To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/03/27 12:21
Subject: Re: [K-list] Some points on Osho and stuff.
From: Kathy Bates
On 2000/03/27 12:21, Kathy Bates posted thus to the K-list:
From: Kathy Bates <lunaATnospammaskmakers.com>
Tony O'Clery wrote:
> Tony ans: I see nothing contradictory in what I said,
> I agree with the statement of Osho, but the proof of
> the pudding is in the eating. He let his devotees
> misunderstand by their actions. That is not being
> true unto himself. Hypocrisy if you will. Being a
> fraud to oneself!
Are you saying here that he let his devotees do as they will, to come to
their own conclusion? How is this hypocrisy and how does this mean he is
not being true unto himself, as you write? (I'm asking, not criticizing,
because I don't know if I'm understanding your words as they are meant)
...don't misunderstand me, I'm not of the opinion that anyone in
particular is a guru, I just see you on an apparent "crusade" to point
out fraud, which to me seems rather pointless. <pun intended>
> Desire and aversion are the same thing, 'rising above'
> as I wrote is 'witnessing' and de-energising the
> samskaric tendencies
I still am getting a rather "arid" impression, that in order to be a
true guru or truly enlightened one has to be beyond human...which in my
own opinion/experience is rather impossible, unless one has a very low
opinion of what human is, in which case you can set up your definition
and "rise above it" <in illusion>
...and to be truly enlightened (IMO/E) one has to understand "both
sides" ...(hard to describe something that does not really have
dualistic sense...) I guess what I'm getting here is that there is a
deep dualism in your view of the guru/enlightenment/etcetera that must
be "overcome" or "risen above"...
Is that what you are saying?
> Love/God is an energy, much of what humans call love
> is really, in the main, attachment. A desire to follow
> one's bliss as Campbell said is a different thing. He
> was talking of surrender not indulgence. All these
> things can be done without attachment to the results,
> even the illusory Goddess has to be risen above and
> left behind.
I think it depends on the "kind" of love you are referring to...I
suppose what you're trying to describe here is that unconditional love,
i.e. love without attachment...perhaps? And what illusory Goddess are
you talking about here?
See, you've tweaked something again. Perhaps it is because I perceive
your words to be rather vague...they *seem* to be saying one thing, but
I do not know if what I am reading is what you are writing.
Namaste
Kath, not feeling clever but certainly full of questions!
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Luna & Solara Designs
http://www.maskmakers.com
Masks and Pretty Things, Woohoo!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/937/3/_/680797/_/954184904/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.