To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/03/23 05:49
Subject: Re: [K-list]Osho.. and the application of criticism
From: Danijel Turina
On 2000/03/23 05:49, Danijel Turina posted thus to the K-list:
From: Danijel Turina <dturinaATnospamiskon.hr>
At 00:36 2000.03.23 -0800, you wrote:
>From: Mystress Angelique Serpent <serpentATnospamdomin8rex.com>
> Yes, Danijel, I attacked you, and I still attack you, at every
>opportunity, only gentler....
:) You say that like it's a good thing, to attack me. To interpret
everything I say from a superior perspective - "been there, done that"...
if it pleases you, you can go on with that forever, but somehow I see it as
a bloody waste of time.
>Only yesterday I attacked you in a post subject :"Gentle violence", and
>you gave me back 7k of defensive arguments telling me I'm wrong, and 6
>words of how I might be right. LOL!! I love you because you make me laugh!
Well, I had no other options, since you were wrong in everything except the
fact that I overworked myself and that I need a vacation badly, and that I
might be forcing the flowers open, metaphorically speaking. But I'm long
past the phase when I tried to prove you wrong all the time. I accepted the
fact that you will never understand me, and when I did that, I lost the
need to persuade you and explain things.
> Right now I'm in the middle of writing you a gently violent attack for
your
>negative opinions of Osho. I interrupted writing to pick up the mail, and
here
>you are!! So I guess I'm meant to post my opinions of Osho, instead. :)
Sure, be my guest.
> I attack you, because I love you. I attacked El and Christopher last
>week,
>too.. with gentle violence... because I love them utterly. They are
>radiant, in
>their human beauty. I'm half German, ya know, it is how we show love. :)
Did you consider the fact that your attacks might be simply your
unwillingness to change perspective - an internal duel of yours, where you
confront two sides of yourself, and project the roles of advocatus dei and
advocatus diaboli into the external conversation? Sometimes, this attack
technique of yours proves to be effective - it moderates the list well,
that's for sure, flaming the spammers and non-snippers is a good exercise
before breakfast. But when you accuse me of things that are obviously
untrue it makes me wonder, you know? Do you know your limits, do you know
when to stop? When the criticism becomes harmful, counterprouctive, misused
and simply hurts everybody without any real reason?
I have seen many situations where you made obvious projections - you didn't
talk to the real people, but to your images of them, and then you could get
extremely violent, because you were dealing with the images that you hated
bitterly. I took at least a dozen of such projections from you, so I have a
pretty good idea about them. They hurt badly, because they are not pointed
at the real me, the real me is not seen. I really would like someone to
criticise _me_, that would help me to learn about my stupidity and weak
spots, but when someone projects me with their shit, and does it with a
spiritually-enlightened-self-righteous way, my reaction is disgust, and
then I either flame or leave. I'm developing another reaction; resignation.
I shrug and don't give a shit.
> I don't bow to yours, because you are so very attached to wanting me to,
>and that makes you unworthy. LOL!!
Yes, I see the image of me that you have and talk to, and it is unworthy;
please, take a snipper and chew its head off or something, it's useless
anyway.
> It is also that I like to reflect people's judgments back at them as
>opposition, no matter *what* the opinions are, really, so together we can
>melt
>them down into a middle path, and merge polarities to make the unity of the
>Tao.
The truth must be somewhere in between, eh? Sometimes it is. Sometimes it's
even beyond one extreme, or another. "The truth in between" is not tao, it
is mostly just mediocricy and a compromise with a lie.
> I also love Tony the silly pompous doofus bonehead ex-Sai Baba devotee,
>and
>it was he who started this Sai Baba thread, that I ended up calling an end to
>because there was not enough opposition to be a discussion, it was all
>bandwagon-jumping on someone who was not present, to defend himself.
I would really like Sai Baba to be present here and be able to speak for
himself. Then I would flame his ass off.
> Anyhow, here are my thoughts on Osho.. who I am passionately in love with,
>even more now than I was before, simply because you don't like him. :)
I really don't like him. He gives me cold shivers of extremely bad news.
Embodied darkness.
><Danijel's "holier than thou" comments about his struggling poverty being
>morally superior to Osho's Rolls Royces left private... well, snipped, at
>least..:> >
>
> You think that's "better"? LOL!! :)
No, all of that is not my problem. I don't have a problem with having
money, I have a problem with quasi-spiritual manipulation based on sexual
and financial abuse, which is what Osho is all about. My ideals are Jesus,
Babaji and Vivekananda. It is a blasphemy that I even mentioned their holy
names in the same paragraph with Osho.
> You can have Babaji, with his "I don't give a shit it's all Maya
>attitude"..
You will understand Babaji a week after you understand me.
> I love Osho. He *cared* about people. He loved them.
I never thought od Osho in terms of a "spiritual personality". He is not in
that category, not for me, at all.
> Lots of Gurus of the East insist on owning their students stuff,
because if
>they cannot give up attachment to the material, then they haven't a hope, of
>enlightenment, anyhow. Like that Jesus thing about a rich man being as
>unlikely
>to get to heaven as a camel passing thru the eye of a needle. The difference,
>is whether they are attached to the wealth.
>
> I used to have a lot of judgments about Rajneesh, too, when I was in
>scarcity consciouness, I thought the cars were a terrible terrible thing, and
>if he was really "spiritual" he should give the money to the poor. Made me
>cranky!
No, my judgment, you can call it that, is not about "giving to the poor",
no; he should have allowed the students to keep their money, but he should
also have helped them to break their inner attachment to the physical
reality, to the entire mamata-ahamkara consciousness, of "me-mine"; that is
a worthy goal. What he did is merely a trivial act of someone who _tried_
to overcome the property, but didn't manage to go far enough. As it says in
many places, it's not about renouncing the world, it's about being in the
world but not of the world. Rajinish was of the world, he didn't break the
playing board, he just meddled with the figures.
> That's why I'm headed to Poona in summer, to the Osho meditation
>retreat, to get inspiration for the Mansion project. Because Osho is
>brilliant, and beautiful. The more of his stuff I read, the more I love him.
As I said, I'll wait for you to come back and tell me about it. :)
-----
Homepage: http://danijel.cjb.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/937/3/_/680797/_/953815672/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER!
Home | Archive Index | Search the archives | Subscribe
K. List FAQ | Kundalini FAQs | Signs and Symptoms | Awakening Experiences | K. list Polls | Member Essays | Meditations | List Topics | Art Gallery | Cybrary | Sitemap | Email the moderators.
symbol.