Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 2

message: There is a lot of analysis about Osho, lots of judgement etc passed , lots of POV. My question to all of you is simple, if his books and talks have made an iota of difference your head , it is good enough. When I look at the world today , I feel all so called religions are failures as people have become more violent and animal like. None of the so called religious leader are more than attntion seekers or as we saw in the US chruches molestors.
So extract the best of what Osho had to say and worry about your own salvation instead of wasting time by micro analyzing an original thought provoker.
Anandakshar 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality as I see it rationally 

message: You cannot claim that there was an attempt on his life because of "Provocative statements of this type" unless you back it up with a source. Sfacets 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: This article lists in detail anything positive about the man, while barely mentioning the poisonings and making them sound hardly connected to him at all.  The negatives deserve equal attention with the positives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.34.183.71 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He was never accused of these crimes, so I think the mention is proportional. The article lists the facts -- what his philosophy consisted of, and what happened. Jayen466 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: The following text
*Osho is listed in the lists of people and groups maintained by  exit counselors Steve Hassan  and  Rick Ross . They however state that a group is not a destructive cult just because it is mentioned in these lists.
was deleted with the suggestion that this should instead be mentioned to the Osho movement article. On the other hand the second link talks about the person also, not just the movement. The issue here is the accusation of being a cult, and the leader is an important aspect of a cult. --Knverma 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will follow your suggestion to put this only in the Osho Movement article. Still I add a small remark here that a person's intentions, however noble, do not determine whether he is a cult leader or not. --Knverma 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Hassan and Rick Ross 

message: Knverma, hi -- I removed the sentence about the importance of the master and the related yoga quote, which is from 1973; Osho ran the whole gamut of possible standpoints on the master-disciple issue, starting out with Krishnamurti's position (never become a guru or disciple) to becoming a fully fledged guru himself and then stating that the master-disciple paradigm was obsolete. So if we want to cover this topic, then I think we would have to cover the full range of his opinions on this. Jayen466 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think his views about teachers are significant enough deserving discussion. We could have a subsection giving his views on this topic and perhaps how they changed gradually. I have read only one book of his, so I invite further inputs from other books. -- Knverma 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a subsection on this might make sense (any other views?); I have access to the online archive and could try to research some quotes in this regard over the next couple of days. Jayen466 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Have been busy with work ... will try to get onto it this week. Thanks for the revert earlier. Jayen466 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No rush, we all have enough other duties. --Knverma 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoga quote 

message: To the anonymous editor at 80.254.135.177 repeatedly posting a link to a pdf download claimed to contain "unknown hidden interesting information" about Osho's work: "unknown hidden interesting information" is, by definition, "Original Research", i.e. precisely the type of information that Wikipedia is NOT for. You may not be familiar with the term "Original Research". Here is its definition, as given in the Wikipedia policy document on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research –
:Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
This is exactly what your document amounts to. It is a synthesis of published material which advances your personal position and reading of Osho's oeuvre. And your personal position is no more important than that of anybody else. Therefore, it deserves no special place in an encyclopedia article, which should be a balanced reflection of reliable, published sources, rather than a platform for personal theories. Jayen466 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unknown hidden interesting information" 

message: Any mentions of Sloterdijk or other famous personnalities who continue to discuss and support the Rajneesh' philosophy/thought ?
:I've added a mention of Sloterdijk, with source. Jayen466 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Followers 

message: Hi, re the rich man’s guru quote, the context in the source quoted originally is this:
:Q: IF I MAY FIRST FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION CONCERNING COMMUNISM THAT A COLLEAGUE OF MINE ASKED YOU BEFORE. YOU SAID THIS MORNING THAT MESSIAHS, PROPHETS, INCARNATIONS OF GOD ARE CHEATING US, KEEPING US REPRESSED AND PREVENTING US FROM REBELLING AGAINST THE STATUS QUO. YOU SAID THAT POVERTY AND HUNGER ARE NOT A BLESSING. BUT COMMUNISTS HAVE SAID THESE SAME THINGS FOR MANY YEARS AND HAVE TRIED TO DO SOMETHING TO ELIMINATE POVERTY AND HUNGER. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?
:A: Yes, they have tried to eliminate... not poverty, but richness. And they have eliminated it. Now the whole of communist Russia is equally poor. That gives a certain satisfaction, of course, but it is not my goal. I want to destroy poverty.
:I am all for the rich man. I am the rich man's guru.
:The Last Testament, Vol. 1, Chapter 3
This is clearly a reference to “material richness”. Other quotes relating to this matter are:
:Q: THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT YOU AND YOUR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWING ARE EXTREMELY WEALTHY. IF IT'S TRUE, WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?
:A: My people are rich. In fact, only the very rich, educated, intelligent, cultured can understand what I am saying. Beggars cannot come to me. Poor people cannot come to me. The gap is too big. They can hear me but they cannot understand me. So it is natural: I am the rich man's guru.
:The Last Testament, Vol. 1, Chapter 1
In the following quote Osho himself refers to the controversy around his "rich man's guru" status:
:I cannot say that, that meditation will fulfill your physical needs. It is impossible for me to cheat in such a way. So even in India, while I was traveling, I was speaking only to the very rich people. I was condemned as the rich man's guru. I said, "This is not a condemnation, this is really the fact. I am the rich man's guru because only the rich man can understand what I am trying to say, to convey.
:"The poor man has needs, I know. But what I can offer to him will not meet his needs. I am not for him. Mother Teresa is for him, I am not for him. What can I do if I deal in some higher things? I don't own a grocery store. I cannot give you anything less than ultimate consciousness. But for that you have to be hungry -- and you are not hungry for that. I have something to offer to you; but you are not ready to receive it, so it is not my fault."
:Naturally, people from all over the world started coming to me, but these were all from rich countries, rich cultures, well-educated, very intelligent people, young people. To them I could convey. Something was possible now; they were ready, they were open, they were finished with the marketplace, the pleasures of the body and the pleasures of the mind. They had had enough of it. They were at a point that if something else was not possible then only suicide was the way to get rid of this whole nonsense called life.
:From Darkness to Light, Chapter 29: History repeats itself, unfortunately, Question 1
He explains further what he means here:
:That's why I say if a rich man does not become religious he must be extraordinarily stupid, and if a poor man becomes religious he must be extraordinarily intelligent. Because when you have, it is very simple to see the arithmetic that nothing has happened; but when you don't have, then just to visualize and just to think in imagination that even by having it nothing is going to happen, is very difficult. A lurking doubt will remain inside... maybe there is something in it; the whole world is running after it: "Are they all fools? Am I alone the wise man? Then why is the whole world running after riches, money, power, prestige?" It is very difficult. When you live in a palace you know that life does not happen just by living in a palace. But when you live on the road, you live in a slum, it is very difficult to understand that just by living in a palace nothing happens. That's why I told you I am a rich man's guru. But only for that rich man who has understood that he is not rich is there the possibility of opening into the religious dimension. When he has understood his inner poverty, only then. So whosoever understands that he is poor, and he has nothing, and this world cannot give you anything, is capable of making a contact with a Master. There is no other way.
:Sometimes it seems very hard. Listening to me, sometimes you become very disturbed. The moment I say that I am only a rich man's guru, of course you become disturbed. You are not rich; then am I not your guru? But you misunderstood me. You could not get the point of it.
:Many times it is happening: I say something, you hear something else.
:The Discipline of Transcendence, Vol. 4, Chapter 2, Question 3
So I have reinserted the quote, since it was an actual controversy surrounding his name (this is, after all, the Controversy section), but have changed the reference to From Darkness to Light. Jayen466 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rich man's guru quote reinserted 

message: There are 1865 references to Gurdjieff in the English-language Osho archive. Jayen466 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gurdjieff (citation request by IP, June 9 2007) 

message: *Leadership, Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Joseph R. Greene, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Previous to this, Mr. Greene served as deputy district director of the Portland District in Oregon. In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers. For his action in this investigation Mr. Greene was awarded the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 1986.
I do not know how often the "Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service" is awarded, but this should be mentioned in the article.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That same info is also corroborated, here.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't Mr Greene's getting a medal rather peripheral to the article's subject? Or do you mean there should be mention of the fact that there was a major criminal investigation of Rajneeshpuram by the US authorities? The latter is certainly true, and could be expanded. -- Jayen466 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think that certainly if it is rare for the "Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service" to be awarded, then that could be worth mentioning.  Certainly the source itself could be used in the article, and most definitely, yes, the issue itself of "a major criminal investigation of Rajneeshpuram by the US authorities" as you put it, is undercovered in the article at present, if barely at all.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Btw, well done for sourcing a public-domain picture! -- Jayen466 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It is an interesting presentation, if you have the time to take a look.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable info to add to the article 

message: Any human event can be perceived in a variety of ways, thus subjective by the eyes of the beholder. 
What seems to be missing here is objectivity. What is enlightenment? And who can define it except the enlightened? It seems that an enlightened one would never see themselves as such, or proclaim it publically. The ego itself can deceive as to enlightenment, so to use one's own judgment in this regard is using ego.
A person in their early years of life, if enlightened, does not change from night to day and become egoistic in later life. If power has corrupted them, they could not have been enlightened to begin with. It just hadn't surfaced yet.
Just as we see that Hitler had good intentions at one point in his early years with creating more jobs and commonwealth for the German people, the power corrupted. He himself did not personally murder countless Jews. His employ did so in his stead. 
Let's not lose sight of the fact that even if Osho/Rajneesh did not personally spray salmonella on salad bars, rape minors (but did rape adults), tape conversations in the compound, carry weapons, carry out suicide bombings to Oregon legislature buildings, he employed those who did. He entrusted his staff to do as he wished. There are taped recordings of these facts.
Egolessness would mean non-attachment to results. The fact he wanted to be elected mayor, had material attachments to numerous high priced luxuries, was "seduced" into drug use, was a very sick man (diabetes, etc.) not only showed his human and ego sides, but his true non-enlightenment. 
Humans that are enlightened do have their ego sides and human frailties, but they do not dominate as in the case of Osho. They leave behind a true legacy of love, compassion and acceptance of all people - whether the people agreed with them personally or not.
If one is attached to a guru, it means they are not enlightened nor self sufficient. If one is not self sufficient, they could never be enlightened. Getting angry over criticism of a guru is attachment. If one cannot live without their guru, they are not self sufficient nor self realized. Nor will they become as such. Dependency can not lead to non-attachment and is a form of desire.
The best that can be said about Osho's religion is that it was a hedonistic religion. It speaks to the most basic and crude of human nature, that of sexuality and desire. It's an easy religion in which one follows their ego's every whim and desire for self gratification. There is really no effort involved in such a religion, as it's much like letting a child loose in a candy store.
So bantering back and forth about if Osho committed crimes or not seems futile. To leave it up to one's own opinion (the ego and its own subjectivity/attachment/desire) seems the only option, as this is a highly subjective subject that won't be agreed upon universally. People who can't and won't face facts and the truth will always see Osho as innocent because their own egoistic desires are fulfilled through belief in hedonism.
It seems the Simpson's episode, where Rajneesh was depicted as a white gloved guru driving his Rolls Royce down a dusty commune road as his disciples felt joy at eating his road dust seems appropo.  In the cartoon, the great guru tried to escape the commune with bags of cash in a homemade peddle driven flying machine.    Solarain (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please spare us your ramblings on this talk page. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not idle philosophising. -- Jayen466 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is your source for enlightenment? The only source is Osho's own words, which is no validated source. Because enlightenment is subjective, this article is as well. Every comment related to his criminal or immoral activities has been refuted or glossed over. Even the statement, "The only charge ever filed against him..." is a biased whitewashed recollection that serves to purposely thwart the topic. If stated unbiased, it would give the facts. It does not. This is only one sentence in a long article that is being refuted as unbiased. It's a daunting task to address every sentence, thus why people are complaining about its lack of neutrality. Credible coverage of negative points is lacking entirely. Solarain (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are problems with the article you should discuss them, not go off on a tangent rambling about Hitler and goodnessknows what else. If Osho claims to have achieve enlightment all we need is a source that verifies this. It is not necessary in fact it's rather silly for us to try an find additional third party sources claiming he achieved enlightment. We should not (whether about Osho or anyone else) say that he achieve enlightment simply that he claims to have achieve enlightment. Indeed failing to mention that he claims to have achieved enlightment would be a MAJOR failing on our part since for many people, the fact that he claims to have achieved enlightment does not put Osho in a good light. Also, please mind WP:NPA. Do not attack editors. If there are problems with the article you are welcome to discuss that but attacking editors, especially one who was simply telling you to stay on topic is unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article states "Osho courted controversy throughout his life, appearing to challenge many traditional assumptions about enlightened behaviour." This is formulated in a way that suggests Oshos enlightenment. The article is full of suggestive formulations like this which should all be removed for a more neutral language. (Tarsilion (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles also should be neutral . This one is clearly not neutral in various ways. Notice that contents should be both verifiable AND neutral. A biased selection of citations also clearly violates the principle of neutrality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.20.83 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks Objectivity and Neutrality 

message: Bolding is emphasis added to quotes :
#
#:"1985 - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh deported and fined $400,000"
#
#:"The Bhagwan was indicted on federal immigration charges and deported to India."
#
#:"In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers."
*The very website of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement refers to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh as being deported from the United States, not "allowed to leave."  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government sources also describe Osho (AKA Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) as "deported" and not simply "allowed to leave" 

message: Has anybody got a decent image of him to use. Two pictures of cars, and a mirror don't do the article any favours. 78.151.245.185 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: *I'm afraid there is a neutrality issue here as there is with a lot of wiki pages representing religious organizations. This item runs like a full page advert for the Osho International Foundation and I suspect this particular page is being policed by said group. This is essentially a POV pushing issue. There also is an over-abundance of links to Youtube videos produced by OIF, this is unsavoury.
*Osho, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, David Koresh, Ted Haggard, Louis Farakhan, Aum Shinrikyo etc. etc. varying degrees on a megalomaniacs scale. Disciples of any religious group will lie and twist the truth to keep up appearances and that is what is happening on this Wiki page dedicated to Osho.   
*To a secular individual such as myself this is simply another control obsessed religious organisation. As with all such entities, they have a tarnished reputation which they are doing their utmost to polish up. Part of this effort involves manipulating perspectives through damage limitation measures (such as including the controversy section, but sweetening it in a manner that de-emphasises particular issues, while ignoring others completely). I find this similar to the way Scientology followers have attempted to manipulate any Scientology related entries in Wikipedia.
*The controversy surrounding Osho has been downplayed considerably. There is no mention of why he left India (tax evasion) for the US (entering by claiming he needed urgent medical treatment), no mention of the often violent group therapy sessions that were later suspended because of negative publicity, no mention of the issue with the school at Pemberton in Western Australia (children suffered deprivation, threats, and coerced into sex play), the link to the Rolls Royce parable as justification for Rajneesh's overindulgences (93 Rolls cars, jewel encrusted watches, planes, etc.) and then allege that "his followers bought [them] for his use" is ridiculous, no mention of the arms cache that was acquired (that's a real message of peace) and the private army trained to use them, and what about the AIDS and general sexual health policy that arose from the positive testing of two commune members at Rajneeshpuram (the condoms, rubber gloves, and alcohol spray), no mention of Osho doing a runner with cash, jewellery, and his throne, and nothing about the acrimony between Rajneesh and Sheela: it boils down to his word against hers, irrespective of alleged lack of “evidence”; why do they never manage to get Mafioso bosses? because someone else does their dirty work, Osho was not a stupid man). 
*Also, aside form all the Youtube links to OIF propaganda there is a direct external link to the Osho International Meditation Resort this is unacceptable as it amounts to advertising (it is a commercial organisation).Semitransgenic (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Pushing 

message: In view of the fact that the edits made by the IP numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.12.240.186 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/143.117.78.169 etc. all track to the same geographical location and match the edit history of User:Semitransgenic, I would like to point out that edit summaries like this one are absolutely unacceptable.
Likewise, this edit summary raising the accusation that the link to 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack had been "intentionally obscured" is a gross violation of WP:AGF, in particular since I was the one who introduced the link in this article a few weeks back. I would therefore appreciate it if henceforth we could work constructively on this article, without the abuse and innuendo. Thank you. -- Jayen466 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You will note that this was a very civil dispute, which was resolved to my and Cirt's satisfaction. We have the barnstars to prove it. The article subsequently achieved GA status. ;-) -- Jayen466 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility