osho

[rabban]

www.osho.com

what does david icke say about osho?

[lightgiver]

www.osho.com

what does david icke say about osho?

what do you say;)

[planetsadhana]

i like oshos anology of zorba the buddha, which he refers to a lot and enjoy his writings, his philosophy is generally one that is close to my own.

im working my way through some of his books just now......he is also a first rate comedian and has some great jokes in his books:)

[kasalt]

Osho was a con artist:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=434955

[coshh]

Telling rich people what they want to hear is a time honoured way to get money.

[rabban]

I love osho's teachings

[dharmanation]

Osho was a con artist:

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=434955

I would have to agree. Before he became "Osho", he was known as "Rajneesh". Rajneesh had a terrible reputation before his death as a pretty corrupt and abusive person, but seems to have been very professionally repackaged as "Osho" after his death.

[shaivite]

Many moons ago I was friends with somebody who had been something of body/security guard for Osho over in India. Some of the tales he told were pretty wild and even as a former Osho devotee he himself said that Osho at times spoke a lot of sh*t. Certainly I feel that a lot of the time Osho says a lot but says nothing. But I wouldn't go as far to say he is without value.

Personally, having read a lot of the books, heard the audio (which I enjoy), heard the first hand stories, I've came to think that Osho was speaking to a particular group of people at a very particular time in a cultural phase. I think it was maybe good for a lot of them, but beyond that time and place it seems like it was something that was never going to survive. Afterall there was no lineage or formal teaching here, just a single Guru who was in some ways pretty far out, whose devotees were pretty wild and who all got in some pretty crazy situations (especially in the US).

Whether or not Osho was realised or not I don't know. What I can say is that although he spoke on a very wide variety of spiritual teachings and texts he didn't really give an elucidation on them per se. Not matter what topic he was speaking about, be it Hindu, Buddhist, etc. he always gave the same kind of talk. A talk which doesn't really explore the text or teaching indepth. To give an example, Osho's big book on the 112 dharanas of the Vijnanabahairava - He doesn't actually go into the text itself, he skirts around it but never really explores it and doesn't really get into the actual techniques. Compare his commentary of the Vijnanabhairava with any of the others out there, sucj as Singh's and you'll find a huge difference, especially when it comes to specifics and technical aspects.

[krakhead]

what do you say;)

Good reply.

[rabban]

Krishnamurti called osho a criminal.

[dedicate]

You have to be a criminal to have Disciples. Krisnamurti was an interesting character. Many famous criminals include Mahatma Ghandi, Winston Smith, and myself. Does anybody hold to high esteem Mahatma Ghandi? I mean other than Richard Attenborough and the Acadamy? Rabban is from the East; maybe he knows. Isn't Mahatma Ghandi the Winston Churchhill of Bharata? --; they both led a nation into what it is today.

[unbornawakened]

I am neutral about Osho ... just know a few superficial things about him ... I don't condemn him for being a maverick but he was probably a little too pampered in luxury, which does not seem to be the sign of a master ... nevertheless, he has useful insights, and is promoting liberation from societal conditioning ... apparently he has a PhD in Philosophy from Oxbridge (or smthg like that) so his background is both eastern and western, and he is well positioned to bridge East-West gap ...

[shaivite]

Many famous criminals include Mahatma Ghandi...Does anybody hold to high esteem Mahatma Ghandi?.... Isn't Mahatma Ghandi the Winston Churchhill of Bharata?

How is Gandhi criminal?

[dedicate]

Thought Criminal. He dared to stand in question of the State.

The one thing all political groups fail to rally is the right of freedom-of-thought. The freedom of ideas is the only way to remain free; and is a good indicator of a free society where people are not arrested for the way they live. Nearly all freedom fighters today will be or have been arrested, charged or put in jail. For the most part, these people are put in jail for merely asking why certain things exist, and taking a stand with their ideas. Arresting people for crimes that hurt no one, but only question the authority of the state,-- is thought crime and punished along with any other crime, just as harshly in most instances. (Alex Jones has been arrested, and has been known to commit the law breaking activity of speeding on the highway -- Then on the far left spectrum there was ABBEY Hoffman who was arrested for investigating the Drug trade. Is a man like abbey hoffman a threat to society or people? No. Neither is Alex Jones a threat to the highways. No crimes committed by alex jones, abbey hoffman, or Ghandi. So why are they treated as criminals?).

Ghandi was arrested for questioning the idea of having racial I.D.s and would not carry his. He spent a couple years in jail for inciting riots. These activities of Ghandi counter or question the authority of the state, so he was arrested. Criminals are arrested, not free people. The freedom of thought is not respected by the state, and considers any body who questions it's authority as a threat and criminal.

Rather than trying to freee India, Ghandi should have been about freeing minds. For the most part he was an advanced pawn in the NWO scheme. The British Empire was being dismantled any way to be replaced by the New Revised Roman Empire, along with millions more murdered.

[rabban]

I've read many spiritual teachers and their teachings like krishnamurti, Sai Baba, Yogananda, ect, and I come to like Osho the best. The fact that he lives in luxury does not bother me. There is nothing wrong being rich. Everyone should be rich. King Solomon was rich. I also like A.C. Bhaktivavidanta Swami prabhupada's teachings as well.

[shaivite]

Rather than trying to freee India, Ghandi should have been about freeing minds. For the most part he was an advanced pawn in the NWO scheme. The British Empire was being dismantled any way to be replaced by the New Revised Roman Empire, along with millions more murdered.

I've long been a big fan of the Mahatmaji's and am pretty familiar with his life and many of writings. Have you read many of his writings? If you have, you would know that they cover a wide variety of topics, some are to do with politics and economics which are the ones most folk are familiar with. Most folk only see Gandhi in that context.

But here was a man who was concerned with the search for truth and for the liberation of the soul and the freedom of the mind. You only have to look at his many writings on a variety of religious and philosophical matters to see this. His entire political struggle (or 90% of it anyway) was based upon a spiritual struggle. He was open to sharing his spiritual perspective with most people if they were interested, but to say "he should have been about freeing minds" is a flawed statement in many ways, which I can go into if you so desire. Gandhi was a deeply and sincerely spiritual person with a heart for liberation on all levels. Have a read of 'The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi' for some idea of the spiritual current that passed through his mind.

[dedicate]

I read one thing and I'm not sure where,-- Ghandi was asked about non-violence and the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita contradicts Passivism, but Ghandi reads "The Bible, The Koran and The Bhaghavad Gita".. Ghandi said the Vedas here were metaphores for spiritual battles; there was no actual war between armies. Can you confirm that?

Not even the Christian scriptures can be said to fully support non-violence, but here Ghandi is saying that violence is never the answer. Is violence never the answer?


I haven't read anything else, but need I? It is because of Ghandi's stance on this issue, that I've never been all that interested in his Religion. Need I be?

[shaivite]

I read one thing and I'm not sure where,-- Ghandi was asked about non-violence and the Bhagavad Gita. The Bhagavad Gita contradicts Passivism, but Ghandi reads "The Bible, The Koran and The Bhaghavad Gita".. Ghandi said the Vedas here were metaphores for spiritual battles; there was no actual war between armies. Can you confirm that?


The battle in the Gita is most certainly presented as a metaphor/allegory. Though in recent years some Indologists have came to think that it was based on an actual battle. Whether Krishna, Arjuna, the Pandavas, and the Kauravas were actually there is another matter, to my knowledge anyway. Whether all the battles in the Vedas are allegory or not I have no idea.


Not even the Christian scriptures can be said to fully support non-violence, but here Ghandi is saying that violence is never the answer. Is violence never the answer?


I don't know whether violence is never absolutely without a shadow of a doubt the answer (if we are talking about situations such as the one Gandhi faced against the British Raj). Quite early on Gandhi was strongly influenced by Jainism and his belief in non-violence originally stems from Jainism rather than from any aspect of Hinduism. There are plenty of examples in Hinduism were people have either individually or on mass engaged in physical struggle.

It also depends on what one is perceiving here as violence. Sure there is violence on the physical level, but the Gita (and also Gandhi) is much deeper than that. In the Gita it talks about karma, doership, identity, action, and lots more. Not simplistic matters, very esoteric and pretty darn profound. The Gita and related teaches aren't a list of do's and do not's, instead they are guide to the subtle aspects of existence and how to navigate them.


I haven't read anything else, but need I?


Depends on what you want to learn dude. :)


It is because of Ghandi's stance on this issue, that I've never been all that interested in his Religion. Need I be?

I ain't gonna say what you need to be interested in. I'm confident if you gave material like Gandhi's writings and the Gita you would learn insights of value. But by making the judgement you have based on one single issue you have by your own admission ruled out the wisdom found in a very ancient body of teachings.

[dedicate]

Shivite said: The battle in the Gita is most certainly presented as a metaphor/allegory. Though in recent years some Indologists have came to think that it was based on an actual battle. Whether Krishna, Arjuna, the Pandavas, and the Kauravas were actually there is another matter, to my knowledge anyway.

--- Whether all the battles in the Vedas are allegory or not I have no idea.--- (And don't intend to make it any clearer by way of exposition on the subject)

End Quote: -------- The battle in the Gita is most certainly presented as History. Wheather Krishna instructed Arjuna in the philosophy of Sanata-Dharma, on that day in front of opposing armies, no body can say. But few, not even Ghandi, can deny the Gita contains the essence of Yoga.-- A wonderful commentary available to millions of English Speaking Peoples would be THE BHAGAVAD GITA --- AS IT IS. Religious text? History? Myth? Battle Plan? -- Who's to say not all.

Thanks for answering all my questions, Shaivite (I spell it Shivite.) At least you answer the questions put to you, un like a politician who never answers the question, and never gives a straight answer. But I digress. Many good karmas follow you like a barrel follows the wheel.

[dedicate]

-0----It also depends on what one is perceiving here as violence. ---0--

Within the context of the Gita or what Ghandi was faced with. In the Gita, Arjuna was the defender of his land and people; he was the son of a king. When he came with his army to claime what was his, there he was met by an army to stop him. He asked Krishna, "Might we should avoid conflict?". Krishna said, "Fight, Win.-- it is your duty, fight today." Sometimes one has to fight.

Ghandi was facing a World War and revolution or civil war in India. And he was an advocate of non-violence? How could an advocate of non-violence get much attention in times such as this, if not for the power Elite to help it along, ie, giving Ghandi News time, media attention. Keeping him alive, too. This could have been going on without Ghandi knowing it. He was used as a pawn, and sacrificed when they were done with him. May he rest in peace.


After Ghandi's revolution 1 Million Indians killed each other in civil unrest and India was split apart. Osho said that 1 million Indians could have died in a violent rebellion against Britain, and the result would have been better.

[humito]

you dont need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows:)