At various point of times, I have written about Osho. I love Osho and do consider him very valuable.
In Punjabi there is an expression that Jis Lahore nahi dhitha Oh jammiya hi nahi,(जिस लाहौर नहीं ढिठा, ओह जम्मिया ही नहीं, ਜਿਸ ਲਾਹ਼ੋਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਡਿਠਾ , ਓਹ ਜਮਿਆ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ) the one who has not seen Lahore is not born yet.
I say, Jis Osho nahi Padheya, oh padhea hi nahi, (जिस ओशो नहीं पढिया , ओह पढिया ही नहीं, ਜਿਸ ਓਸ਼ੋ ਨਹੀ ਪੜਿਆ, ਓਹ ਪੜਿਆ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ) the one who has not read Osho, is not literate at all. So I do recommend everyone to read him but I am strictly against being blind to anyone including Osho.
My articles opposing Osho only means that I am all for open eyes and minds and against blind following. Come along with me, welcome----
(1) OSHO'S OREGON COMMUNE, VICTIM OF HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE--
a) Osho knew that it was an experimental commune, the world of his vision, still he preferred to remain in solitude for almost three and a half years, approachable by only a few.
He handed over almost complete management of that commune to Sheila though he knew that Sheila had already indulged in stealing money in India. Sheila was an apple of his eyes, if you ever watch his older discourses, he is all praises for Sheila.
Later on Osho himself declared that Sheila indulged in various crimes like attempt to murder, attempt to poison the water system of Dalles, house bugging, killing, burning houses, drugs pedaling, stealing 43 million dollars etc. He had talked a lot about Sheila's crimes. He alleged not only Sheila but outsiders Oregonians, the politicians for those crimes too.
I see that it is Osho, who is the most responsible whatsoever wrong happened there, all those almost 5000 people gathered there not because of Sheila but because of Osho, he was the center, not Sheila, she was just a manager appointed by Osho, the Guru who never cared for years what wrong or right she was doing there.
Had Osho kept a vigil, had Osho distributed the powers into the hands of various people, perhaps no such level of crimes had happened there.
Osho, what an man, who gave a vision of future world but could not manage his own commune appropriately!
Things are to be re-considered, surely.
b) "A pilot can safely put his plane on autopilot while he checks his charts or eats a sandwich, but he doesn't go to the back of the plane and take a nap." Skip McGrath, an internet seller and author.
When I was reading these words, something related to Osho flashed my mind. He erected a commune in Oregon America. He said that prior to the commune that geographical area was just worthless piece of land.
He converted that place as a model, a small world of his vision.
But what happened after that?
He went into an years long seclusion. He stopped meeting and talking with anyone except a few people.
The whole charge was in the hands of Ma Sheila, his most favourite.
And then the catastrophe.
Many crimes were committed there, many irregularities.
Osho himself described all this.
But never blamed himself. Put whole blame on Ma Sheila.
The pilot took the nap and after the crash, never found himself guilty.
Pathetic, isn't it?
(2) AIDS TEST at Osho Commune, my doubts :----
Osho introduced a mandatory AIDS test for the ones who wanted to stay at his commune. But was it a test in REALITY, I have some doubts.
I say so because of WINDOW PERIOD.
During this time, an infected person or animal cannot be detected as infected but may still be able to infect others. For this reason, the most effective disease-prevention strategies combine testing with a waiting period longer than the test's window period.
"The time-frame between when you are exposed to HIV to the time you test positive for HIV antibodies can be up to 3-6 months. This period of time is called a “window period” for HIV testing. On average, you may need to wait 2 to 8 weeks from the time of possible exposure to get an accurate test result, because it takes at least that long for the immune system to develop enough HIV antibodies to be detectable."
Antibody tests may give FALSE NEGATIVE (no antibodies were detected despite the presence of HIV) results during the window period, an interval of three weeks to six months between the time of HIV infection and the production of measurable antibodies to HIV seroconversion. Most people develop detectable antibodies approximately 30 days after infection, although some seroconvert later. The vast majority of people (97%) have detectable antibodies by three months after HIV infection; a six-month window is extremely rare with modern antibody testing. During the window period, an infected person can transmit HIV to others although their HIV infection may not be detectable with an antibody test.
(3) Osho said," Compromise is ugly. Either the truth has to prevail or death."--From the false to the truth/ 28
You know how Osho came out of America after captivation? By plea bargaining, by entering an "Alford plea"—a type of guilty plea through which a suspect does not admit guilt, but does concede there is enough evidence to convict him and by paying a heavy penalty.
(4) OSHO'S DOUBLE TALK ON QURAN
Osho exhaustively talks on Quran proving it divine, equivalent to Dhammpada, Upanishads, Geeta, Tao te Ching. He tells that in-spite of Muhammad being an illiterate man, his words are no less deeper than the sophisticated words of Budha or the sages of Upanishads.----Deepak Baar Naam Ka, discourse No.5
Now see what he says in 'From Unconsciousness to Consciousness/ Chapter #5' "Mohammed was an absolutely illiterate man, and the Koran, in which his sayings are collected, is ninety-nine percent rubbish. You can just open the book anywhere and read it, and you will be convinced of what I am saying. I am not saying on a certain page -- anywhere. You just open the book accidentally, read the page and you will be convinced of what I am saying.
Whatsoever one percent truth there is here and there in the Koran is not Mohammed's. It is just ordinary, ancient wisdom that uneducated people collect easily -- more easily than the educated people, because educated people have far better sources of information -- books, libraries, universities, scholars. The uneducated, simply by hearing the old people, collect a few words of wisdom here and there. And those words are significant, because for thousands of years they have been tested and found somehow true. So it is the wisdom of the ages that is scattered here and there; otherwise, it is the most ordinary book possible in the world.
Mohammedans have been asking me, "Why don't you speak on the Koran? You have spoken on The Bible, on the Gita, this and that." I could not say to them that it is all rubbish; I simply went on postponing. Even just before I went into silence, a Mohammedan scholar sent the latest English version of the Koran, praying me to speak on it. But now I have to say that it is all rubbish, that is why I have not spoken on it -- because why unnecessarily waste time? And this is from a paigambara, a messenger from God!"
Now see, was Osho doing justice to Quran, Mohammedans or anyone else?
Was not he taking liberty to say anything, literally ANY THING?
Does self contradicting mean, saying now that something is divine and saying then that it is rubbish?
(5) "Osho's ambiguous statements on Salman Rushdie"
First statement---" So many Mohammedan friends have asked me, "You have spoken on many religions, why don't you speak on the Koran?"
I said, "Do you want me to be murdered?" I have something else to do meanwhile. Finally, when I think that it is time for me to leave the body, I will speak on the Koran. And I will manage to have one of my sannyasins kill me and get 2.6 million dollars for my work! While my work is incomplete, I am not going to speak on holy scriptures, because they are the most primitive kind of literature." ----celebr05
Second statement------"Ayatollah Khomein’si death sentence on four persons was absolutely immoral, absolutely unspiritual. And then another ayatollah came and declared that he would give 2.6 million dollars to the person who brings the head of Salman Rushdie to Iran.
I was hoping Salman Rushdie would prove to be a man of integrity – he did not. He has started falling from integrity, from individuality. Today he has requested Ayatollah Khomeini – “I can feel that I have hurt so many people’s religious feelings…”
"I was hoping that a man of the intelligence of Salman Rushdie would prefer death to apologizing. He has not committed any sin, and he has not done anything wrong. I was hoping that he would put Ayatollah Khomeini in a corner."
"Now, this woman, Bhutto’s daughter, is doing the same as Zia was doing. And the man, Rushdie, has not done anything wrong.
But he seems to be a coward. And because of these cowards these insane people have been in power.
I am ready for any argument with anybody, because I know their whole religious belief is absolutely unfounded."----- I Celebrate Myself: God Is No Where, Life Is Now Here, Ch 7, Q 1
Osho, he himself did not want to talk on Quran because he did not want to get murdered but calls Salman Rushdie a coward and declares that because of these cowards insane people have been in power.
OK, Salman Rushdie was a coward, then why not Osho himself became brave enough to render discourses on Quran, verse by verse, debunking it, why he postponed it to infinity and let the insane people stay in power?
(6) OSHO'S DOUBLE TALK ON SIKH GURUS
(i) "Sikhism was produced by ten masters. It is a rare religion because every other religion was created by only a single master."---BOOKS, I HAVE LOVED/7
(ii) "But when I said, after two years, in a meeting in their Golden Temple that, "I consider only Nanak to be enlightened; the remaining nine masters are just ordinary teachers," they were ready to kill me."----- mystic 27
In one of his statements, Osho stated that only Nanak was enlightened, the remaining nine masters were just ordinary teachers, in another statement he said that Sikhism is a rare religion because it was produced by 10 masters, cannot you deduce that Osho never cared that what he was saying. Someone enlightened or not enlightened, master or not master, only Osho could identify, only he had the license to make such declaration, because he himself was enlightened, all others were dumb enough to listen whatever he said, whatever right or wrong he said.
Who is enlightened, who is not, who is master, who is not, nothing clear, but one thing is clear that Osho made several confusing statements, apparently confusing.
If you can make something out of these statements, something significant, kindly do try, you are welcome.
(7) See dear friends, Osho is opposing Sikhs' Tradition of forcing everyone to cover their heads inside Gurudwaras but in the image, he himself is covering his head inside Amritsar Gurudwara.
"I was invited to the Golden Temple at Amritsar. When I went they stopped me at the entrance saying I must cover my head before entering the place of God. I reminded them of the incident with Nanak at Kaaba and asked them, "Does it mean that right here where I stand with my head uncovered, there is no God, no temple?" We keep on repeating our mistakes. I further asked, "Then please show me a place where I can be without a head-covering. And don't you remove your turbans while bathing, and while sleeping? Then isn't that also an affront to the Lord?"---The True Name, Vol. 1, Chapter 2
Kindly take in reference Osho's words," Compromise is ugly. Either the truth has to prevail or death."--From the false to the truth/ 28
(8) OSHO SO MUCH UNRELIABLE, ON RELATION BETWEEN RAM AND SEETA
He has condemned Ram much for Sita's Agni Pariksha, called Ram an old orthodox minded man who thought that Sita must have been corrupted.
He also said that Sita seemed to be saner than Ram, who did not ask Ram to come behind her in the pyre as Ram too was not living with Sita, he was with monkeys, bears and who knows......but she remained sober, did not ask Ram to join the Pariksha.--Discourse-2/Raam Naam Jaanyo Nahi,
And the same Osho says, "The relationship between Ram ans Sita is of love, it is not a husband and wife relationship."--"Nowhere to go but in, chapter 7: First the Thirst
Can anyone see any consistence in both of Osho's statements? At another place Osho has said that most probably Ram burnt Sita in Agni Pariksha and took Shabri with him to Ayodhya, Voila!
(9) Osho, not reliable on Ramayan
In "Ram Naam Jaanyo Nahi", Chapter Jeewan ka Shankhnaad, in response to second question of Gyan Shankar Jha, he says, "Most probably Ram burnt Sita in the Agni Pariksha as Fire would not change its nature, it will burn, so whosoever entered the Agni, must have burnt. Most probably, it was Sita who had been burnt in the fire and instead of Sita, Ram took Shabri with him to Ayodhya as Shabri was a young beautiful woman and Ram and Shabri were in love with each other, only in love people are so blind that they can eat pre-tasted things of each other."
Though I have written a lot against Ram and his Leela, but here I see faults in Osho Leela, he is just relying upon his imaginations or some lesser known unreliable sources. In Valmiki Ramayan, nowhere it is written that Ram ate pre-tasted berries of Shabri, nowhere that Ram had an affair with Shabri, nowhere that she had been burnt in Agni.
Osho saying here, not a reliable comment.
(10) OSHO DUBIOUS ON GEETA
He says about Krishan and Geeta,"The Gita is the only book which teaches the philosophy of violence so clearly.
Krishna's whole teaching to Arjuna is to go to war, to fight: "This is your religion.You are a warrior: to kill and to be killed is your life, and this is what God wants."
I myself would not call Krishna Bhagwan, in my sense of the word. He is a politician, and a very cunning politician.
After this war, (Mahbahrata) India could never recover - it simply broke India's very backbone. Even the Koran is nonviolent in comparison to the Gita. Even Mohammed is nonviolent compared to Krishna."--Last testament/ Vol-4/ Chapter 23
GOOD SIR, KRISHAN WAS CUNNING, THEN WHAT YOU WERE WHEN YOU GAVE LONG DISCOURSES ON HIS GEETA, GEETA DARSHAN, IF GEETA WAS SO RUBBISH WHY THIS HUGE EFFORT?
(11) Osho's double statement about his beard that had gone grey---
(i)"I have never been a celibate. If people believe so, that is their foolishness. I have always loved women — and perhaps more women than anybody else. You can see my beard: it has become grey so quickly because I have lived so intensely that I have compressed almost two hundred years into fifty."----The Last Testament : Interviews with the World Press (1986)
(ii) "My beard has become white, but it is not because of my age. It is due to the courtesy of President Ronald Reagan's poison. One of the symptoms of the poison thallium that he has given to me is that it turns your hair white. It would have turned ten years later, but he helped me, he saved ten years. He has given me a beautiful beard. The whole credit goes to him!" Christianity: The Deadliest Poison and Zen: The Antidote to All Poisons, Ch 4, Q 1
Now See in one statement he says his beard got grey because having sex with many women in another statement he gives whole credit to Ronald Reagan. Did Reagan force him to have sex with many many female? Awesome!
And how a man's beard gets grey by having sex with multiple women, that too is really amazing!
(12) Osho's Double stand on Gifting Flowers---
Once he said, “You love your children – you don’t remove their heads. If you really love flowers you will never pick them. You murder them by picking them – it is a kind of violence towards flowers. Enjoy the beauty from a distance, but don’t try to possess it.”
At another place he said,"If you love a flower, don’t pick it up.
Because if you pick it up it dies and it ceases to be what you love.
So if you love a flower, let it be.
Love is not about possession.
Love is about appreciation.”
Now see his photos, and you will see his disciples offering him the heads of the children like flowers and Osho too seems to be accepting all this easily.
That is the difference between words and deeds of the Great Grand Master.
(13) OSHO, THE MAN WAS AGAINST DRINKING ANIMAL MILK AND WAS HIMSELF DRINKING.
HIS WORDS AGAINST MILK CONSUMPTION BY HUMANS "And the nature of milk is to be a provision for the child, so the child can get milk until he can digest food. After a certain age no animal drinks milk, with the exception of man. Man makes unnatural arrangements. To drink a little in tea, a little in coffee is okay, but don’t become a milk dieter.
Where do you think the milk comes from when a child is born from the mother’s womb? As blood passes through her breasts it begins to produce milk. In this way blood is available to the child. And the child cannot digest anything else. It is good for him at this age. There is not such purity in milk as you think there is. There is greater purity in fruits, greater purity in wheat, rice, beans."
AND NOW SEE, HE WAS HIMSELF DRINKING COW'S MILK, HIS WORDS," My own MILK was being poisoned slowly every day. And only now the poor sannyasin who looks after the COWS has opened his mouth, that "Every night Puja used to come to mix something. I was not aware that this is poison. I thought it is something herbal, must be for your health." Certainly it was for my health! " The Last Testament/ Vol-3/ 4
OSHO! OH!!SO!!!
(14) OSHO--WRONG ON SEX-----
(a) Osho, "Women are more erotic than men – their sex is less local than man’s. Man’s sex becomes very very localised: his whole idea of sex is genital – the remaining parts of his body become dead and dull. That’s why women remain more beautiful than men, remain more alive than men, remain younger than men and live longer than men. One of the reasons is that their sexuality still remains unconfined to the genitals – not totally unconfined, but still unconfined, more unconfined than man. They have more erotic zones in the body still alive. A woman can be as erotic in her ear lobes or in her neck as on her lips or breasts. Man is completely dead and dull."
Me," It seems the man labeled as Sex Guru, missed a lot about sex.
Human body, be it male or female, is very much responsive to good touches and pressures.
Palms, feet, inner thighs, nipples, ear lobes, lips, front neck area and many more body parts are very much responsive to loving touches and pressures.
And if women live longer, remain more beautiful, remain younger than men, the reasons are different. It is because of the sociology, not the physiology. Men are to go out, struggle and fight with the world to earn the livelihood, women remain indoors. Men face the direct and immediate pressures of the world. That is the difference, not what Osho tells.
The difference between male and female sexology is different. And that is of Orgasms. Male is singular orgasmic, female is multi-orgasmic.And do you know why this fact is not generally known, because what to talk of multi orgasm of female, many of the female do not achieve a single orgasm throughout their lives, only because of the males. Males orgasm can be achieved very easily, so they relieve themselves, never caring for the women. It needs some art, some knowledge, some intimacy, some love to give an orgasm to a female. And if the male learns this, the female starts achieving her orgasm faster than the male. And even though female is multi-orgasmic but a female may be satisfied with the single orgasm and may not be interested in the next orgasms.
And finally orgasms be not the targets, but a loving coitus be the target, orgasms may follow automatically.
And if there is no LOVE, no INTIMACY, ever the orgasms might prove HEADACHES.
I have written in another article of mine that as I see, there is a relation, indirect though, between female orgasms and childbirth too.
Women's orgasms are deeper, intenser than those of men. Women can enjoy multi orgasm unlike men's single orgasm.
And when I try to figure it out, why the nature did this injustice to the men, why the nature put these differences, I find the answer in the pain of the childbirth under which the women have to go. This pain is to be borne by the female only. Hence most probably the nature gave them these extra gifts.
See, what Osho has said is something different, he says that women's sex is wider, while I have said that their sex is deeper."
(b) Osho has mentioned many times that the attraction to the breast of female is an attraction of a grown-up child who sucked his mother's milk.
But this is a wrong inference. If this would have been the case, female too had been mad for boobs.
The only reason for this attraction is, males know that female's sexual joy gets enhanced by loving her breasts.
That is the only reason.
Now this is a secret that males too enjoy, if their breasts are played with, believe me.
One more time, I feel, the tag of SEX GURU, given to Osho was wrong, for a different reason, of-course.
(c) He said one that there is no difference between sexuality of men & women, it is just like a pocket in a dress, one is inverted & the other is as if outverted.
He is very wrong, females are more gifted, they are multi-orgasmic, they have 2 points to orgasm--vagina & clitoris & their sexual joy & orgasms are far far deeper than that of men.
(15) Osho was wrong----He thought that women are kinder than men, it is the men who has made this earth a hell & he gave the whole management in the hands of women, Ma Ananad Sheela was the highest manager in American Commune, Osho said about her once----"you can just see sheela: she is so beautiful. Do you think anything more is needed? I have chosen her as my secretary because she has lived with me... for many years, And I have seen not only her physical beauty, but also her spiritual beauty. I have seen her intelligence. I have seen that she can manage this whole commune of Crazy people."
AND what happened, it was Ma Sheela who played Judas. who still speaks against Osho.
The fact is Women are no different than men, they become worse than men, have u seen old police women, they look so emotionless, have not women misused DV act, 498-A against men, dowry is illegal but they take half the property of the husband on divorce.
It is not the question of women suppression, whosoever will be powerful will become oppressor, men women no big difference.
Basic question is of understanding, changing the psyche.
Not gender but mender matters.
(16) OSHO INSTITUTIONALIZED HIS RELIGION EVEN AFTER NEGATING----
a) Osho used to oppose all the religions for their institutionalization.
And what he himself did?
He initiated people to his style of sanyas, gave them marun & white robes, Mala (necklaces) with lockets having his photos, changed names of people and pre-fixed Swami to the names of Males and Maa to the names of Females.
If all this was not initiation to institutionalization, what else it was?
He did this not only to the grown-ups but even to the kids. GREAT!
b) He said in ,Come follow to you, Vol-4, Chapter -2, Between Adam and Jesus', "A religion is to be sought. A religion has to be chosen consciously. Nobody should be made a Christian or a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a Jain by birth. Birth has nothing to do with religion. Because of this association with birth, the whole world seems to be religious, and nobody is religious.
Leave children alone. Never impose any religion on them. Don't condition their minds. Leave their inquiry free. Help so that they can inquire, but don;t give them answers. Help so that their questions become very penetrating, help so that they can ask intensely, help so that someday they can ask so intensely that their very intensity becomes transformation, but never give them answers. Ready made answers are very deceptive. Religion has to be lived, religion has to be chosen. It is a commitment--how can you commit for your child?"
And now see, what actually Osho was doing with kids, giving his mala (necklace with his photo in the locket), parents are much happy seeing their kids wearing Osho's robes and Necklaces. Were these kids mature, conscious, wise enough to choose religion, made Osho sanyaasins? Should not be left alone as suggested by Osho himself?
That is why I call Osho dubious. Either he was not sure about his own thinking or he was too much conscious of diverting the probable questions any where, steer anywhere, any way.
Here I wanna add my old words,"Do U expect that if a kid has just learnt reading, writing & understanding word meanings of a language, has become capable of studying Shakespeare, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Maxim Gorky, Ivan Turgenev, Walt Whitman, Munshi Prem Chand, Munto, Oscar Wilde?
If not then how can U start feeding words of Geeta, Quran, Bible etc. even before the kid has started learning the language?
How stupid!
Why can't you wait and let the kid decide oneself whether the one wanna study Geeta, Quran, Bible etc. or simply ignore?”
(17) OSHO, PROVED WRONG AGAIN-----In one of videos present at YouTube, Osho says that the word "fuck" surpassed the word "God".
I just felt like testing Osho's words.
"Googlebattle" and "Googlefight" are two websites, which arrange battle/fight of two words and tell us which is more used.
To my astonishment, between God and Fuck, God won in these fights/battles.
To do some more verification, I myself Googled, GOD and SEX. GOD yielded 357,000,000 results in approximately .25 seconds while Fuck retarded at 275,000,000 results.
A clear win of GOD.
Again Osho proved wrong or outdated at this particular point.
I am providing the link of that Video, which is otherwise FUCKINGLY hilarious, interesting and enlightening.
(18) Osho wrong on sporting beard by male and wearing make up by female----
Osho was against make up by female, he was against shaving by male, He said that a man shaving his beard looks like a woman – it is ugly.
But he was very wrong in both cases, there is nothing wrong also if men shave there faces, J Krishnamurti was clean shaved & Gurdjieff was having moustaches only, in fact hairless face may look like womanly but there is nothing ugly in it.
Why most of the film stars & models are clean shaved, only because it looks clean & good.
And if a woman uses make up intelligently there is nothing wrong in it, the only thing is, she should not go on using things blindly, not because everyone else is using this or that things.
And staying natural is OK but correcting it is super natural.
(19) Why Osho's body was sick, a check------ He said,"I do assure you that I have drank no water since last ten years. I drink soda and wine. Soda outer, wine inner." "वर्षों से पानी तो मैंने पीआ नहीं, इतना तो मैं पक्का भरोसा दिला देता हूं—दस साल से तो नहीं पीआ। सोडा पीता हूं और शराब। सोडा बाहर का, शराब भीतर की।"---अथातो भक्ति जिज्ञासा–भाग-1 (ऋषिवर शांडिल्यर) ओशो/ प्रवचन–दसवां/ 20 जनवरी,1978 रजनीश आश्रम पूना।
One reason, why he was always sick and died so early.
He never did anything after middle age what should have been done for the sake of keeping a good health .
Have you ever heard that he was doing any physical exercise ?
Have you ever heard that he ever said that yogasans can be done for the sake of health?
His teeth got decayed, he was diabetic, he was allergic to the scents and he died at 58.
Meditation is great but human organism has some other physical rules also.
Weight training, yogasans, jogging, skipping and many other kinda exercises had been proved great for a healthy and long life.
And healthy eating and drinking is also essential. If you will drink soda instead of water for years, what will happen to your body? The same, that happened to Osho.
Beware! One of the most Genius individual was wrong at many points.
One friend here has mentioned that Osho suffered from diabetes, asthma etc. due to the heritage.
Of-course Osho himself has said the similar things.
Now, understand what heredity is, it is the compound effect of ancestral environments.
Every generation lives in a certain environment and is influenced by that environment. For example, labor class, working in open sky develops darker complexion, their next generations too get dark complexion, like that.
Heredity does effect. Old generations leave their effects on the new ones.
Not only the wealth but health too is inherited.
Diseases are inherited.
Baldness is inherited.
But these effects can be altered too, can be avoided too, in certain matters.
It is not necessary that if a father is suffering from a certain disease, the child too will suffer from the same disease inevitably.
Heredity is an compound effect of ancestral environments.
That means heredity too is environment, travelling from from one generation to another.
Heredity is Collective environment, ancestral environment, collective ancestral environment.
And the effects of hereditary environment can be changed by effects of individualistic environment.
Which means, if a father is suffering from heart diseases, the son can remain healthy by exercising and taking appropriate diet.
Heredity is not your destiny, dear friends, you are destiny.
When someone knows that his ancestors suffered from diabetes & asthma, what should he do? Should he go on drinking soda for decades or should he do Yogasans, walking, Gymming?
Osho did not lay any emphasis on Yogasans, not even for the health sake, what to say of supporting, he opposed Yogasans, once he said that he had never seen a ray of wisdom in the eyes of any Yogi, he also said that he had observed that most of the Yogies are just idiots because doing the Shirshasan destroyed the delicate nervous system in the brain. It took mother nature millenniums to make the humans stand on feet, the whole evolution of the nature is the effort to make the humans stand on the feet down and head up, now the idiots, the yogies are trying the opposite. वो परमात्मा कोई घनचक्कर थोडा है तुम्हारी तरह, जो तुम्हें सर के बल खड़ा करे. God is not someone eccentric that is why he has not made you stood on your head. He said something like this, not the exact words.
Now see, we are under gravitational pull 24x7x365, every moment. Just see the facial lines, why these occur downwards, why the face is slackened downwards, just due to the gravitational pull.
While doing Yogasans, many times we put our bodies against the normal gravitational pull to reverse its evil effects. And this is done for short intervals. I have done Yogasans myself many times, these are very smooth, warm exercises, inducing mental and physical health. Acclaimed worldwide.
And here I see Osho opposing Yogasans, now tell me, what should I say?
As far as I know he never did Yogasans or even walking during his last 20 years for the sake of exercising ever. Over-exercise is wrong, moderate exercise is good, he knew this pretty well but neither practised himself nor stressed ever for others.
That is why, I say that Osho was not wise everywhere.
(20) CONTRADICTING OSHO'S SELF CONTRADICTIONS--
i) One friend has said that Osho is an Enlightened one, how can someone like me talk, oppose him. This is a stale logic.
If Osho could talk to people like me, why cannot I talk about him? He talked, he got published, his work is available for one and all.That means everyone can study, understand, misunderstand, talk about him.
And who knows, who is enlightened, who is not?
Till now there is no test-o-meter to check the Enlightenment. Only self declarations are there.
And cannot the enlightened ones be wrong? Are they infallible ones?
As per my understanding, everyone can be wrong or wrong anywhere, Enlightened or not-enlightened. Hence matters should be seen as matters only, not as if they belong to some Enlightened one or Non-enlightened one.
I am being asked what new thing I am revealing by bringing forth Osho's self-contradictions as Osho himself has declared that he is self-contradictory.
A lot of difference, Osho talked about his contradictions in his own way.
I am talking about his contradictions in my own way.
He advocated his contradictions.
I am negating his contradictions.
He presented his own rationale.
I am presenting my own rationale.
Such are the differences
Osho's multi-talks prove only one thing that the man wanted a license to speak anything without being rational, and he succeeded too.
James Bond had a license to kill, Osho had a license to speak "anything" without caring that what he was saying, courtesy his own rationale to be irrational.
Osho used to say that his responses are spontaneous meant for specific questioner and he considers the questioner not the question hence he can give contradictory responses to the different questioners. Good. If so, then why Osho's talks were recorded and published for one and all, moreover why they are still available for one and all?
I understand that Osho was learning throw outtta life and as later on he found a lotta his own life ideas wrong, instead of admitting his mistakes, he took refuge in a theory of self contradiction, instead of discarding his previous ideas, he let them roll on too. That is it.
He did not admit ever that any of his life idea, previously understood as right by him, has been proved wrong by his latest understanding. That is it.
ii) Osho's Self Contradicting, dubious ways:--- Osho has contradicted himself a lot and not only contradicted but advocated his act of self contradicting.
Some of the reasons, I understood, he has given at different times:---
iii) My talks only seem contradictory, they are like pathways of a mountains only seem to be cutting each other but all ways to reach the top, just like beams/girders looking as if crossing each other but supporting the roof.
(Quran is divine and Quran is 99% trash, are these two statements mountain pathways or two vehicles colliding head to head?)
iv) I do not want that a dogma be created around me, I will not let you do that, hence I go on contradicting myself.
(If no dogma, why initiated sanyas, did not you know that people will catch your sanyas and make it a dogma?)
v) I am just a doctor, give medicine according to the illness of a patient, may give opposite medicines to different patients.
(If a doctor, why went on letting your words documented, later-on a wrong prescription may go to a patient, who knows?)
vi) I wanna just confuse you.
(You went on reading books, news papers, periodicals all the times, were not you yourself confused as you knew new dimensions of life?)
Under the garb of all such logic, Osho is asking to say anything, any time, without any responsibility, without consistence.
Will you allow me, say anything any time, I hope not.
How can Osho be allowed?
vii) He was contradicting himself through out his life, though he said that he was doing this so that none may create any dogma around him,but I can see another reason also, he was himself learning life, he used to read a lot of books, and during the process he himself went on learning new things, which were opposite to his earlier understanding, hence he had to contradict himself.
viii) Another irrationality from Grand Master Osho------
He said, "Sincerity means not living a double life — and almost everybody is living a double life. He says one thing, he thinks something else. He never says that which he thinks, he says that which is convenient and comfortable, he says that which will be approved, accepted. he says that which is expected by others. Now what he says and what he thinks become two different worlds. He says one thing, he goes on doing something else, and then naturally he has to hide it. He cannot expose himself because then the contradiction will be found, then he will be in trouble. He talks about beautiful things and lives an ugly life. "---I Am That/ Chapter 2:Living in Your Own Light
But he has indulged in double talk, triple talk himself, but No, the great man could do this easily because he had the license of contradicting himself.
(21) OSHO'S LEGACY---
His last message, "I leave you my dreams". Let us do a reality check.
Osho gave the concept of "Zorba the Budha"-- A Celebrator & a Meditator.
What I see?
People seeking easy life are using Osho.
People who believe in "Eat, drink and make Merry" only.
See, nothing wrong in eating , drinking and making merry.
But believing in only eating and drinking and making merry, that is wrong.
Would not one see, that one's food and drink and happiness should not come from other's tears?
SEX. Nothing wrong in it.
But if someone is always thinking of only sex, the one is sick.
One of Osho disciple, an Indian, he was in my friend list, he and some of his close friends. I observed that were posting only and only sex related things.
Sex is an important part of life, most important. But it is not the only part of life.
Now see, it is also a fact that it is not necessary for one and all to post all type of material. One may chose a niche, a field of one's expertise.
But in his posts, I did not find any depth even regarding sex. No insights. No deep understanding, no worth-while information. All posts were just showing some kinda sexual invitation. Personally I disliked and un-friended him and all his close fellas.
Later on one of my female friend messaged me and cited her personal bad experience with that fellow and thus my views which I had about this man got even stronger.
And the people, who are using Osho as suffix or prefix with their names, run away from them, run away as you run away from Plague. Nakli Guru, Running shops.
All these are Cheaps and Cheats. Osho said, be original and these people, who cannot think of even an original name, how can these bafoons be originals. Idiots. Cheaps. Cheats.
What to say of other's, Osho's real brother is prefixing Osho's name with his name. Osho Shailender. Wow! The original copy cat.
And the idiots, who have no other work except posting excerpts of Osho's words, these empty headed also must be avoided. These fools think that they are doing some great job by copying Osho's work and pasting at FB. Osho was trying hard to prepare originals, not copy pasters.
Nature believes in sending new editions, if Nature believed in Osho only, it had stopped at Osho, not produced me, you & we all, so learn from Osho, learn from every where but be original, not copies, not of Osho, not of any one else.
A copy is a copy. Never Original. Be a fool but original Fool, not a Genius Copy. Me Lord & My Lady, that is all I wanna say in this regards.
Osho was wrong at many points. So many points.
But he had fire.
What happened after him?
His followers fought over copy right. Why? His books are great treasure. Life long Lottery. Everything he left is a treasure. His audio, his video, his ashram. So they fought with each other.
Many of disciples indulged in conducting some psychological kinda workshops. No issue, good field.
Osho, even being wrong so many times, donated a lot to this world. The world is never same.
"ओशो के साथ, अब आदमी मुक्त हो गया " ~ ख़ुशवंत सिंह
"Man has become free with Osho", Khushwant Singh.
But Khushwant Singh is wrong, he himself could not be free from being a Sikh.
He is great writer, I love him, but the whole life, he declared himself an agnostic but could not leave being a Sikh ever.
Though the fire is not fiery, not vividly visible right now, but it is somewhere there in this world still. Underground but it is there, it is here.
THE WORLD IS NEVER SAME AFTER OSHO.
Osho's contribution to the world is great. Many of his ideas are really considerable & worth trying. He touched numerous fields of life and shed his light. His stories, his similes, his words and the meaning in those words, all great. Mediation is not something new but he renewed it. He laid a great emphasis on Meditation. He also devised some new techniques of meditations. He taught this world how to reason and how celebrate and how to meditate. His contribution is incalculable.
This article of mine is a collection previously published posts. Well discussed. Marathon discussions. Osho disciples and Osho lovers fought with tooth and nail. Presented various reasons. Declared me irrational. The unfortunate thing which I noticed during those times, that they too have become blind followers. Followers of Osho. Like followers of any other Guru or cult or religion. That is really miserable. My whole stress is against that kinda following. In fact following itself is wrong.
My opposition of Osho on various points must not be considered that I am against him. No, I am not. He might be wrong at many points. But he was also right at most of the points. This article is my tribute to him. Love him. Respect him.Salute him.THE WORLD IS NEVER SAME.
(22) ओशो प्रेमी ध्यान दें-----विलास तुपे नाम के एक कट्टर हिन्दू ने 22/5/1980 को पूना में प्रवचन के बीच में ज़हर बुझी कतार फेंक कर ओशो की गर्दन की सीध में मारा था लेकिन जाती कटार ने एक दम टर्न ली और फर्श से जा टकराई.
मैंने पढ़ा था यह सब बहुत पहले, लेकिन फिर स्वामी अगेहानन्द जी से कन्फर्म किया
और मुझे तो यह भी पता है कि ओशो कभी भी आरएसएस के समर्थन में नहीं थे, लेकिन अभी सन्दर्भ न दे पाऊँगा मित्रो, उसके लिए माफ़ी....
(23) ओशो आश्रम का एड्स टेस्ट, एक छलावा ???
मुझे पूरी शंका है कि वो टेस्ट जो भी लिया जाता था , वो सही रिजल्ट बिलकुल नहीं देता होगा, चूँकि एड्स टेस्ट के लिए दो टेस्ट लिए जाते हैं, पहला टेस्ट अगर नेगेटिव भी हो तो भी व्यक्ति संक्रमित हो सकता है और दुसरे को संक्रमित कर सकता है, एसा इसलिए क्योंकि वो संक्रमित है लेकिन उसके शरीर में वायरस इतना फैला नहीं कि टेस्ट की पकड़ में आ पाए, ओशो आश्रम में कोई दो दो एड्स टेस्ट होते थे कि लोग पहले एक बार टेस्ट करा के आते थे फिर कोई तीन चार हफ्ते बाद दुबारा ओशो आश्रम जाते थे और अगर टेस्ट नेगेटिव आये तो ओशो आश्रम में प्रविष्ट हो पाते थे , यदि एसा नहीं था तो फिर एड्स टेस्ट का क्या मतलब, ओशो खरे उतरते नहीं लगते इस मामले में.
(24) ऐसा नहीं है कि मैं खतरनाक हूँ......................सत्य ही खतरनाक है ---ओशो
ऐसा नहीं कि मैं खतरनाक नहीं हूँ, सत्य यह है कि मैं हूँ ही खतरनाक, जहाँ मेरी नाक गयी खतरा पैदा हो ही जाता है---तुषार कोस्मीक
(25) ओशो कितना सही आयें फिर से देखें------
ओशो कहते हैं "तुम कोई छोटा सा भी काम करते हो --- ज़रा दो चार शब्दों को सुव्यवस्थित ढंग से जोड़ लेते हो , तो सोचने लगते हो कि यह तो कविता हो गयी --- और फिर तुम गर्व से सिर उठाकर चलने लगते हो , और तुम पागल हो जाते हो | और तुम दावा करने लगते हो कि तुमने किसी महान कविता की रचना की |
ध्यान रहे दावा वही लोग करते है , जिनमे कोई योग्यता या पात्रता नहीं होती है | जिसमे योग्यता या पात्रता होती है , वह कभी दावा नहीं करते है | वे तो विनम्र हो जाते है , वे जानते है कि उनका अपना तो कुछ भी नहीं है वे तो केवल माध्यम ही है"
अब बात यह है कि ओशो की किताबें छपा करतीं थीं, रेबेल प्रकाशन से, यह उनका अपना प्रकाशन था पुणे से, और शुरू से ही, ओशो के समय से ही, हर किताब कॉपी राईट थी.
और आज भी ओशो की हर किताब कॉपी राईट होती है.
ओशो तो मात्र माध्यम थे, वे तो बहुत विनम्र थे, फिर कॉपी राईट का दावा कैसा?
(26) क्या ज़रूरी है कि व्यक्ति जो कल तक ठीक मानता हो वो आज भो वैसा ही माने?
ओशो तो हर रोज़ अपनी ही बातें काट देते थे, पिछली भी सही और अगली भी सही
कम से कम हमें अपनी पिछली बात को तो नकारना चाहिए अगर हम उसे ठीक नहीं मानते
(27) ओशो की कई बातें जो मुझे मान्य नहीं उनमें से एक ये भी है कि हरेक स्त्री को माँ कहा जाए,
मेरी समझ में बीवी को, गर्ल फ्रेंड को, मां कहना हास्यास्पद है,
मां वो हैं, होंगी, हो सकती हैं,
लेकिन हर स्त्री को मां का संबोधन....,
कोई तुक नहीं
(28) ओशो मेरी दृष्टि में---
ओशो का अपने प्रेमियों को सन्यास देना एक तरह की गुलामी है ......यह माला डालना ऐसे ही है जैसे कुत्ते के गले में पट्टा डालना, यह एक ही डिज़ाइन के, एक ही रंग के कपड़े पहनाना, ख़ास तरह की नाम देना ही इस बात का प्रतीक है कि आपकी मल्कियत पर किसी और की छाप डाली जा रही है .....यह सन्यास देना ही इस बात का प्रतीक है कि अब आप उसी तरह से एक व्यक्ति से बंध रहे हैं जैसे इसाई जीसस से बंधे हैं, मुस्लिम मुह्मद से ........अब लाख कोई आपको तर्क दे ...आप समझ ही नहीं पायेंगे अपने इन गुरु जी के खिलाफ कुछ.....यह अपने आप में अंधभक्ति है
एक मित्र ने कहा "ओशो ने कभी नहीं कहा कि उनकी बातों को मानो, उन्होंने सोचने विचारने का आग्रह किया है और कहा है कि ठीक लगे तो मानना वरना कोई जरूरत नहीं"
मेरा कहना है कि ओशो ये सब भी कहते रहे हैं...और वो सब भी जो व्यक्ति को मात्र किसी गुरु का गुलाम बना दे......ओशो वो सब भी कहते रहे हैं कि व्यक्ति सोचना छोड़ दे......
ओशो दर्शन जो शुरू में एक जीवन दृष्टि देता लगता है, वो अंत तक आता आता खुद ही उलझ जाता है.
अंतर्विरोधी वक्तव्यों की श्लाघा करने वाला व्यक्ति वास्तव में अपने दोनों हाथों में लड्डू रखना चाहता है, चित भी उसकी पट्ट भी उसकी, दंगल में दोनों तरफ के पहलवान उसके, उस पर तुर्रा ये कि कहते फिरना, वो भी कोई खेलना है जिसमें एक ही तरफ से खेला जाए, ऐसे तो मात्र अनाड़ी खेलतें हैं, असली खिलाड़ी वो है जो दोनों तरफ से.....नहीं, नहीं, सब तरफ से खेलता है।
अपनी समझ से बाहर है ऐसा खेल , आपको समझा आता हो तो अवश्य खेलें, और खेलने का कारण भी अवश्य बताईयेगा .
हम सब जीवन जीते हैं, जीवन के विभिन्न रंग हैं, विभिन्न पहलु हैं...लेकिन जब भी आप किसी मुद्दे पर बोलते हैं तो अपना नजरिया, अपनी सोच, अपना पक्ष बताते हैं.......अच्छी बात है, आप ठीक भी हो सकते हैं..गलत भी.....गहरे भी हो सकते हैं...उथले भी....आपका कहा सबके फायदे में हो सकता है और नुक्सान में भी...........चलिए, अब आप आगे जीवन जीते हैं...फिर कभी आपको पता लगता है कि उन मुद्दों पे आपके पहले वाले विचार गलत हैं...अब आप फिर से नए विचारों को रखेंगें ...अपने पुराने विचारों का खंडन करेंगें...यह है परिवर्तनशीलता.....यह है बदलने के ढंग...न कि ओशो कि तरह मैं गलत तो भी ठीक और मैं ठीक तो भी ठीक
एक उदाहरण लेते हैं.......आप सुबह के सूर्य स्नान को स्वास्थ्यकर मानते हैं......प्रेम करते हैं, प्रशंसा भी करते हैं.....लेकिन मान लीजिये कि फिर आप को पता लगता है कि सूर्य की सुबह की किरणें किसी खतरनाक बीमारी का कारण बनती हैं.....क्या आप फिर भी अपने पहले वाले स्टैंड पर कायम रहेंगे...नहीं....स्वाभाविक यह है कि आप अपनी नयी खोज के मुताबिक जीवन को मोड़ लेंगें और यदि इमानदार हैं...सबका शुभ चाहते हैं तो वैसा ही सबको मार्गदर्शन भी देंगें....
दोनों तरह के स्टैंड लिए चलना कतई ठीक नहीं.
चित्त पट दोनों नहीं चल सकते, भाई साब..
आप या कोई भी.....दिन, रात, संध्या की बात कर सकता है, कोई दिक्कत नहीं...
दिक्कत वहां है जब कोई दिन को रात कहने लगे और फिर संध्या भी
और फिर अपने सब कथनों को सही भी ठहराए
यहीं ओशो गड्ड मड्ड कर जाते हैं, वो न सिर्फ परस्पर विरोधी बातें करते हैं बल्कि ऐसा करने को सही सिद्ध करने के लिए ऐसी बातों के इर्द गिर्द एक फलसफा भी खड़ा करते है...
ओशो ने इस दुनिया को वो दिया है जो आज तक बहुत कम व्यक्तियों ने दिया होगा...बहुत बुद्धिशाली हैं वो....बहुत ...गहन ......लेकिन बहुत गलतियाँ करते भी दीखते हैं...दिक्कत यह है कि हम लोग सीधा सीधा देखना चाहते हैं.....यदि किसी को स्वीकार कर लेते हैं तो फ़िर उसकी कमियां, गलतियाँ कोई दिखाए तो वो हमें स्वीकार्य नहीं.....कमियां, गलतियाँ दिखाने वाला हमें दुश्मन प्रतीत होता है
और ओशो का विरोध या समर्थन या किसी भी और व्यक्ति का विरोध या समर्थन मैं मात्र एक ही वजह से करता हूँ कि वो किसी ख़ास मुद्दे पर कितना तर्कपूर्ण है, कितना काम का है इस कायनात के...और कोई कसौटी नहीं है मेरी..
सबको सादर नमन
TUSHAR COSMIC.
In Punjabi there is an expression that Jis Lahore nahi dhitha Oh jammiya hi nahi,(जिस लाहौर नहीं ढिठा, ओह जम्मिया ही नहीं, ਜਿਸ ਲਾਹ਼ੋਰ ਨਹੀਂ ਡਿਠਾ , ਓਹ ਜਮਿਆ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ) the one who has not seen Lahore is not born yet.
I say, Jis Osho nahi Padheya, oh padhea hi nahi, (जिस ओशो नहीं पढिया , ओह पढिया ही नहीं, ਜਿਸ ਓਸ਼ੋ ਨਹੀ ਪੜਿਆ, ਓਹ ਪੜਿਆ ਹੀ ਨਹੀਂ) the one who has not read Osho, is not literate at all. So I do recommend everyone to read him but I am strictly against being blind to anyone including Osho.
My articles opposing Osho only means that I am all for open eyes and minds and against blind following. Come along with me, welcome----
(1) OSHO'S OREGON COMMUNE, VICTIM OF HIS OWN NEGLIGENCE--
a) Osho knew that it was an experimental commune, the world of his vision, still he preferred to remain in solitude for almost three and a half years, approachable by only a few.
He handed over almost complete management of that commune to Sheila though he knew that Sheila had already indulged in stealing money in India. Sheila was an apple of his eyes, if you ever watch his older discourses, he is all praises for Sheila.
Later on Osho himself declared that Sheila indulged in various crimes like attempt to murder, attempt to poison the water system of Dalles, house bugging, killing, burning houses, drugs pedaling, stealing 43 million dollars etc. He had talked a lot about Sheila's crimes. He alleged not only Sheila but outsiders Oregonians, the politicians for those crimes too.
I see that it is Osho, who is the most responsible whatsoever wrong happened there, all those almost 5000 people gathered there not because of Sheila but because of Osho, he was the center, not Sheila, she was just a manager appointed by Osho, the Guru who never cared for years what wrong or right she was doing there.
Had Osho kept a vigil, had Osho distributed the powers into the hands of various people, perhaps no such level of crimes had happened there.
Osho, what an man, who gave a vision of future world but could not manage his own commune appropriately!
Things are to be re-considered, surely.
b) "A pilot can safely put his plane on autopilot while he checks his charts or eats a sandwich, but he doesn't go to the back of the plane and take a nap." Skip McGrath, an internet seller and author.
When I was reading these words, something related to Osho flashed my mind. He erected a commune in Oregon America. He said that prior to the commune that geographical area was just worthless piece of land.
He converted that place as a model, a small world of his vision.
But what happened after that?
He went into an years long seclusion. He stopped meeting and talking with anyone except a few people.
The whole charge was in the hands of Ma Sheila, his most favourite.
And then the catastrophe.
Many crimes were committed there, many irregularities.
Osho himself described all this.
But never blamed himself. Put whole blame on Ma Sheila.
The pilot took the nap and after the crash, never found himself guilty.
Pathetic, isn't it?
(2) AIDS TEST at Osho Commune, my doubts :----
Osho introduced a mandatory AIDS test for the ones who wanted to stay at his commune. But was it a test in REALITY, I have some doubts.
I say so because of WINDOW PERIOD.
During this time, an infected person or animal cannot be detected as infected but may still be able to infect others. For this reason, the most effective disease-prevention strategies combine testing with a waiting period longer than the test's window period.
"The time-frame between when you are exposed to HIV to the time you test positive for HIV antibodies can be up to 3-6 months. This period of time is called a “window period” for HIV testing. On average, you may need to wait 2 to 8 weeks from the time of possible exposure to get an accurate test result, because it takes at least that long for the immune system to develop enough HIV antibodies to be detectable."
Antibody tests may give FALSE NEGATIVE (no antibodies were detected despite the presence of HIV) results during the window period, an interval of three weeks to six months between the time of HIV infection and the production of measurable antibodies to HIV seroconversion. Most people develop detectable antibodies approximately 30 days after infection, although some seroconvert later. The vast majority of people (97%) have detectable antibodies by three months after HIV infection; a six-month window is extremely rare with modern antibody testing. During the window period, an infected person can transmit HIV to others although their HIV infection may not be detectable with an antibody test.
(3) Osho said," Compromise is ugly. Either the truth has to prevail or death."--From the false to the truth/ 28
You know how Osho came out of America after captivation? By plea bargaining, by entering an "Alford plea"—a type of guilty plea through which a suspect does not admit guilt, but does concede there is enough evidence to convict him and by paying a heavy penalty.
(4) OSHO'S DOUBLE TALK ON QURAN
Osho exhaustively talks on Quran proving it divine, equivalent to Dhammpada, Upanishads, Geeta, Tao te Ching. He tells that in-spite of Muhammad being an illiterate man, his words are no less deeper than the sophisticated words of Budha or the sages of Upanishads.----Deepak Baar Naam Ka, discourse No.5
Now see what he says in 'From Unconsciousness to Consciousness/ Chapter #5' "Mohammed was an absolutely illiterate man, and the Koran, in which his sayings are collected, is ninety-nine percent rubbish. You can just open the book anywhere and read it, and you will be convinced of what I am saying. I am not saying on a certain page -- anywhere. You just open the book accidentally, read the page and you will be convinced of what I am saying.
Whatsoever one percent truth there is here and there in the Koran is not Mohammed's. It is just ordinary, ancient wisdom that uneducated people collect easily -- more easily than the educated people, because educated people have far better sources of information -- books, libraries, universities, scholars. The uneducated, simply by hearing the old people, collect a few words of wisdom here and there. And those words are significant, because for thousands of years they have been tested and found somehow true. So it is the wisdom of the ages that is scattered here and there; otherwise, it is the most ordinary book possible in the world.
Mohammedans have been asking me, "Why don't you speak on the Koran? You have spoken on The Bible, on the Gita, this and that." I could not say to them that it is all rubbish; I simply went on postponing. Even just before I went into silence, a Mohammedan scholar sent the latest English version of the Koran, praying me to speak on it. But now I have to say that it is all rubbish, that is why I have not spoken on it -- because why unnecessarily waste time? And this is from a paigambara, a messenger from God!"
Now see, was Osho doing justice to Quran, Mohammedans or anyone else?
Was not he taking liberty to say anything, literally ANY THING?
Does self contradicting mean, saying now that something is divine and saying then that it is rubbish?
(5) "Osho's ambiguous statements on Salman Rushdie"
First statement---" So many Mohammedan friends have asked me, "You have spoken on many religions, why don't you speak on the Koran?"
I said, "Do you want me to be murdered?" I have something else to do meanwhile. Finally, when I think that it is time for me to leave the body, I will speak on the Koran. And I will manage to have one of my sannyasins kill me and get 2.6 million dollars for my work! While my work is incomplete, I am not going to speak on holy scriptures, because they are the most primitive kind of literature." ----celebr05
Second statement------"Ayatollah Khomein’si death sentence on four persons was absolutely immoral, absolutely unspiritual. And then another ayatollah came and declared that he would give 2.6 million dollars to the person who brings the head of Salman Rushdie to Iran.
I was hoping Salman Rushdie would prove to be a man of integrity – he did not. He has started falling from integrity, from individuality. Today he has requested Ayatollah Khomeini – “I can feel that I have hurt so many people’s religious feelings…”
"I was hoping that a man of the intelligence of Salman Rushdie would prefer death to apologizing. He has not committed any sin, and he has not done anything wrong. I was hoping that he would put Ayatollah Khomeini in a corner."
"Now, this woman, Bhutto’s daughter, is doing the same as Zia was doing. And the man, Rushdie, has not done anything wrong.
But he seems to be a coward. And because of these cowards these insane people have been in power.
I am ready for any argument with anybody, because I know their whole religious belief is absolutely unfounded."----- I Celebrate Myself: God Is No Where, Life Is Now Here, Ch 7, Q 1
Osho, he himself did not want to talk on Quran because he did not want to get murdered but calls Salman Rushdie a coward and declares that because of these cowards insane people have been in power.
OK, Salman Rushdie was a coward, then why not Osho himself became brave enough to render discourses on Quran, verse by verse, debunking it, why he postponed it to infinity and let the insane people stay in power?
(6) OSHO'S DOUBLE TALK ON SIKH GURUS
(i) "Sikhism was produced by ten masters. It is a rare religion because every other religion was created by only a single master."---BOOKS, I HAVE LOVED/7
(ii) "But when I said, after two years, in a meeting in their Golden Temple that, "I consider only Nanak to be enlightened; the remaining nine masters are just ordinary teachers," they were ready to kill me."----- mystic 27
In one of his statements, Osho stated that only Nanak was enlightened, the remaining nine masters were just ordinary teachers, in another statement he said that Sikhism is a rare religion because it was produced by 10 masters, cannot you deduce that Osho never cared that what he was saying. Someone enlightened or not enlightened, master or not master, only Osho could identify, only he had the license to make such declaration, because he himself was enlightened, all others were dumb enough to listen whatever he said, whatever right or wrong he said.
Who is enlightened, who is not, who is master, who is not, nothing clear, but one thing is clear that Osho made several confusing statements, apparently confusing.
If you can make something out of these statements, something significant, kindly do try, you are welcome.
(7) See dear friends, Osho is opposing Sikhs' Tradition of forcing everyone to cover their heads inside Gurudwaras but in the image, he himself is covering his head inside Amritsar Gurudwara.
"I was invited to the Golden Temple at Amritsar. When I went they stopped me at the entrance saying I must cover my head before entering the place of God. I reminded them of the incident with Nanak at Kaaba and asked them, "Does it mean that right here where I stand with my head uncovered, there is no God, no temple?" We keep on repeating our mistakes. I further asked, "Then please show me a place where I can be without a head-covering. And don't you remove your turbans while bathing, and while sleeping? Then isn't that also an affront to the Lord?"---The True Name, Vol. 1, Chapter 2
Kindly take in reference Osho's words," Compromise is ugly. Either the truth has to prevail or death."--From the false to the truth/ 28
(8) OSHO SO MUCH UNRELIABLE, ON RELATION BETWEEN RAM AND SEETA
He has condemned Ram much for Sita's Agni Pariksha, called Ram an old orthodox minded man who thought that Sita must have been corrupted.
He also said that Sita seemed to be saner than Ram, who did not ask Ram to come behind her in the pyre as Ram too was not living with Sita, he was with monkeys, bears and who knows......but she remained sober, did not ask Ram to join the Pariksha.--Discourse-2/Raam Naam Jaanyo Nahi,
And the same Osho says, "The relationship between Ram ans Sita is of love, it is not a husband and wife relationship."--"Nowhere to go but in, chapter 7: First the Thirst
Can anyone see any consistence in both of Osho's statements? At another place Osho has said that most probably Ram burnt Sita in Agni Pariksha and took Shabri with him to Ayodhya, Voila!
(9) Osho, not reliable on Ramayan
In "Ram Naam Jaanyo Nahi", Chapter Jeewan ka Shankhnaad, in response to second question of Gyan Shankar Jha, he says, "Most probably Ram burnt Sita in the Agni Pariksha as Fire would not change its nature, it will burn, so whosoever entered the Agni, must have burnt. Most probably, it was Sita who had been burnt in the fire and instead of Sita, Ram took Shabri with him to Ayodhya as Shabri was a young beautiful woman and Ram and Shabri were in love with each other, only in love people are so blind that they can eat pre-tasted things of each other."
Though I have written a lot against Ram and his Leela, but here I see faults in Osho Leela, he is just relying upon his imaginations or some lesser known unreliable sources. In Valmiki Ramayan, nowhere it is written that Ram ate pre-tasted berries of Shabri, nowhere that Ram had an affair with Shabri, nowhere that she had been burnt in Agni.
Osho saying here, not a reliable comment.
(10) OSHO DUBIOUS ON GEETA
He says about Krishan and Geeta,"The Gita is the only book which teaches the philosophy of violence so clearly.
Krishna's whole teaching to Arjuna is to go to war, to fight: "This is your religion.You are a warrior: to kill and to be killed is your life, and this is what God wants."
I myself would not call Krishna Bhagwan, in my sense of the word. He is a politician, and a very cunning politician.
After this war, (Mahbahrata) India could never recover - it simply broke India's very backbone. Even the Koran is nonviolent in comparison to the Gita. Even Mohammed is nonviolent compared to Krishna."--Last testament/ Vol-4/ Chapter 23
GOOD SIR, KRISHAN WAS CUNNING, THEN WHAT YOU WERE WHEN YOU GAVE LONG DISCOURSES ON HIS GEETA, GEETA DARSHAN, IF GEETA WAS SO RUBBISH WHY THIS HUGE EFFORT?
(11) Osho's double statement about his beard that had gone grey---
(i)"I have never been a celibate. If people believe so, that is their foolishness. I have always loved women — and perhaps more women than anybody else. You can see my beard: it has become grey so quickly because I have lived so intensely that I have compressed almost two hundred years into fifty."----The Last Testament : Interviews with the World Press (1986)
(ii) "My beard has become white, but it is not because of my age. It is due to the courtesy of President Ronald Reagan's poison. One of the symptoms of the poison thallium that he has given to me is that it turns your hair white. It would have turned ten years later, but he helped me, he saved ten years. He has given me a beautiful beard. The whole credit goes to him!" Christianity: The Deadliest Poison and Zen: The Antidote to All Poisons, Ch 4, Q 1
Now See in one statement he says his beard got grey because having sex with many women in another statement he gives whole credit to Ronald Reagan. Did Reagan force him to have sex with many many female? Awesome!
And how a man's beard gets grey by having sex with multiple women, that too is really amazing!
(12) Osho's Double stand on Gifting Flowers---
Once he said, “You love your children – you don’t remove their heads. If you really love flowers you will never pick them. You murder them by picking them – it is a kind of violence towards flowers. Enjoy the beauty from a distance, but don’t try to possess it.”
At another place he said,"If you love a flower, don’t pick it up.
Because if you pick it up it dies and it ceases to be what you love.
So if you love a flower, let it be.
Love is not about possession.
Love is about appreciation.”
Now see his photos, and you will see his disciples offering him the heads of the children like flowers and Osho too seems to be accepting all this easily.
That is the difference between words and deeds of the Great Grand Master.
(13) OSHO, THE MAN WAS AGAINST DRINKING ANIMAL MILK AND WAS HIMSELF DRINKING.
HIS WORDS AGAINST MILK CONSUMPTION BY HUMANS "And the nature of milk is to be a provision for the child, so the child can get milk until he can digest food. After a certain age no animal drinks milk, with the exception of man. Man makes unnatural arrangements. To drink a little in tea, a little in coffee is okay, but don’t become a milk dieter.
Where do you think the milk comes from when a child is born from the mother’s womb? As blood passes through her breasts it begins to produce milk. In this way blood is available to the child. And the child cannot digest anything else. It is good for him at this age. There is not such purity in milk as you think there is. There is greater purity in fruits, greater purity in wheat, rice, beans."
AND NOW SEE, HE WAS HIMSELF DRINKING COW'S MILK, HIS WORDS," My own MILK was being poisoned slowly every day. And only now the poor sannyasin who looks after the COWS has opened his mouth, that "Every night Puja used to come to mix something. I was not aware that this is poison. I thought it is something herbal, must be for your health." Certainly it was for my health! " The Last Testament/ Vol-3/ 4
OSHO! OH!!SO!!!
(14) OSHO--WRONG ON SEX-----
(a) Osho, "Women are more erotic than men – their sex is less local than man’s. Man’s sex becomes very very localised: his whole idea of sex is genital – the remaining parts of his body become dead and dull. That’s why women remain more beautiful than men, remain more alive than men, remain younger than men and live longer than men. One of the reasons is that their sexuality still remains unconfined to the genitals – not totally unconfined, but still unconfined, more unconfined than man. They have more erotic zones in the body still alive. A woman can be as erotic in her ear lobes or in her neck as on her lips or breasts. Man is completely dead and dull."
Me," It seems the man labeled as Sex Guru, missed a lot about sex.
Human body, be it male or female, is very much responsive to good touches and pressures.
Palms, feet, inner thighs, nipples, ear lobes, lips, front neck area and many more body parts are very much responsive to loving touches and pressures.
And if women live longer, remain more beautiful, remain younger than men, the reasons are different. It is because of the sociology, not the physiology. Men are to go out, struggle and fight with the world to earn the livelihood, women remain indoors. Men face the direct and immediate pressures of the world. That is the difference, not what Osho tells.
The difference between male and female sexology is different. And that is of Orgasms. Male is singular orgasmic, female is multi-orgasmic.And do you know why this fact is not generally known, because what to talk of multi orgasm of female, many of the female do not achieve a single orgasm throughout their lives, only because of the males. Males orgasm can be achieved very easily, so they relieve themselves, never caring for the women. It needs some art, some knowledge, some intimacy, some love to give an orgasm to a female. And if the male learns this, the female starts achieving her orgasm faster than the male. And even though female is multi-orgasmic but a female may be satisfied with the single orgasm and may not be interested in the next orgasms.
And finally orgasms be not the targets, but a loving coitus be the target, orgasms may follow automatically.
And if there is no LOVE, no INTIMACY, ever the orgasms might prove HEADACHES.
I have written in another article of mine that as I see, there is a relation, indirect though, between female orgasms and childbirth too.
Women's orgasms are deeper, intenser than those of men. Women can enjoy multi orgasm unlike men's single orgasm.
And when I try to figure it out, why the nature did this injustice to the men, why the nature put these differences, I find the answer in the pain of the childbirth under which the women have to go. This pain is to be borne by the female only. Hence most probably the nature gave them these extra gifts.
See, what Osho has said is something different, he says that women's sex is wider, while I have said that their sex is deeper."
(b) Osho has mentioned many times that the attraction to the breast of female is an attraction of a grown-up child who sucked his mother's milk.
But this is a wrong inference. If this would have been the case, female too had been mad for boobs.
The only reason for this attraction is, males know that female's sexual joy gets enhanced by loving her breasts.
That is the only reason.
Now this is a secret that males too enjoy, if their breasts are played with, believe me.
One more time, I feel, the tag of SEX GURU, given to Osho was wrong, for a different reason, of-course.
(c) He said one that there is no difference between sexuality of men & women, it is just like a pocket in a dress, one is inverted & the other is as if outverted.
He is very wrong, females are more gifted, they are multi-orgasmic, they have 2 points to orgasm--vagina & clitoris & their sexual joy & orgasms are far far deeper than that of men.
(15) Osho was wrong----He thought that women are kinder than men, it is the men who has made this earth a hell & he gave the whole management in the hands of women, Ma Ananad Sheela was the highest manager in American Commune, Osho said about her once----"you can just see sheela: she is so beautiful. Do you think anything more is needed? I have chosen her as my secretary because she has lived with me... for many years, And I have seen not only her physical beauty, but also her spiritual beauty. I have seen her intelligence. I have seen that she can manage this whole commune of Crazy people."
AND what happened, it was Ma Sheela who played Judas. who still speaks against Osho.
The fact is Women are no different than men, they become worse than men, have u seen old police women, they look so emotionless, have not women misused DV act, 498-A against men, dowry is illegal but they take half the property of the husband on divorce.
It is not the question of women suppression, whosoever will be powerful will become oppressor, men women no big difference.
Basic question is of understanding, changing the psyche.
Not gender but mender matters.
(16) OSHO INSTITUTIONALIZED HIS RELIGION EVEN AFTER NEGATING----
a) Osho used to oppose all the religions for their institutionalization.
And what he himself did?
He initiated people to his style of sanyas, gave them marun & white robes, Mala (necklaces) with lockets having his photos, changed names of people and pre-fixed Swami to the names of Males and Maa to the names of Females.
If all this was not initiation to institutionalization, what else it was?
He did this not only to the grown-ups but even to the kids. GREAT!
b) He said in ,Come follow to you, Vol-4, Chapter -2, Between Adam and Jesus', "A religion is to be sought. A religion has to be chosen consciously. Nobody should be made a Christian or a Hindu or a Mohammedan or a Jain by birth. Birth has nothing to do with religion. Because of this association with birth, the whole world seems to be religious, and nobody is religious.
Leave children alone. Never impose any religion on them. Don't condition their minds. Leave their inquiry free. Help so that they can inquire, but don;t give them answers. Help so that their questions become very penetrating, help so that they can ask intensely, help so that someday they can ask so intensely that their very intensity becomes transformation, but never give them answers. Ready made answers are very deceptive. Religion has to be lived, religion has to be chosen. It is a commitment--how can you commit for your child?"
And now see, what actually Osho was doing with kids, giving his mala (necklace with his photo in the locket), parents are much happy seeing their kids wearing Osho's robes and Necklaces. Were these kids mature, conscious, wise enough to choose religion, made Osho sanyaasins? Should not be left alone as suggested by Osho himself?
That is why I call Osho dubious. Either he was not sure about his own thinking or he was too much conscious of diverting the probable questions any where, steer anywhere, any way.
Here I wanna add my old words,"Do U expect that if a kid has just learnt reading, writing & understanding word meanings of a language, has become capable of studying Shakespeare, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Maxim Gorky, Ivan Turgenev, Walt Whitman, Munshi Prem Chand, Munto, Oscar Wilde?
If not then how can U start feeding words of Geeta, Quran, Bible etc. even before the kid has started learning the language?
How stupid!
Why can't you wait and let the kid decide oneself whether the one wanna study Geeta, Quran, Bible etc. or simply ignore?”
(17) OSHO, PROVED WRONG AGAIN-----In one of videos present at YouTube, Osho says that the word "fuck" surpassed the word "God".
I just felt like testing Osho's words.
"Googlebattle" and "Googlefight" are two websites, which arrange battle/fight of two words and tell us which is more used.
To my astonishment, between God and Fuck, God won in these fights/battles.
To do some more verification, I myself Googled, GOD and SEX. GOD yielded 357,000,000 results in approximately .25 seconds while Fuck retarded at 275,000,000 results.
A clear win of GOD.
Again Osho proved wrong or outdated at this particular point.
I am providing the link of that Video, which is otherwise FUCKINGLY hilarious, interesting and enlightening.
(18) Osho wrong on sporting beard by male and wearing make up by female----
Osho was against make up by female, he was against shaving by male, He said that a man shaving his beard looks like a woman – it is ugly.
But he was very wrong in both cases, there is nothing wrong also if men shave there faces, J Krishnamurti was clean shaved & Gurdjieff was having moustaches only, in fact hairless face may look like womanly but there is nothing ugly in it.
Why most of the film stars & models are clean shaved, only because it looks clean & good.
And if a woman uses make up intelligently there is nothing wrong in it, the only thing is, she should not go on using things blindly, not because everyone else is using this or that things.
And staying natural is OK but correcting it is super natural.
(19) Why Osho's body was sick, a check------ He said,"I do assure you that I have drank no water since last ten years. I drink soda and wine. Soda outer, wine inner." "वर्षों से पानी तो मैंने पीआ नहीं, इतना तो मैं पक्का भरोसा दिला देता हूं—दस साल से तो नहीं पीआ। सोडा पीता हूं और शराब। सोडा बाहर का, शराब भीतर की।"---अथातो भक्ति जिज्ञासा–भाग-1 (ऋषिवर शांडिल्यर) ओशो/ प्रवचन–दसवां/ 20 जनवरी,1978 रजनीश आश्रम पूना।
One reason, why he was always sick and died so early.
He never did anything after middle age what should have been done for the sake of keeping a good health .
Have you ever heard that he was doing any physical exercise ?
Have you ever heard that he ever said that yogasans can be done for the sake of health?
His teeth got decayed, he was diabetic, he was allergic to the scents and he died at 58.
Meditation is great but human organism has some other physical rules also.
Weight training, yogasans, jogging, skipping and many other kinda exercises had been proved great for a healthy and long life.
And healthy eating and drinking is also essential. If you will drink soda instead of water for years, what will happen to your body? The same, that happened to Osho.
Beware! One of the most Genius individual was wrong at many points.
One friend here has mentioned that Osho suffered from diabetes, asthma etc. due to the heritage.
Of-course Osho himself has said the similar things.
Now, understand what heredity is, it is the compound effect of ancestral environments.
Every generation lives in a certain environment and is influenced by that environment. For example, labor class, working in open sky develops darker complexion, their next generations too get dark complexion, like that.
Heredity does effect. Old generations leave their effects on the new ones.
Not only the wealth but health too is inherited.
Diseases are inherited.
Baldness is inherited.
But these effects can be altered too, can be avoided too, in certain matters.
It is not necessary that if a father is suffering from a certain disease, the child too will suffer from the same disease inevitably.
Heredity is an compound effect of ancestral environments.
That means heredity too is environment, travelling from from one generation to another.
Heredity is Collective environment, ancestral environment, collective ancestral environment.
And the effects of hereditary environment can be changed by effects of individualistic environment.
Which means, if a father is suffering from heart diseases, the son can remain healthy by exercising and taking appropriate diet.
Heredity is not your destiny, dear friends, you are destiny.
When someone knows that his ancestors suffered from diabetes & asthma, what should he do? Should he go on drinking soda for decades or should he do Yogasans, walking, Gymming?
Osho did not lay any emphasis on Yogasans, not even for the health sake, what to say of supporting, he opposed Yogasans, once he said that he had never seen a ray of wisdom in the eyes of any Yogi, he also said that he had observed that most of the Yogies are just idiots because doing the Shirshasan destroyed the delicate nervous system in the brain. It took mother nature millenniums to make the humans stand on feet, the whole evolution of the nature is the effort to make the humans stand on the feet down and head up, now the idiots, the yogies are trying the opposite. वो परमात्मा कोई घनचक्कर थोडा है तुम्हारी तरह, जो तुम्हें सर के बल खड़ा करे. God is not someone eccentric that is why he has not made you stood on your head. He said something like this, not the exact words.
Now see, we are under gravitational pull 24x7x365, every moment. Just see the facial lines, why these occur downwards, why the face is slackened downwards, just due to the gravitational pull.
While doing Yogasans, many times we put our bodies against the normal gravitational pull to reverse its evil effects. And this is done for short intervals. I have done Yogasans myself many times, these are very smooth, warm exercises, inducing mental and physical health. Acclaimed worldwide.
And here I see Osho opposing Yogasans, now tell me, what should I say?
As far as I know he never did Yogasans or even walking during his last 20 years for the sake of exercising ever. Over-exercise is wrong, moderate exercise is good, he knew this pretty well but neither practised himself nor stressed ever for others.
That is why, I say that Osho was not wise everywhere.
(20) CONTRADICTING OSHO'S SELF CONTRADICTIONS--
i) One friend has said that Osho is an Enlightened one, how can someone like me talk, oppose him. This is a stale logic.
If Osho could talk to people like me, why cannot I talk about him? He talked, he got published, his work is available for one and all.That means everyone can study, understand, misunderstand, talk about him.
And who knows, who is enlightened, who is not?
Till now there is no test-o-meter to check the Enlightenment. Only self declarations are there.
And cannot the enlightened ones be wrong? Are they infallible ones?
As per my understanding, everyone can be wrong or wrong anywhere, Enlightened or not-enlightened. Hence matters should be seen as matters only, not as if they belong to some Enlightened one or Non-enlightened one.
I am being asked what new thing I am revealing by bringing forth Osho's self-contradictions as Osho himself has declared that he is self-contradictory.
A lot of difference, Osho talked about his contradictions in his own way.
I am talking about his contradictions in my own way.
He advocated his contradictions.
I am negating his contradictions.
He presented his own rationale.
I am presenting my own rationale.
Such are the differences
Osho's multi-talks prove only one thing that the man wanted a license to speak anything without being rational, and he succeeded too.
James Bond had a license to kill, Osho had a license to speak "anything" without caring that what he was saying, courtesy his own rationale to be irrational.
Osho used to say that his responses are spontaneous meant for specific questioner and he considers the questioner not the question hence he can give contradictory responses to the different questioners. Good. If so, then why Osho's talks were recorded and published for one and all, moreover why they are still available for one and all?
I understand that Osho was learning throw outtta life and as later on he found a lotta his own life ideas wrong, instead of admitting his mistakes, he took refuge in a theory of self contradiction, instead of discarding his previous ideas, he let them roll on too. That is it.
He did not admit ever that any of his life idea, previously understood as right by him, has been proved wrong by his latest understanding. That is it.
ii) Osho's Self Contradicting, dubious ways:--- Osho has contradicted himself a lot and not only contradicted but advocated his act of self contradicting.
Some of the reasons, I understood, he has given at different times:---
iii) My talks only seem contradictory, they are like pathways of a mountains only seem to be cutting each other but all ways to reach the top, just like beams/girders looking as if crossing each other but supporting the roof.
(Quran is divine and Quran is 99% trash, are these two statements mountain pathways or two vehicles colliding head to head?)
iv) I do not want that a dogma be created around me, I will not let you do that, hence I go on contradicting myself.
(If no dogma, why initiated sanyas, did not you know that people will catch your sanyas and make it a dogma?)
v) I am just a doctor, give medicine according to the illness of a patient, may give opposite medicines to different patients.
(If a doctor, why went on letting your words documented, later-on a wrong prescription may go to a patient, who knows?)
vi) I wanna just confuse you.
(You went on reading books, news papers, periodicals all the times, were not you yourself confused as you knew new dimensions of life?)
Under the garb of all such logic, Osho is asking to say anything, any time, without any responsibility, without consistence.
Will you allow me, say anything any time, I hope not.
How can Osho be allowed?
vii) He was contradicting himself through out his life, though he said that he was doing this so that none may create any dogma around him,but I can see another reason also, he was himself learning life, he used to read a lot of books, and during the process he himself went on learning new things, which were opposite to his earlier understanding, hence he had to contradict himself.
viii) Another irrationality from Grand Master Osho------
He said, "Sincerity means not living a double life — and almost everybody is living a double life. He says one thing, he thinks something else. He never says that which he thinks, he says that which is convenient and comfortable, he says that which will be approved, accepted. he says that which is expected by others. Now what he says and what he thinks become two different worlds. He says one thing, he goes on doing something else, and then naturally he has to hide it. He cannot expose himself because then the contradiction will be found, then he will be in trouble. He talks about beautiful things and lives an ugly life. "---I Am That/ Chapter 2:Living in Your Own Light
But he has indulged in double talk, triple talk himself, but No, the great man could do this easily because he had the license of contradicting himself.
(21) OSHO'S LEGACY---
His last message, "I leave you my dreams". Let us do a reality check.
Osho gave the concept of "Zorba the Budha"-- A Celebrator & a Meditator.
What I see?
People seeking easy life are using Osho.
People who believe in "Eat, drink and make Merry" only.
See, nothing wrong in eating , drinking and making merry.
But believing in only eating and drinking and making merry, that is wrong.
Would not one see, that one's food and drink and happiness should not come from other's tears?
SEX. Nothing wrong in it.
But if someone is always thinking of only sex, the one is sick.
One of Osho disciple, an Indian, he was in my friend list, he and some of his close friends. I observed that were posting only and only sex related things.
Sex is an important part of life, most important. But it is not the only part of life.
Now see, it is also a fact that it is not necessary for one and all to post all type of material. One may chose a niche, a field of one's expertise.
But in his posts, I did not find any depth even regarding sex. No insights. No deep understanding, no worth-while information. All posts were just showing some kinda sexual invitation. Personally I disliked and un-friended him and all his close fellas.
Later on one of my female friend messaged me and cited her personal bad experience with that fellow and thus my views which I had about this man got even stronger.
And the people, who are using Osho as suffix or prefix with their names, run away from them, run away as you run away from Plague. Nakli Guru, Running shops.
All these are Cheaps and Cheats. Osho said, be original and these people, who cannot think of even an original name, how can these bafoons be originals. Idiots. Cheaps. Cheats.
What to say of other's, Osho's real brother is prefixing Osho's name with his name. Osho Shailender. Wow! The original copy cat.
And the idiots, who have no other work except posting excerpts of Osho's words, these empty headed also must be avoided. These fools think that they are doing some great job by copying Osho's work and pasting at FB. Osho was trying hard to prepare originals, not copy pasters.
Nature believes in sending new editions, if Nature believed in Osho only, it had stopped at Osho, not produced me, you & we all, so learn from Osho, learn from every where but be original, not copies, not of Osho, not of any one else.
A copy is a copy. Never Original. Be a fool but original Fool, not a Genius Copy. Me Lord & My Lady, that is all I wanna say in this regards.
Osho was wrong at many points. So many points.
But he had fire.
What happened after him?
His followers fought over copy right. Why? His books are great treasure. Life long Lottery. Everything he left is a treasure. His audio, his video, his ashram. So they fought with each other.
Many of disciples indulged in conducting some psychological kinda workshops. No issue, good field.
Osho, even being wrong so many times, donated a lot to this world. The world is never same.
"ओशो के साथ, अब आदमी मुक्त हो गया " ~ ख़ुशवंत सिंह
"Man has become free with Osho", Khushwant Singh.
But Khushwant Singh is wrong, he himself could not be free from being a Sikh.
He is great writer, I love him, but the whole life, he declared himself an agnostic but could not leave being a Sikh ever.
Though the fire is not fiery, not vividly visible right now, but it is somewhere there in this world still. Underground but it is there, it is here.
THE WORLD IS NEVER SAME AFTER OSHO.
Osho's contribution to the world is great. Many of his ideas are really considerable & worth trying. He touched numerous fields of life and shed his light. His stories, his similes, his words and the meaning in those words, all great. Mediation is not something new but he renewed it. He laid a great emphasis on Meditation. He also devised some new techniques of meditations. He taught this world how to reason and how celebrate and how to meditate. His contribution is incalculable.
This article of mine is a collection previously published posts. Well discussed. Marathon discussions. Osho disciples and Osho lovers fought with tooth and nail. Presented various reasons. Declared me irrational. The unfortunate thing which I noticed during those times, that they too have become blind followers. Followers of Osho. Like followers of any other Guru or cult or religion. That is really miserable. My whole stress is against that kinda following. In fact following itself is wrong.
My opposition of Osho on various points must not be considered that I am against him. No, I am not. He might be wrong at many points. But he was also right at most of the points. This article is my tribute to him. Love him. Respect him.Salute him.THE WORLD IS NEVER SAME.
(22) ओशो प्रेमी ध्यान दें-----विलास तुपे नाम के एक कट्टर हिन्दू ने 22/5/1980 को पूना में प्रवचन के बीच में ज़हर बुझी कतार फेंक कर ओशो की गर्दन की सीध में मारा था लेकिन जाती कटार ने एक दम टर्न ली और फर्श से जा टकराई.
मैंने पढ़ा था यह सब बहुत पहले, लेकिन फिर स्वामी अगेहानन्द जी से कन्फर्म किया
और मुझे तो यह भी पता है कि ओशो कभी भी आरएसएस के समर्थन में नहीं थे, लेकिन अभी सन्दर्भ न दे पाऊँगा मित्रो, उसके लिए माफ़ी....
(23) ओशो आश्रम का एड्स टेस्ट, एक छलावा ???
मुझे पूरी शंका है कि वो टेस्ट जो भी लिया जाता था , वो सही रिजल्ट बिलकुल नहीं देता होगा, चूँकि एड्स टेस्ट के लिए दो टेस्ट लिए जाते हैं, पहला टेस्ट अगर नेगेटिव भी हो तो भी व्यक्ति संक्रमित हो सकता है और दुसरे को संक्रमित कर सकता है, एसा इसलिए क्योंकि वो संक्रमित है लेकिन उसके शरीर में वायरस इतना फैला नहीं कि टेस्ट की पकड़ में आ पाए, ओशो आश्रम में कोई दो दो एड्स टेस्ट होते थे कि लोग पहले एक बार टेस्ट करा के आते थे फिर कोई तीन चार हफ्ते बाद दुबारा ओशो आश्रम जाते थे और अगर टेस्ट नेगेटिव आये तो ओशो आश्रम में प्रविष्ट हो पाते थे , यदि एसा नहीं था तो फिर एड्स टेस्ट का क्या मतलब, ओशो खरे उतरते नहीं लगते इस मामले में.
(24) ऐसा नहीं है कि मैं खतरनाक हूँ......................सत्य ही खतरनाक है ---ओशो
ऐसा नहीं कि मैं खतरनाक नहीं हूँ, सत्य यह है कि मैं हूँ ही खतरनाक, जहाँ मेरी नाक गयी खतरा पैदा हो ही जाता है---तुषार कोस्मीक
(25) ओशो कितना सही आयें फिर से देखें------
ओशो कहते हैं "तुम कोई छोटा सा भी काम करते हो --- ज़रा दो चार शब्दों को सुव्यवस्थित ढंग से जोड़ लेते हो , तो सोचने लगते हो कि यह तो कविता हो गयी --- और फिर तुम गर्व से सिर उठाकर चलने लगते हो , और तुम पागल हो जाते हो | और तुम दावा करने लगते हो कि तुमने किसी महान कविता की रचना की |
ध्यान रहे दावा वही लोग करते है , जिनमे कोई योग्यता या पात्रता नहीं होती है | जिसमे योग्यता या पात्रता होती है , वह कभी दावा नहीं करते है | वे तो विनम्र हो जाते है , वे जानते है कि उनका अपना तो कुछ भी नहीं है वे तो केवल माध्यम ही है"
अब बात यह है कि ओशो की किताबें छपा करतीं थीं, रेबेल प्रकाशन से, यह उनका अपना प्रकाशन था पुणे से, और शुरू से ही, ओशो के समय से ही, हर किताब कॉपी राईट थी.
और आज भी ओशो की हर किताब कॉपी राईट होती है.
ओशो तो मात्र माध्यम थे, वे तो बहुत विनम्र थे, फिर कॉपी राईट का दावा कैसा?
(26) क्या ज़रूरी है कि व्यक्ति जो कल तक ठीक मानता हो वो आज भो वैसा ही माने?
ओशो तो हर रोज़ अपनी ही बातें काट देते थे, पिछली भी सही और अगली भी सही
कम से कम हमें अपनी पिछली बात को तो नकारना चाहिए अगर हम उसे ठीक नहीं मानते
(27) ओशो की कई बातें जो मुझे मान्य नहीं उनमें से एक ये भी है कि हरेक स्त्री को माँ कहा जाए,
मेरी समझ में बीवी को, गर्ल फ्रेंड को, मां कहना हास्यास्पद है,
मां वो हैं, होंगी, हो सकती हैं,
लेकिन हर स्त्री को मां का संबोधन....,
कोई तुक नहीं
(28) ओशो मेरी दृष्टि में---
ओशो का अपने प्रेमियों को सन्यास देना एक तरह की गुलामी है ......यह माला डालना ऐसे ही है जैसे कुत्ते के गले में पट्टा डालना, यह एक ही डिज़ाइन के, एक ही रंग के कपड़े पहनाना, ख़ास तरह की नाम देना ही इस बात का प्रतीक है कि आपकी मल्कियत पर किसी और की छाप डाली जा रही है .....यह सन्यास देना ही इस बात का प्रतीक है कि अब आप उसी तरह से एक व्यक्ति से बंध रहे हैं जैसे इसाई जीसस से बंधे हैं, मुस्लिम मुह्मद से ........अब लाख कोई आपको तर्क दे ...आप समझ ही नहीं पायेंगे अपने इन गुरु जी के खिलाफ कुछ.....यह अपने आप में अंधभक्ति है
एक मित्र ने कहा "ओशो ने कभी नहीं कहा कि उनकी बातों को मानो, उन्होंने सोचने विचारने का आग्रह किया है और कहा है कि ठीक लगे तो मानना वरना कोई जरूरत नहीं"
मेरा कहना है कि ओशो ये सब भी कहते रहे हैं...और वो सब भी जो व्यक्ति को मात्र किसी गुरु का गुलाम बना दे......ओशो वो सब भी कहते रहे हैं कि व्यक्ति सोचना छोड़ दे......
ओशो दर्शन जो शुरू में एक जीवन दृष्टि देता लगता है, वो अंत तक आता आता खुद ही उलझ जाता है.
अंतर्विरोधी वक्तव्यों की श्लाघा करने वाला व्यक्ति वास्तव में अपने दोनों हाथों में लड्डू रखना चाहता है, चित भी उसकी पट्ट भी उसकी, दंगल में दोनों तरफ के पहलवान उसके, उस पर तुर्रा ये कि कहते फिरना, वो भी कोई खेलना है जिसमें एक ही तरफ से खेला जाए, ऐसे तो मात्र अनाड़ी खेलतें हैं, असली खिलाड़ी वो है जो दोनों तरफ से.....नहीं, नहीं, सब तरफ से खेलता है।
अपनी समझ से बाहर है ऐसा खेल , आपको समझा आता हो तो अवश्य खेलें, और खेलने का कारण भी अवश्य बताईयेगा .
हम सब जीवन जीते हैं, जीवन के विभिन्न रंग हैं, विभिन्न पहलु हैं...लेकिन जब भी आप किसी मुद्दे पर बोलते हैं तो अपना नजरिया, अपनी सोच, अपना पक्ष बताते हैं.......अच्छी बात है, आप ठीक भी हो सकते हैं..गलत भी.....गहरे भी हो सकते हैं...उथले भी....आपका कहा सबके फायदे में हो सकता है और नुक्सान में भी...........चलिए, अब आप आगे जीवन जीते हैं...फिर कभी आपको पता लगता है कि उन मुद्दों पे आपके पहले वाले विचार गलत हैं...अब आप फिर से नए विचारों को रखेंगें ...अपने पुराने विचारों का खंडन करेंगें...यह है परिवर्तनशीलता.....यह है बदलने के ढंग...न कि ओशो कि तरह मैं गलत तो भी ठीक और मैं ठीक तो भी ठीक
एक उदाहरण लेते हैं.......आप सुबह के सूर्य स्नान को स्वास्थ्यकर मानते हैं......प्रेम करते हैं, प्रशंसा भी करते हैं.....लेकिन मान लीजिये कि फिर आप को पता लगता है कि सूर्य की सुबह की किरणें किसी खतरनाक बीमारी का कारण बनती हैं.....क्या आप फिर भी अपने पहले वाले स्टैंड पर कायम रहेंगे...नहीं....स्वाभाविक यह है कि आप अपनी नयी खोज के मुताबिक जीवन को मोड़ लेंगें और यदि इमानदार हैं...सबका शुभ चाहते हैं तो वैसा ही सबको मार्गदर्शन भी देंगें....
दोनों तरह के स्टैंड लिए चलना कतई ठीक नहीं.
चित्त पट दोनों नहीं चल सकते, भाई साब..
आप या कोई भी.....दिन, रात, संध्या की बात कर सकता है, कोई दिक्कत नहीं...
दिक्कत वहां है जब कोई दिन को रात कहने लगे और फिर संध्या भी
और फिर अपने सब कथनों को सही भी ठहराए
यहीं ओशो गड्ड मड्ड कर जाते हैं, वो न सिर्फ परस्पर विरोधी बातें करते हैं बल्कि ऐसा करने को सही सिद्ध करने के लिए ऐसी बातों के इर्द गिर्द एक फलसफा भी खड़ा करते है...
ओशो ने इस दुनिया को वो दिया है जो आज तक बहुत कम व्यक्तियों ने दिया होगा...बहुत बुद्धिशाली हैं वो....बहुत ...गहन ......लेकिन बहुत गलतियाँ करते भी दीखते हैं...दिक्कत यह है कि हम लोग सीधा सीधा देखना चाहते हैं.....यदि किसी को स्वीकार कर लेते हैं तो फ़िर उसकी कमियां, गलतियाँ कोई दिखाए तो वो हमें स्वीकार्य नहीं.....कमियां, गलतियाँ दिखाने वाला हमें दुश्मन प्रतीत होता है
और ओशो का विरोध या समर्थन या किसी भी और व्यक्ति का विरोध या समर्थन मैं मात्र एक ही वजह से करता हूँ कि वो किसी ख़ास मुद्दे पर कितना तर्कपूर्ण है, कितना काम का है इस कायनात के...और कोई कसौटी नहीं है मेरी..
सबको सादर नमन
TUSHAR COSMIC.
No comments:
Post a Comment