To: K-list
Recieved: 2000/03/28 04:56
Subject: Re: [K-list] Some points on Osho and stuff. (long...)
From: Robert Weil
On 2000/03/28 04:56, Robert Weil posted thus to the K-list:
From: Robert Weil <Robert_WeilATnospamscientia.com>
At 10:57 27/03/00 -0800, you wrote:
>From: Tony O'Clery <aocleryATnospamyahoo.com>
>
>Namaste All, Rob, Angelique et al,
Hello Tony, thanks for the reply,
Seems I've entered another long post. 'Scuse I. :)
>Rob:>Indulgence and avoidance both
>entail
>attachment, which is counterproductive to
>liberation... He encourages
>ppl
>to not fear nor obsess about their desires, but
>witness them in action
>and
>LEARN.<
>
>Tony ans: I see nothing contradictory in what I said,
>I agree with the statement of Osho,
OK. We have some area of agreement. However, you didn't state that in your
previous post. :)
> >"....you can be free of any desire only if you have
> >lived it
> >completely, entirely.
> >
> >If something has remained unlived it is going to
> haunt
> >you" Osho.
You did quote him, but you gave no credence to this statement in the post,
implying that the statement was part of the "fraud". You then continued:
> >
> >Osho was given to putting fires out by throwing
> >gasoline on them also.
Here you make a strong claim but do not substantiate it, and so it appears
that the above quote statement was the gasoline.
He was a well educated fraud
> >who understood tantra very well, but knew most
> >westerners would misread it as sex. Unfortunately
> he
> >was too weak and attached to his ego to hold up the
> >truth.
You here claim he deliberately let his followers misread his words. Proof,
please... (and I really don't want other's opinions.) You do not state in
what way he did not "hold up the truth". (I believe that he did encourage
westerners to loosen up emotionally and physically a bit, through active
meditations, does anyone have any info on this?)
The implication therefore appears to be that his earlier statement was a
deliberate attempt to mislead his followers. I see no such thing in the
statement, and that is why I wrote my reply. There wasn't any proof in your
assertions of fraud, which, given how strong an accusation that is, is a
wee bit inflammatory... (surprise, surprise...) :)
> >
> >Just another fraud guru, that's all.
So easily dismissed. I have found many words of wisdom in his teaching, and
am grateful for them, although I use my discrimination to discern what
makes sense in my heart. I have read deeper words than his, imo. I would
not blindly follow this man, or any other. I've learned that lesson, it
took two years of desperation. I guess anyone who follows a guru without
question can at best only become the mirror of what they understand the
guru to be. Ultimate freedom requires going beyond the guru that we
perceive. imo.
The issue of whether *any* guru is "perfect" is moot. In the end, I believe
that any flesh and blood will end, decay, be limited by time and space. If
Jesus was as perfect as you claim, then his followers are to blame for the
corruption and pain caused by their allegeance to their limited understanding.
However, I might play devil's advocate and say that his perfection was
fraud because his followers were allowed to misunderstand his teachings,
and caused much pain over centuries. Could he not have foreseen the effect
on his followers?
If he was perfect, then he is absolutely responsible for all subsequent
events related to his message, and hence guilty of being a false messiah -
he allowed them to misunderstand and corrupt the teachings. Therefore he's
not perfect, but if he's not, then how can he be to blame for his
followers' actions? etc.. :)
To me, it seems that many ppl expect a guru to be perfect, and yet I don't
know of one who I would categorise like that. Perhaps some ppl do, but I am
not losing sleep over it. I lose sleep over my own imperfections.
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!
Have you ever been in a moral dilemma? Straight question, because I cannot
judge Osho because I cannot see inside his heart. His actions may seem
hypocritical to me, but I know from my experience that morality is a
relative phenomenon, and thus is subject to paradox. For example, when does
killing a creature become self-preservation, as in being attacked by a
bear, and is that allowable, or should one die to avoid the karma of
killing the beast? Should one take its karma by killing it, thereby giving
it a chance to gain "good" karma from one's "bad"?
The circle of karma seems to me to contain a huge irony. At some point, our
neat straight lines of perfection get twirled around into their opposite
directions. We realise that in some way, somewhere, we are all hypocrites,
as long as we claim to be perfectly anything, or demand it of others. I
don't know what the entrance requirements for joining the guru club are,
but I bet it involves a hefty dose of self-publicity or at least a strong
belief that you are right. Right away that guru can't claim humility or
detachment, therefore. Which puts them in an awkward situation vis a vis
getting "the message" across. Easier for the simpler,
dualistically-inclined belief systems, I guess, but trickier if you aim to
unite the many into the One. Plus you need to be absolutely right in a
relative universe: Veerry tricky! :)
I do not know whether Osho's deeds accord with his words. I can only see
the actions of those I interact with, and even then imperfectly. My
limitations obscure other's intentions. My knowledge is constantly in
process. I expect he had similar difficulties, but I am prepared to listen
and learn off him gratefully, not believe blindly in him. I would encourage
ppl who ask me whether this or that person is the Risen One to do the same,
but I'm not them...
>
>Desire and aversion are the same thing,
That is what Osho claims too. You are in agreement with him there.
'rising above'
>as I wrote is 'witnessing' and de-energising the
>samskaric tendencies
>
Actually, I disagree here. Witnessing is a point of stasis. One is centred,
has no need to go anywhere, prove anything, alter anything. "Rising above"
is a relative thing, implying movement in a direction toward and away. It
involves the desire to carry it out. It is not the witness, though it may
be a decision reached within the witness state. However, being in a witness
state does not automatically require one to rise, fall or worry about it. I
have found that being in a witness state, my transcending of something I
perceive as unnecessary is done without needing a sense of "rising" or
overcoming. It falls away. I can move freely, because the attachement has
become unimportant.
The personality continues its programming, and that is the struggle.
However, I know in myself that I am already that which I think I "need" to
be. So I don't demand liberation from a guru, I am grateful for whatever
leads me toward my own truth. That can include being apparently ripped off,
irritated and hurt (though it's hard to get to that realisation).
>snip
>Also addictions and desires are just different
>intensities of the same tendency. An addiction is a
>strongly reinforced desire, through repeated
>indulgence, until the samskara/becomes deeply embedded
>in the sheaths or kosas. As does an instinct. Until
>the person may loath the desire but the samskaras rule
>and he is in a predicament.
Yes, I agree, and lessons will become more strong to reflect the imbalance.
Until perhaps the need for "lessons" becomes illusury too..?
>
> 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.
OK. As does the attachment to wanting to "rise above". In my experience,
fighting a tendency only empowers it, because it is you. It falls away when
it becomes less important. Crusading doesn't free one, but forgiveness and
growth does seem to help. At least, that is my experience.
In this way, our nature is integrated, not split. Hypnotherapy clients
often asked me to *remove* something that they didn't want to be, and yet
they were the thing they didn't want to be too, and all the rejection in
the world would not cut away their need to integrate in a non-judgemental
way. Healing was what was wanted, not judgement. I have found the "if thine
eye offend thee, pluck it out" method of growth to be a disaster.
Cheers, Tony, top o' the mornin' to you,
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/2122/3/_/680797/_/954244614/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.