. Whether or not it was appropriate, inappropriate or somewhere in between is not.TheRingess (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He is known as Bhagwan or at least he always was. We should callt eh article by the name he is known best for, which is surely Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarsilion, Rajneesh is notorious for appropriating titles and lying about it - that's how he became known as "Osho", in fact. That is one of the many reasons why he is indeed offensive to traditional Hindus, as well as to other true religious people. Although I don't think the comparison to calling himself "god" holds any water. I agree that this particular matter is best answered in the article about the word "Bhagwan" itself.

Squeak, what do you mean by "always"? He used the titles/names of Acharya, Osho and Bagwhan at various times, but his name was Rajneesh. Luis Dantas (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarsilion, the use of titles in the East has a different connotation than in the West. In India, you will meet many people referred to as "Bhagwan", or "Maharaj" (great king) and so on. It is used as a term of respect, and doesn't indicate that such a person is "Blessed" nor a "Great King". And, as the Wikipedia itself states, the meaning of Bhagwan is not God, but more accurately "blessed one" or "fortunate one". jalal (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of what the title means in the east or west, but the message that's being conveyed attempting to use such titles. There is no clarification about who gave all of his numerous titles, and it's obvious that he gave himself those titles. This is what should be pointed out - not leaving out the titles, but instead only having his name and then addressing at which time he chose to take on such titles. This keeps it objective. Also, the correct definitions of those titles should be stated, as he WAS Indian (East), his intentions were clear to use the commonly understood eastern interpretations. 67.183.235.146 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

In one sentence, it says "Eventually the Jain community stopped inviting him because of his radical ideas." Then two paragraphs later, says that "he travelled throughout India, giving lectures critical of socialism and Gandhi, under the name Acharya Rajneesh (Acharya means "teacher"; Rajneesh was a nickname he had been given by his family." It does not give a source where or how he got the title "Acharya." It should be left out or clarified - as Acharya does not simply mean "teacher," and in the reference you used, it means different things depending on the religion. His family religion growing up was Jainism. The Jain definition for Acharya: is a monk who is one of the five revered panch-paremeshtis, and thus worthy of worship. The word "Suri" is equivalent to Acharya. An Acharya is the highest leader of a Jain order. He is the final authority in his monastic order and has the authority to ordain new monks and nuns. He is also authorized to consecrete new idols, although this authority is sometimes delegated to scholars designated by him."

(There are also two misspellings in the above paragraph that aren't corrected because they are copied verbatim)

Since the Jain community stopped inviting him, he could not have been appointed Acharya except by his own appointment, which has no validity. If you decide not to delete the Acharya title, then it needs to be explained that it was a self-stylized title he gave himself and his family gave him the Rajneesh title.67.183.235.146 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Just to clarify, 'Rajneesh' was not a title, it was a name used by his family. In India it is common to have a birth name (from an astrologer sometimes), a family, intimate name, a name with in the village. As one grows older (sometimes at puberty) another name is either given or chosen (according to local custom). Other names can be added/replaced as a man moves through life and accumulates achievements. People from a Christian background find this very strange. jalal (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)