Some devotee from USA asked me to analyse the philosophy of Osho. I think that Osho pleads for freedom in the love of even married human beings. He pleads that the secret contacts are wrong. He says that such illegal contacts should be frankly spoken out. This concept is wrong in two stages. In the first stage the illegal contact itself is wrong. In the second stage, when the other partner knows such contact, the other partner undergoes unimaginable agony. To do sin is one mistake. To hurt the heart of any human being is another mistake. It is a double sin and
such a soul, whether male or female will be punished twice in the hell. According to the ethical scripture of Hinduism, a red-hot copper statue of the person with whom the illegal contact was done is placed before the sinner and he or she will be forced to embrace it. The attitude differs from one culture to another.
The villain stole the Helen of Troy. Helen led family life with the villain. When Helen returned back, again she had the normal family life with hero. But when Ravana stole Sita, Sita did not
even look at Ravana. Therefore, there is vast difference in the cultures of East and West in the root itself. I do not criticise or praise any culture. But even Jesus did not agree to any such illegal contact of any married human being. He criticised even the prostitution. Thus, the field of Pravrutti is one and the same in view of God, whether it is East or West. Therefore, this again proves that God is one and the same. Now the point of Lord Krishna comes for analysis. The field of Nivrutti is completely different. As analysed above the background was completely different. The meaning of the act was totally different. The act was done by the request of the soul. The act means the breakage of bond and complete liberation of the soul. The act does not mean any secret dealing to pacify the blind lust. The Lord has no trace of such necessity. The Lord did this act only in Brindavanam and only in the case of Gopikas. After leaving the
Brindavanam He never repeated this with any other soul.
But again you quote Lord Krishna who danced with chaste married ladies in Brindavanam. That is completely a special case. Those ladies were sages and Krishna was the Lord. The sages requested the Lord in the previous birth to cut all
their family bonds and attract them towards Him. The Lord accepted and gave the boon of salvation to them. Such a background cannot exist in any other case. Moreover, the Lord did not repeat such act with anybody else after leaving Brindavanam. The Lord did not return back to Brindavanam atleast once to do the same act once again, because the sages already achieved the salvation. Therefore, you cannot bring any case to compare with this special divine case. If it were some other case, the fellow would repeat the same act else where also or atleast return back to repeat the same act. Therefore, the case of Lord Krishna and Gopikas cannot be generalised and the philosophy of Osho cannot be accepted. He generalised a special case to everybody.
at the lotus of shri datta swami
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.