Muddle of Osho critics…

Criticisms of Osho here are off the mark…the whole debate is a hopeless muddle. I have read all these critiques, and will cite them again as I move away from Osho land: Osho needs a break from these caviling critics. The correct critique is needed.

My perspective is to wonder how a larger but concealed Indian initiative to create a neo-buddshist contribution to global culture could have derailed so badly. I have attempted one answer in a previous post. But I think Osho was betrayed, and one factor was the contempt that arises from peddling shoddy goods for the overseas masses.

The critic here has Osho’s enlightenment, and the concept in general, completely muddled.

One problem is that an enlightened person can surrender will, become enlightened, and then become compulsive and this can also be the result of enemies trying to destroy you by surrogating your ‘will’ slot in the unconscious. Did this happen to Osho?

I think that I have contacted to try and help (most won’t believe that), and the whole game of Osho is desperate at this point. I can’t do anything here because the cloud of enemies attacks everyone trying to intervene.
The occult world is deadly: it is almost impossible to have a spiritual path with people like EJ Gold around (they can’t deal however with more than a few victims).
Perhaps this is why sufis don’t speak of enlightenment. There are too many sufi apes like Gold and other occultists who can penetrate the ‘enlightenment’ defense. But a balanced development of will and consciousness is almost a non-path…Vultures like Gurdjieff will attack attempts to move here. That means a still more opaque sufi realm, not on your side, is a danger to you if they ever learn of your existence…
I don’t think it is correct to say ‘enlightenment’ is something you channel…

http://meditation-handbook.50webs.com/osho2.html

Enlightenment is not something you own; it is something you channel.

Whatever term you use for the phenomenon of enlightenment, it is scientifically accurate to say that no human being has any power of their own. Even the chemical energy of our metabolism is borrowed from the Sun, which beams light to the Earth, which is then converted by plants through photosynthesis into the food we eat. You may get your bread from the supermarket, but the caloric energy it contains originated from the thermonuclear reactions of a nearby star. Our physical bodies run on star power. Any “spiritual” energy we channel also comes from far beyond, from all sides of the universe, from the complete TES (Time-Energy-Space), from beyond the oceans of galaxies, and onto infinity. No human being owns the Atman, and no one can speak for the TES.

The Void has no ambition or personality whatsoever, so Rajneesh could only speak for his own animal mind. The animal mind may want its disciples to “take over the whole world,” but the Void does not care because it is beyond any motivation. The phenomena we called Rajneesh, Bhagwan, and Osho, was only a temporary lens of cosmic energy, not the full cosmos itself.

Rajneesh and the famous Greek-Armenian mystic, George Gurdjieff, often used the power of the Atman for clearly personal gain. Both men used their cosmic consciousness to overwhelm and seduce women. Gurdjieff was ashamed of his behavior and vowed many times during his life to end this practice, which was a combination of ordinary male lust backed up by the potent advantage of oceanic super-mental power. Rajneesh went even further and used his channeled cosmic energy to manipulate masses of people to gain a kind of quasi-political status, and to aggrandize himself far beyond what was honest and helpful to his disciples. In Oregon, Rajneesh declared to the media that “My religion is the only religion!” Diplomacy and modesty were not his strong points.

To my knowledge, George Gurdjieff never reached the extremes of self-indulgence of Rajneesh, and he even warned his disciples not to have blind faith in him. Gurdjieff wanted his students to be free and independent, with the combined abilities of clear mental reasoning and cosmic consciousness. Rajneesh, by contrast, seemed to believe that only his thoughts and ideas were of value because only he was “enlightened.” This was a grand error in judgment and revealed a basic flaw in his character. Unfortunately, when Rajneesh achieved the ability to fully channel the power of the Atman, he failed to apply the needed wisdom of self-restraint. His human mind so rebelled against Asian asceticism that he failed to ensure that his borrowed power was only used for the good of others. Rajneesh was driven by strong personal ambitions, not just compassion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s