Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Friday, January 18

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    ERIC BLACKSTEAD What I think is great about Osho is that he can be counted on to be right at least 50% of the time, namely because there s no position that he
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 19, 2002

      What I think is great about Osho is that he can be counted on
      to be right at least 50% of the time, namely because there's
      no position that he hasn't endorsed and enhanced at one time
      or another. If he hasn't commented directly on a scripture
      somewhere in his 75 completed books (or however many there
      currently are), It's because he's paraphrased it shamelessly
      without attribution, and then used it as an "original"
      commentary on someone elses work that he HAS quoted

      While he was originally a professor of philosophy, it seems
      to me that he functioned much more as a romanticist, poet,
      plagerist and propagandist, with a weather eye constantly
      turned to any breeze that would serve to drive his listeners
      closer to his own seductive web. I think he should have
      called his ashram in Pune, Circe's Place.

      I've read a good number of his books over the years, and
      always enjoyed them. He had an enormously retentive mind, and
      truly understood the hearts and minds of his young,
      idealistic and hedonistic audience -- cultural expats, all.
      For all practical purposes he might as well have turned over
      the booking and administration of his ashrams to Club Med,
      and at least in India when I was there in the mid 70's,
      that's what most Indians thought he'd done. And unbelievably
      successfully. There was a certain measure of stunned envy in
      any Indian evaluation of his "work" with foreign youths, no
      matter how critical.

      If any of you would like to read a description of his life,
      work, and difficulties with the law by a former disciple who
      knew him and his chief disciples well, dial up
      http://forums.shambala.com/cqi- bin/w3t5/showthread .

      You should find it interesting, even if you don't agree with
      all of the writer's evaluations.



      There is a process whereby
      any localized self-identified

      May survey the collection
      of apparent particles and

      Something based upon how
      those particles are arrayed.

      And there is a process
      whereby any localized self-
      identified awareness

      May survey the conclusions
      of any other localized self-
      identified awareness

      And conclude something
      based upon how those
      opinions are arrayed.

      Then there is this localized
      self-identified awareness
      surveying an array

      Of conclusions based upon
      opinions based upon
      surveillance of opinions

      Based upon conclusions
      based upon surveillance
      of apparent particles.

      Some say that there are
      and others say not

      Some say that any
      localized self-identified
      awareness is

      A false particle and that
      only a false particle will
      see and report particles

      And that the one real
      is not a particle

      And that unless the
      localized self-identified
      awareness sees

      This impossible
      there is no hope

      Of seeing that there
      are no particles
      to see themselves

      As particles.


      Particle Man (Song Lyrics)

      Particle man, particle man
      Doing the things a particle can
      What's he like?
      It's not important
      Particle man
      Is he a dot, or is he a speck?
      When he's underwater
      does he get wet?
      or does the water get him instead?
      Nobody knows, Particle man

      Triangle man, Triangle man
      Triangle man hates particle man
      They have a Þght, Triangle wins
      Triangle man

      Universe man, Universe man
      Size of the entire universe man
      usually kind to smaller man
      Universe man
      He's got a watch with a minute hand,
      millennium hand and an eon hand
      when they meet it's a happy land
      Powerful man, universe man

      Person man, person man
      hit on the head with a frying pan
      lives his life in a garbage can
      Person man
      Is he depressed or is he a mess?
      does he feel totally worthless?
      who came up with person man?
      degraded man, person man

      Triangle man, triangle man
      Triangle man hates person man
      They have a Þght
      triangle wins
      triangle man

      Written by They Might Be Giants.
      All lyrics 1990 TMBG Music, admin.
      Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp.(BMI).
      Lyrics reproduced by permission. All rights reserved.


      Would those who see the "impossible juxtaposition" see that
      "idea" as *real* ? It seems to me we either see "particles"
      or we don't. Also the issue might be settled by referring to
      those "*apparent* particles", suggesting that the apparent
      particles are not what they seem.


      Hi Ed,

      The issue of particles is supremely relevant, if indeed
      particles are seen.

      Someone said, "Things are not what they seem, nor are they

      I dare anyone to 'see the impossible juxtaposition' and to
      then be able to speak or write about it, rationally and in
      (supposedly) concrete form.

      One of my disciplines is to dare to say or write what is
      considered impossible to state. I find little use for
      constant reiteration, in conventional language, of the same
      old formulae for 'attainment' or 'transcendance', especially
      as prattled in 'newbie-101', condescension-styled,
      error-ridden, yet oh-so-socially-approved,
      do-gooder-idealistic style.

      I find that there is an unfortunate tradition which dogs us
      all, which is embedded in our culture, and which exerts a
      tragically retarding effect. This is, to never dare to speak
      from the point of view of actual experience, but to instead
      to duck the possibility of uncomfortable accusations, by
      always repeating 'beginners lessons' in lieu of honest and
      straightforward conversation among peers. I am sure that
      there can be other interpretations of what evidences this
      sodden trend, but from my own POV, the lack of straight
      peer-to-peer conversation turns the whole scene into an
      unfortunate charade.

      I think it is true that 'you get what you pay for', in this
      and all cases. Not to say that everything comes with a price;
      rather, that the sacrifice of convention and supposed safety
      of identity, is a price which we are all rich enough to pay,
      and have plenty left over for discretionary purchases.

      Heading to the flea market...


      from Nondual Quotes list

      Alice Walker
      "Expect Nothing"

       Expect nothing. Live frugally
      On surprise.
      Become a stranger
      To need of pity
      Or, if compassion be freely
      Given out
      Take only enough.
      Stop short of urge to plead
      Then purge away the need.
      Wish for nothing larger
      Than your own small heart
      Or greater than a star;
      Tame wild disappointment
      With caress unmoved and cold.
      Make of it a parka
      For your soul.

      Discover the reason why
      So tiny human midget
      Exists at all
      So scared unwise.
      But expect nothing. Live frugally
      On surprise.



      We have criticized Osho for contradicting himself. The volume
      of work that he produced and his style of 'shooting from the
      hip' had to produce many contradictions. Even Ramana and Rumi
      devotees have discussed their gurus contradicting themselves
      on their respective lists. Of course the devotees have always
      found valid explanations for the seeming contradictions! Let
      me give one guru's explanation for the seeming
      contradictions: [This is from Jack Kornfields "Living

      ...... I began to criticize other monks for sloppy practice,
      and to doubt the wisdom of Achaan Chaa's teaching. At one
      point I went to him and complained, noting that even he was
      inconsistent and seemed to be contradicting himself often in
      an unenlightened way. He laughed and pointed out how much I
      was suffering by trying to judge the others around me. Then
      he explained that in fact his teaching was just a balance.
      "It is as though I see people walking down a road I know
      well," he said. "I look up and see someone about to fall in a
      ditch on the right-hand side of the road or get off on a side
      track on the right so I call out to him 'Go left, go left'.
      Similarly if I see someone about to go off on a sidetrack to
      the left, or to fall in the left-hand ditch, I call out 'Go
      right, go right'. All of practice is simply developing a
      balance of mind, not clinging, unselfishness." .......



      Getting back to Osho:

      [talking about a Jungian analyst named Habib who had left
      after Osho relentlessly criticized Jung]

      "So if you have a discussion with me, beware, you will go
      mad! -- because I am not a consistent man. I am not logical
      either, I am absurd.

      "And Habib missed the point. If he was a Freudian I would
      have attacked Freud, if he was a Marxist I would have
      attacked Marx, and if he was a Rajneeshian, I would have
      attacked Rajneesh! It is not a question of Jung! Jung comes
      nowhere into it. The attack is on Habib's ego! Because the
      ego is Jungian, so poor Jung has to be attacked.

      "Now tomorrow somebody comes and he is a Freudian, and I will
      attack Freud. And I will say, "He is nothing compared to Jung
      -- a pygmy!" And then naturally I become inconsistent,
      because you miss the whole point! I have nothing to do with
      Freud or Jung. Who cares? My effort is to provoke you, to
      show you the point. It is not that Habib is feeling offended
      because I have criticized Jung; he is feeling offended
      because his ego is hurt. If he can see it, then my statements
      were useful. If he cannot see it, then the arrow missed the
      point. Then I will have to use some other device.

      "I have to destroy your ego-structures. Hence, don't ask me
      again and again why my statements are not consistent. I have
      only one consistency: that is of being inconsistent. I am
      consistently inconsistent; that's the only consistency that I
      have. And I have infinite freedom; a consistent man cannot
      have infinite freedom. I can play, I can joke, I can enjoy
      shattering your egos, destroying your structures. I'm not
      serious about these things. I dare to play, to try first one
      thing, then another. My statements are like the actors on the
      stage: let them contradict each other; they are not there to
      tell the truth, but to provoke it, to discover it.

      "And I would like to tell you too: do not do anything merely
      for the sake of consistency. That is the shelter for fools
      and philosophers -- which are the same people. Never do
      anything just for the sake of consistency. This is
      undesirable since it limits experimentation and exploration.
      Action so as to be consistent with the past develops into a
      programmatic addiction. It freezes you into stasis, halting
      the evolutionary march of becoming. You should retain all
      power over current behavior. None should be yielded to the
      past. Acting consistent with precedent is a form of death,
      and destroys all potential to grow into understanding."

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.