sirbiotech
03-14-2002, 02:24 PM
5) dw: ?(osho) was actually banished from the us.
jason: actually, the government wanted him out. under the guise of
the ins of course. keep in mind the recent revelation that 2 of the 9-
11 highjackers were approved for visas..the point being..the
government made a conscious decision to go after osho. what did they
have to fear? well if you know what osho says about politicians and
his ability to transform people through his words, you begin to get
an idea of why he was perceived as such a threat. what they did to
that man was disgusting, the way they arrested him to the multiple
prison transfers, to the trial itself. see the link at bottom for
further details, i will put a bit of the situation here to clarify
matters. this is also information you can further review at the link
at the end of my post:
on 27 october 1985, osho leaves the ranch by plane. at 1:30am on 28
october, the plane stops to refuel in charlotte nc, where osho and
his attendants are held up at gunpoint, chained, and incarcerated in
mecklenburg county jail--without a warrant. photos of osho in
handcuffs and chains make world-wide news, and nationwide tv coverage.
*note: since no signed arrest warrant ever existed; the entire
process is criminal, see a passage to america by max brecher (book
quest 1993)
on 31st october, a bail hearing is held for osho, charged with
arranging 16 sham marriages, and lying to the ins
osho: "i wondered that america is thought to be a democracy, and
here people are being arrested without any arrest warrant from any
court, without any reason or rhyme."
on 8 november, after his release on bail, osho flies to
rajneeshpuram. he rested quietly at home until 14 november, when he
attends the portland court. his attorneys have arranged an alford
plea. osho is fined $400,000, and ordered to leave the us immediately.
osho: "because they had no evidence against me--i have not
committed any crime--they blackmailed my attorneys, the best in
america. the united states attorneys told my attorneys, "if you are
interested in bhagwan's life, it is better not to go for trial,
because you know and we know that he has not committed anything, that
all thirty-four charges are false. but in no case will the government
of america be willing to be defeated in the court by a single
individual."
they had named the case united states of america versus bhagwan shree
rajneesh. now the greatest nation in the world, the greatest power in
history, naturally would not like to be defeated in the court by a
powerless individual.
my attorneys came to me with tears in their eyes. they said, "we are
here to protect you, but it seems impossible. we cannot take the risk
to go for trial, because we have been told very directly that your
life is at risk. so we have agreed on your behalf to accept two
nominal charges, just to give the american government a face-saving
device, so that they can fine you and deport you."
this was just ten minutes before the court was to start, and in the
federal court, judge leavy asked me just about those two charges that
had been chosen by my attorneys to be accepted because they were just
formalities. it was strange that out of thirty-four charges, judge
leavy immediately asked me only about those two: "are you guilty of
those two crimes or not?" it is clear that judge leavy was also part
of the whole conspiracy.
but i am a crazy man of my own type. i simply said, "i am." and my
attorney, jack ransom immediately added--he was standing by my side--
"guilty." so on the court record it has become the full sentence, "i
am guilty." i have not said that at all. i would rather be crucified
than to accept a false charge.
outside of the court jack ransom told me, "you created such a strange
situation. it is good that judge leavy has not taken note of it."
judge levy immediately pronounced his judgment. that too is a strange
thing. the judgment has to be written after my acceptance or denial,
but the judgment was ready-made. it was there on the table, he simply
read it out. perhaps the judgment was not even written by him.
perhaps it was just given to him.
the judgment was that i was to be fined four hundred thousand
dollars. my attorneys were shocked; they could not believe that for
those two formal charges, which are false, more than half a crore
rupees are fined; deportation from america, for five years no entry,
and if i should enter then ten years suspended jail sentence would
have to be served. and i was told that i had to take my clothes from
the jail immediately and my plane is waiting at the airport. i have
to leave american immediately, so that i cannot appeal in a higher
court....
another one of my attorneys--bob mccrea, a beautiful man with some
understanding of what was happening--told vivek, my caretaker, after
my last appearance in court, "it seems and feels to me that they have
done it again. they have crucified jesus again. i'm sorry and i feel
so helpless."...
it is certainly of tremendous importance that even after twenty
centuries a man like jesus will be crucified by christians
themselves. it was a conspiracy of the fundamentalist christians of
america and ronald reagan.
jason: there is also the possibility that while in custody, being
transferred from one jail to another, that the us government may have
poisoned osho in some way, which was responsible for his early death.
i won't get into this but there is information out there is
anyone is interested enough to bother looking into it. just thought
i'd add that in as a last thought on his "banishment" as
you called
it.
6) dw: after this debacle, of which i only know what scott told me
the debacle was on the part of the united states government. and
thank you for pointing out that everything you have said is based on
heresay, what someone else (scott) has told you. this actually is
good though. it points out how even you and scott can misrepresent
events and people, aware of it or not. i only wish you took the care
in characterizing osho as you would appreciate someone else would do
in talking about you, if you were not in physical form to defend
yourself. a superficial look at anything yields distorted results.
7) dw:?he changed his name to osho and continued his work
overseas.
jason: he continued his work overseas for 5 years under his name
bhagwan rajneesh. the way you state it, implies he changed his name
after being "banished" from the us, as a form of evasion of
some kind. not true. "deported" from us in 1985?name
change
occurred in 1989:
on 27 february 1989, the disciples of rajneesh collectively decided
to call him osho. osho is a term derived from ancient japanese, and
was first used by eka, to address his master, bodhidharma. `osho'
means "with great respect, love and gratitude" as well
as "synchronicity" and "harmony." `sho' means "multidimensional
expansion of consciousness" and "existence showering from all
directions."
8) dw: the goings-on of his followers were legendary in esoteric
gossip circles, and it is very clear that they in no way were
repressing or overcoming their desires, including those most base.
jason: "it is very clear" to whom? everything you have said
is based on a conversation with scott, who is obviously not clear on
the facts of osho or his life situations.
he provided them a safe forum, under the eye of an enlightened
consciousness, to go into those sexual experiences and transcend them
through transformation of the sexual energies. the implication that
there were daily orgies that so many "gossip" about is
another misrepresentation of what was actually occurring. this
gossiping of what people think really went on at osho's commune
is
done by those who were not there or have not studied his work
sufficiently.
osho: i have been telling you, "from sex to superconsciousness," and
you have been very happy--you only hear "from sex," you don't
hear "to superconsciousness."
my effort here is to make this commune sexually free. and when i say
sexually free, it has two meanings. in the beginning, people will be
easily available to each other, and in the end the very availability
will make their minds transcend sex. and that is happening every day.
hundreds of sannyasins write to me, "what has happened? when we came,
we were so full of sex, and now all that has disappeared. there seems
to be no desire for it. even if we are interested in somebody, it is
more like friendship than any sexual relationship. we love to be
together, but there is no need to jump into bed immediately."
in fact, there are many sannyasins writing to me that sex has so
completely disappeared, that for months or for years they have been
celibate. go and ask a catholic monk or a hindu sannyasin: they are
trying to be celibate, and their minds are full of sex. we are not
trying to be celibate here, but celibacy is happening.
whatsoever is easily available, automatically becomes uninteresting.
in the west many people are turning towards homosexuality,
lesbianism, for the simple reason that a man seems for another man to
be a faraway goal because he is so unnatural; a woman, for a woman,
seems to be a faraway goal, it seems so unnatural. a man and woman
relationship is natural. so people are turning into homosexuals,
lesbians. the reason is that when you make anything difficult,
condemn it, repress it, it will become more and more attractive.
in my commune nothing is repressed, hence everything, by and by,
loses its attraction. one becomes more and more calm and quiet and
settled.
many people become puzzled...just a few nights ago, a couple came to
me and the husband was very much puzzled. he said, "what is happening
to us? we are no more husband and wife--all sex has disappeared, but
still we feel a deep intimacy." and i told them, "something immensely
valuable is happening. you are becoming brother and sister. your love
is taking on a new dimension, a higher one--that of nonsexuality. it
is becoming purer."
hearing it, immediately everything became clear to them. they hugged
each other, tears started flowing from their eyes. it was a beautiful
scene to see--they understood it. yes, it clicked. yes, that's what
is happening. they were worried because they came from the west--the
east has always known it: that if love deepens it transforms the
relationship; husbands and wives become brothers and sisters. and
ultimately a moment comes when not even brothers and sisters...a kind
of oneness arises, they become one.
just the other day somebody had asked a question. he said that he has
seen the most beautiful women around here that he has ever seen
anywhere else, but they are non-erotic.
why is it so? it is so, his observation is right. if you meditate
deeply you will become non-erotic. you will have a different kind of
beauty, but it will not be erotic. it will start having the flavor of
spirituality. it will start having the subtleness of grace, not the
grossness of sexuality.
sex is gross because it is the lowest rung of your ladder. as
energies move upwards a totally different kind of beauty and grace
arises in you, which is divine. you become less and less of the body
and more and more of the spirit.
margot: from and online article, about a student of osho's and
how he impacted her views on sexuality:
margot, with her best selling books, the art of sexual ecstasy and
the art of sexual magic, was a pioneer in bringing tantric practices
to the west. since she began teaching in the 1970s, hundreds of
books, workshops and videos on tantra have sprung up in the usa.
margot has led workshops at the osho commune in pune also. in the art
of sexual ecstasy, she describes the pinnacle of tantric practice as
the "orgasm of the brain". this experience, she writes, "creates a
bridge between the left and right hemispheres, fusing the intellect
of the left hemisphere with the intuitive faculties of the right. it
is this fusion that creates the experience of ecstasy, in which body,
mind, heart and spirit all participate." and in the art of sexual
magic, she writes: "in deep sexual embrace, the mind stops. quite
literally, you "**** your brains out." your consciousness becomes
clear, innocent, fresh." as a guide to attaining these ecstatic
states, anand provides an extensive (and explicit) manual of exotic
sexual practices.
margot has coined the term high sex, which she defines thus: "high
sex takes the experience of orgasm to a new dimension-a dimension in
which genital orgasm is only the beginning. it inspires you to
explore the full capacity of orgasm. culminating in ecstatic body-to-
body and soul-to-soul communion. it is an experience to the whole
body, the whole being."
all credit goes to margot's master, osho, for bringing the sex-vs.-
spirituality controversy center stage in our time with his runaway
book from sex to superconsciousness. he propounded the view that
orgasm is a mini and temporary samadhi. it can transport you to a
state of rapture. the mind becomes devoid of thought, the egocentric
view of life disappears and we step outside of time into the timeless
a 'now' of bliss. very much like samadhi or pure consciousness. this
line of thinking was so revolutionary for his time tat he attracted a
lot of flak and notoriety.
the fundamental view pervading the contemporary spiritual scene seems
to be that sex, long seen as the enemy of the spirit, is actually its
ally, or can be made to act like one. this sex-positive spiritual
view holds that to truly become whole, we must liberate our sexuality
from the chains of guilt, shame and repression, and allow it to find
full expression as a natural, healthy and even sacred part of life.
http://www.lifepositive.com/body/sexuality/sex-spirituality.asp
9) dw: that doesn't mean that his words are without meaning, but it
is important context to keep in mind before using his words to attack
ra as service-to-self.
jason: i never attacked ra as being service to self (i might have in
the first post, but realized i was being too extreme, which is why
the second post was much softer in my approach, even tho the second
post appeared on egroups first). i said it could be interpreted that
his teachings could appear that way. if you don't provide the key
to transcendence of desires in totality, but give a path for working
through them as if that is productive, without addressing the root,
my opinion is that is a 3-d teaching, but not what i would expect
from ra. it's the perception that by working through the mind one
progresses to what you refer to as 7-d. why not teach how to just go
beyond mind, and in that one realizes one is already there.
that's all. they appear to lack the ability to explain a faster
route
to going beyond desires, going beyond mind. this stuck me as a
curious thing.
i guess i find the direct approach, based on schools such as advaita,
krishnamurti, etc, as the most effective and enlightened teachings.
many others which claim to teach one how to become enlightened, seem
to me, to be just continuing on the path of mind games, not
addressing the fundamental problem of mind itself. in any case,
it's just how i feel about ra's teachings. obviously this is
all up
for debate, as to how each of us interprets ra's words.
a thorough detailed biography of osho can be found here. of course,
i'm sure there are other sources as well. i have read the book
recently released "autobiography of a spiritually incorrect
mystic"
etc.
http://www.geocities.com/artiwari_1972/osho/00-main-menu.htm
remember?even the "shift" too?is but a dream. as osho
puts its so
beautifully?
"i'm not giving you another dream, remember. you hanker for it, you
would like me to give you another dream, but i am not going to give
you another dream. that's why to be with me is difficult and arduous -
because i am insisting that you wake up. enough is enough. you have
dreamed a lot; since eternity you have been dreaming. you have just
been changing dreams. when you get fed up with one dream, you start
changing it; you dream another dream. my whole effort is to shake
you, to shock you - to wake you."
osho
this to me are the words of a true master. in my gratitude for his
impact on my consciousness, i offered this "defence/rebuttal"
although i bet osho would have told me to just be silent. hope it was
okay to post this reponse, as it is sort of off-topic, but i felt
compelled to say something.
peace
--jason
jason: actually, the government wanted him out. under the guise of
the ins of course. keep in mind the recent revelation that 2 of the 9-
11 highjackers were approved for visas..the point being..the
government made a conscious decision to go after osho. what did they
have to fear? well if you know what osho says about politicians and
his ability to transform people through his words, you begin to get
an idea of why he was perceived as such a threat. what they did to
that man was disgusting, the way they arrested him to the multiple
prison transfers, to the trial itself. see the link at bottom for
further details, i will put a bit of the situation here to clarify
matters. this is also information you can further review at the link
at the end of my post:
on 27 october 1985, osho leaves the ranch by plane. at 1:30am on 28
october, the plane stops to refuel in charlotte nc, where osho and
his attendants are held up at gunpoint, chained, and incarcerated in
mecklenburg county jail--without a warrant. photos of osho in
handcuffs and chains make world-wide news, and nationwide tv coverage.
*note: since no signed arrest warrant ever existed; the entire
process is criminal, see a passage to america by max brecher (book
quest 1993)
on 31st october, a bail hearing is held for osho, charged with
arranging 16 sham marriages, and lying to the ins
osho: "i wondered that america is thought to be a democracy, and
here people are being arrested without any arrest warrant from any
court, without any reason or rhyme."
on 8 november, after his release on bail, osho flies to
rajneeshpuram. he rested quietly at home until 14 november, when he
attends the portland court. his attorneys have arranged an alford
plea. osho is fined $400,000, and ordered to leave the us immediately.
osho: "because they had no evidence against me--i have not
committed any crime--they blackmailed my attorneys, the best in
america. the united states attorneys told my attorneys, "if you are
interested in bhagwan's life, it is better not to go for trial,
because you know and we know that he has not committed anything, that
all thirty-four charges are false. but in no case will the government
of america be willing to be defeated in the court by a single
individual."
they had named the case united states of america versus bhagwan shree
rajneesh. now the greatest nation in the world, the greatest power in
history, naturally would not like to be defeated in the court by a
powerless individual.
my attorneys came to me with tears in their eyes. they said, "we are
here to protect you, but it seems impossible. we cannot take the risk
to go for trial, because we have been told very directly that your
life is at risk. so we have agreed on your behalf to accept two
nominal charges, just to give the american government a face-saving
device, so that they can fine you and deport you."
this was just ten minutes before the court was to start, and in the
federal court, judge leavy asked me just about those two charges that
had been chosen by my attorneys to be accepted because they were just
formalities. it was strange that out of thirty-four charges, judge
leavy immediately asked me only about those two: "are you guilty of
those two crimes or not?" it is clear that judge leavy was also part
of the whole conspiracy.
but i am a crazy man of my own type. i simply said, "i am." and my
attorney, jack ransom immediately added--he was standing by my side--
"guilty." so on the court record it has become the full sentence, "i
am guilty." i have not said that at all. i would rather be crucified
than to accept a false charge.
outside of the court jack ransom told me, "you created such a strange
situation. it is good that judge leavy has not taken note of it."
judge levy immediately pronounced his judgment. that too is a strange
thing. the judgment has to be written after my acceptance or denial,
but the judgment was ready-made. it was there on the table, he simply
read it out. perhaps the judgment was not even written by him.
perhaps it was just given to him.
the judgment was that i was to be fined four hundred thousand
dollars. my attorneys were shocked; they could not believe that for
those two formal charges, which are false, more than half a crore
rupees are fined; deportation from america, for five years no entry,
and if i should enter then ten years suspended jail sentence would
have to be served. and i was told that i had to take my clothes from
the jail immediately and my plane is waiting at the airport. i have
to leave american immediately, so that i cannot appeal in a higher
court....
another one of my attorneys--bob mccrea, a beautiful man with some
understanding of what was happening--told vivek, my caretaker, after
my last appearance in court, "it seems and feels to me that they have
done it again. they have crucified jesus again. i'm sorry and i feel
so helpless."...
it is certainly of tremendous importance that even after twenty
centuries a man like jesus will be crucified by christians
themselves. it was a conspiracy of the fundamentalist christians of
america and ronald reagan.
jason: there is also the possibility that while in custody, being
transferred from one jail to another, that the us government may have
poisoned osho in some way, which was responsible for his early death.
i won't get into this but there is information out there is
anyone is interested enough to bother looking into it. just thought
i'd add that in as a last thought on his "banishment" as
you called
it.
6) dw: after this debacle, of which i only know what scott told me
the debacle was on the part of the united states government. and
thank you for pointing out that everything you have said is based on
heresay, what someone else (scott) has told you. this actually is
good though. it points out how even you and scott can misrepresent
events and people, aware of it or not. i only wish you took the care
in characterizing osho as you would appreciate someone else would do
in talking about you, if you were not in physical form to defend
yourself. a superficial look at anything yields distorted results.
7) dw:?he changed his name to osho and continued his work
overseas.
jason: he continued his work overseas for 5 years under his name
bhagwan rajneesh. the way you state it, implies he changed his name
after being "banished" from the us, as a form of evasion of
some kind. not true. "deported" from us in 1985?name
change
occurred in 1989:
on 27 february 1989, the disciples of rajneesh collectively decided
to call him osho. osho is a term derived from ancient japanese, and
was first used by eka, to address his master, bodhidharma. `osho'
means "with great respect, love and gratitude" as well
as "synchronicity" and "harmony." `sho' means "multidimensional
expansion of consciousness" and "existence showering from all
directions."
8) dw: the goings-on of his followers were legendary in esoteric
gossip circles, and it is very clear that they in no way were
repressing or overcoming their desires, including those most base.
jason: "it is very clear" to whom? everything you have said
is based on a conversation with scott, who is obviously not clear on
the facts of osho or his life situations.
he provided them a safe forum, under the eye of an enlightened
consciousness, to go into those sexual experiences and transcend them
through transformation of the sexual energies. the implication that
there were daily orgies that so many "gossip" about is
another misrepresentation of what was actually occurring. this
gossiping of what people think really went on at osho's commune
is
done by those who were not there or have not studied his work
sufficiently.
osho: i have been telling you, "from sex to superconsciousness," and
you have been very happy--you only hear "from sex," you don't
hear "to superconsciousness."
my effort here is to make this commune sexually free. and when i say
sexually free, it has two meanings. in the beginning, people will be
easily available to each other, and in the end the very availability
will make their minds transcend sex. and that is happening every day.
hundreds of sannyasins write to me, "what has happened? when we came,
we were so full of sex, and now all that has disappeared. there seems
to be no desire for it. even if we are interested in somebody, it is
more like friendship than any sexual relationship. we love to be
together, but there is no need to jump into bed immediately."
in fact, there are many sannyasins writing to me that sex has so
completely disappeared, that for months or for years they have been
celibate. go and ask a catholic monk or a hindu sannyasin: they are
trying to be celibate, and their minds are full of sex. we are not
trying to be celibate here, but celibacy is happening.
whatsoever is easily available, automatically becomes uninteresting.
in the west many people are turning towards homosexuality,
lesbianism, for the simple reason that a man seems for another man to
be a faraway goal because he is so unnatural; a woman, for a woman,
seems to be a faraway goal, it seems so unnatural. a man and woman
relationship is natural. so people are turning into homosexuals,
lesbians. the reason is that when you make anything difficult,
condemn it, repress it, it will become more and more attractive.
in my commune nothing is repressed, hence everything, by and by,
loses its attraction. one becomes more and more calm and quiet and
settled.
many people become puzzled...just a few nights ago, a couple came to
me and the husband was very much puzzled. he said, "what is happening
to us? we are no more husband and wife--all sex has disappeared, but
still we feel a deep intimacy." and i told them, "something immensely
valuable is happening. you are becoming brother and sister. your love
is taking on a new dimension, a higher one--that of nonsexuality. it
is becoming purer."
hearing it, immediately everything became clear to them. they hugged
each other, tears started flowing from their eyes. it was a beautiful
scene to see--they understood it. yes, it clicked. yes, that's what
is happening. they were worried because they came from the west--the
east has always known it: that if love deepens it transforms the
relationship; husbands and wives become brothers and sisters. and
ultimately a moment comes when not even brothers and sisters...a kind
of oneness arises, they become one.
just the other day somebody had asked a question. he said that he has
seen the most beautiful women around here that he has ever seen
anywhere else, but they are non-erotic.
why is it so? it is so, his observation is right. if you meditate
deeply you will become non-erotic. you will have a different kind of
beauty, but it will not be erotic. it will start having the flavor of
spirituality. it will start having the subtleness of grace, not the
grossness of sexuality.
sex is gross because it is the lowest rung of your ladder. as
energies move upwards a totally different kind of beauty and grace
arises in you, which is divine. you become less and less of the body
and more and more of the spirit.
margot: from and online article, about a student of osho's and
how he impacted her views on sexuality:
margot, with her best selling books, the art of sexual ecstasy and
the art of sexual magic, was a pioneer in bringing tantric practices
to the west. since she began teaching in the 1970s, hundreds of
books, workshops and videos on tantra have sprung up in the usa.
margot has led workshops at the osho commune in pune also. in the art
of sexual ecstasy, she describes the pinnacle of tantric practice as
the "orgasm of the brain". this experience, she writes, "creates a
bridge between the left and right hemispheres, fusing the intellect
of the left hemisphere with the intuitive faculties of the right. it
is this fusion that creates the experience of ecstasy, in which body,
mind, heart and spirit all participate." and in the art of sexual
magic, she writes: "in deep sexual embrace, the mind stops. quite
literally, you "**** your brains out." your consciousness becomes
clear, innocent, fresh." as a guide to attaining these ecstatic
states, anand provides an extensive (and explicit) manual of exotic
sexual practices.
margot has coined the term high sex, which she defines thus: "high
sex takes the experience of orgasm to a new dimension-a dimension in
which genital orgasm is only the beginning. it inspires you to
explore the full capacity of orgasm. culminating in ecstatic body-to-
body and soul-to-soul communion. it is an experience to the whole
body, the whole being."
all credit goes to margot's master, osho, for bringing the sex-vs.-
spirituality controversy center stage in our time with his runaway
book from sex to superconsciousness. he propounded the view that
orgasm is a mini and temporary samadhi. it can transport you to a
state of rapture. the mind becomes devoid of thought, the egocentric
view of life disappears and we step outside of time into the timeless
a 'now' of bliss. very much like samadhi or pure consciousness. this
line of thinking was so revolutionary for his time tat he attracted a
lot of flak and notoriety.
the fundamental view pervading the contemporary spiritual scene seems
to be that sex, long seen as the enemy of the spirit, is actually its
ally, or can be made to act like one. this sex-positive spiritual
view holds that to truly become whole, we must liberate our sexuality
from the chains of guilt, shame and repression, and allow it to find
full expression as a natural, healthy and even sacred part of life.
http://www.lifepositive.com/body/sexuality/sex-spirituality.asp
9) dw: that doesn't mean that his words are without meaning, but it
is important context to keep in mind before using his words to attack
ra as service-to-self.
jason: i never attacked ra as being service to self (i might have in
the first post, but realized i was being too extreme, which is why
the second post was much softer in my approach, even tho the second
post appeared on egroups first). i said it could be interpreted that
his teachings could appear that way. if you don't provide the key
to transcendence of desires in totality, but give a path for working
through them as if that is productive, without addressing the root,
my opinion is that is a 3-d teaching, but not what i would expect
from ra. it's the perception that by working through the mind one
progresses to what you refer to as 7-d. why not teach how to just go
beyond mind, and in that one realizes one is already there.
that's all. they appear to lack the ability to explain a faster
route
to going beyond desires, going beyond mind. this stuck me as a
curious thing.
i guess i find the direct approach, based on schools such as advaita,
krishnamurti, etc, as the most effective and enlightened teachings.
many others which claim to teach one how to become enlightened, seem
to me, to be just continuing on the path of mind games, not
addressing the fundamental problem of mind itself. in any case,
it's just how i feel about ra's teachings. obviously this is
all up
for debate, as to how each of us interprets ra's words.
a thorough detailed biography of osho can be found here. of course,
i'm sure there are other sources as well. i have read the book
recently released "autobiography of a spiritually incorrect
mystic"
etc.
http://www.geocities.com/artiwari_1972/osho/00-main-menu.htm
remember?even the "shift" too?is but a dream. as osho
puts its so
beautifully?
"i'm not giving you another dream, remember. you hanker for it, you
would like me to give you another dream, but i am not going to give
you another dream. that's why to be with me is difficult and arduous -
because i am insisting that you wake up. enough is enough. you have
dreamed a lot; since eternity you have been dreaming. you have just
been changing dreams. when you get fed up with one dream, you start
changing it; you dream another dream. my whole effort is to shake
you, to shock you - to wake you."
osho
this to me are the words of a true master. in my gratitude for his
impact on my consciousness, i offered this "defence/rebuttal"
although i bet osho would have told me to just be silent. hope it was
okay to post this reponse, as it is sort of off-topic, but i felt
compelled to say something.
peace
--jason