| The cricital pages: index |
Analysis done 2018-7-19 - 2018-7-23, except that of 'Wild wild country; which I analysed not long after that was released on Netflix, April 2018.
Additional analysis of the Swiss documentary "Guru Bhagwan Osho, his secretary and his bodyguard" (2010) done 2020-9-28. I came across this while checking out various videos and texts about another manipulator, Raniere, who created NXIVM, that I analysed and a video on this manipulative cult made by a psychologist. I will soon put my analysis of NXIVM on my site, and also my analysis of an analysis by a psychologist that you can find on youtube on this cult, as an example of the incompetence of psychologists...
Update to come july 2023: This update will be about further analysis I did after seeing another stupid statement by this guy. The statement was in a short video on youtube about democracy, in which his slow speaking and long pauses make it last 30 seconds to state "democracy basically means: government by the people, of the people, for the people, but the people are retarded". Sure good buddy! In fact the only one who is/was truly retarded are people like him... After watching this I had another look on the wikipedia page about him and analysed in in detail some specifics written there which all tell you something deeper about him (without the persons writing that text, realising this), and none of it is positive...
To start you may first want to have a look at my youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOQEFUQkccU
In 2016 I visited an acquaintance in Kharkov (Ukraine), and he had a painting or something similar in the appartment satirising Rajneesh, who is generally known in NL as just Bhagwan. He said that 'Bhagwan' is not specific. Correct, as it has the meaning 'God' (according to Wikipedia it means: "blessed one", used in Indian traditions as a term of respect for a human being in whom the divine is no longer hidden but apparent. This is of course in essence the same thing, in that using that for a name is stupid). But here in NL I only ever heard of this guy being called 'Bhagwan'... I only had an opinion from just snippets of information here and there, of this guy being fake, and after the Netflix TV series "Wild wild country", I analysed more. The analysis of some comments (and the people making those comments) in this series are to come (need to type them in from notebook) further down on this page.
After "Wild wild country" I watched the critical documentary "Fear is the master" (1983), which begins with a comparision with some psychopaths from history, which is apt as Rajneesh is a manipulator with little or no empathy.
Then on to "Ashram" / "Ashram in Puna" / "Ashram in Poona" (1979, or 1981, not sure what the original title was, and whether there were different versions or just that the 1981 date was the release date for theatrical showing, and that the film was originally made in 1979), see for a description of the latter film, this page:
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/11/13/movies/life-at-an-ashram-search-for-inner-peace.html
You can find that film with an internet search, or direct searching on the site 'dotsub' (part 1 is at dotsub part 1/7 of Ashram in Poona).
I give some comments on this film further down on this page.
Various other articles on the internet give interesting information, such as in new republic:
https://newrepublic.com/article/147657/outside-limits-human-imagination
and various articles at consciousevolution.tv, such as:
To be enlightened, means at the very least to understand life, know the meaning of life, and not just understand it, but also feel it and implement it in how you live. Understanding life means also understanding what you can and cannot change, in people, and in the structures that people create in society.
In a higher sense being enlightened is supposed to give awareness of the universe on deeper level, going above what we can see with our senses, and whether that is real or not doesn't matter, as if that is so, then also the first part of what enlightened means is true, and you already see that Rajneesh doesn't have that. So views about the truth of some higher plane of existence, for the concepts of karma, and that to be enlightened, you may not have karma, etc., don't matter for the analysis of Rajneesh.
I want to tell you a little secret, but first I will tell you this: I was more enlightened when I was 2 years old, than Rajneesh when he was self-proclaimed enlightened... Now my secret: I was NOT enlightened! ;-)
1. The guy calls himself Bhagwan (=God, or blessed one), and by that you already know he is likely a narcissist and thus a zero. Nobody who is wise will proclaim himself to be wise, nobody who is righteous will say that he is righteous, everyone who has any wisdom will acknowledge that he has flaws, but tries to do the best he can.
Rajneesh was probably a psychopath, at least a narcissist. Perhaps I will expand on this elsewhere. I will note here only that I saw a reference on wikipedia of someone who felt he is narcissistic and to me the difference between them, in what interests me most of all, is not so great in these terms: These types of people have no empathy vs. very little empathy for other people, so they are not that different...
Note about the terms psychopath/sociopath: See my analysis of a woman I met on my travels for the problems in psychology, in which I tell more about this, i.e. the inconsistent use of terms by psychologists. Also these terms have various ad-hoc traits addded to the essence which are not useful (and the learned behvaiour doesn't make sense, as I will describe in project 2 soon to be published).
And so I use the word psychopath simply in the following way, which is the essence of both terms: Someone with no empathy and who doesn't care about people. They care about themselves, which can be either money/status, or about ideals, in which case they want to reshape the world as they see fit...
Intelligent ones (in the simple sense of IQ, which is not indicative of actual intelligence in lots of situations, which is why I find psychopaths and autists to be morons because they can't understand my reasoning and they make stupid statements that I can easily refute), are often manipulative, the stupid ones are more likely to be criminal (and according to psychologists: 'impulsive'., I will deal with all that, including why emotion poor people are stupid even if they have a high IQ, in project 2).
Narcissists are also anti-social, but less so usually than a psychopath. They have an inferiority complex that turns into a superiority complex (I also deal with that in project 2).
The curious thing about psychopaths is that they always make clear what they want from day 1. They lie to your face, manipulate, but in what they say and do they actually already say quite clearly (if you pay attention) what they want and how they are. Rajneesh does this e.g. by calling himself Bhagwan. This means that psychopaths are in my view and from my experiences, not intelligent, despite inept psychologists claiming they are. A true con-man (which is a part of what (fairly intelligent) psychopaths are: they are anti-social inept bullshit artists), would not let the truth come out so easily, he would camouflage himself better! This is almost certainly why in case of psychopaths there is a distinction, which is quite odd: Of people working below such a person, 50% or so think they are great, the other 50% detest him. Those who like him are superficially impressionable (or they "want to believe"), and not critical, the other 50% are more BS resistant and see that something is wrong...
2. Someone who wants others to wear lockets with his picture, or even lets them wear lockets with his picture, is not wise, and is definitely not enlightened.
3. He and some of the 'leaders' suddenly left India not long after the Indian government revoked the tax-free status for his ashram, when he found in the USA what he didn't find in India: space to build a city for followers. He just left everyone at the ashram in Poona without telling them anything, which is anti-social, he clearly doesn't care about anyone there, and he was not fulfilling the duties that he assumes by being a leader... By becoming a leader, you become responsible for the people you lead. It is similar to what Antoine de St.Exupery wrote in his very interesting analysis about illogical behaviour and reasoning, and ethics: "The little prince". I mean "when you tame something, you become responsible"... But Rajneesh doesn't notice or know about this responsibility. So Rajneesh was definitely not wise nor enlightened.
4. Having a lot of Rolls Royces is not a joke played upon anyone [ edit 2020-9-28: Which is what some people say to try to justify how having so many of them was meant, but in the Swiss documentary from 2010 it was mentioned that Rajneesh wanted to be in in the Guinness book of world records for having the most Rolls Royces. That reason would also be a clear sign that he was not enlightened ], it's just a sign of someone who has no sense of what is appropriate. If you crave having even 1 Rolls Royce, you are not enlightened. If you think having Rolls Royces is a statement for any follower that striving for wealth is fine, then you don't understand anything because, though poverty is not useful in life except to rid yourself of posessions (do a clean up and throw away a lot of things that you keep in the house 'because I might need it some day', and you will feel as if a burden has lifted from you), wealth will not give meaning to your life. So there is a balance, between earning enough and not losing sight of what the meaning of life is. If you think having Rolls Royces is a statement against other religions who 'tried to help the poor and failed', then you are also wrong. Just like sarcasm is an unfriendly critical type of humour that may be useful or funny sometimes, but is not good to spread wisdom, so this act of collecting Rolls Royces is simply inappropriate and meaningless, not a sign of nor for anything deeper, and shows again that Rajneesh was not enlightened.
5. He suddenly tried to leave the USA when he knew that the US government was going to arrest him. That is not the action of an enlightened person!
6. He let Sheela, who is clearly a psychopath, be the spokes person in 'his' organisation, the most active person in fact in organising all kinds of things! This shows immediately that Rajneesh was not enlightened (otherwise he would have known that she is a psychopath, and would not have let her be in any position of power).
Further on in my analysis of some of the things Rajneesh talked about (transcriptions of his talks in books), I give more examples that show that Rajneesh was not very intelligent and not enlightened.
In the article in newrepublic, H.Zeitlin is quoted saying: "The way he uses language, his tone of voice, the way he sequences ideas ... all are essentially hypnotic.".
Really? To me he sounds manipulative, and most of all he sounds annoying because he talks slowly in a particular way and doesn't say much, he repeats what he says in different ways (where it's not needed, perhaps this is what Zeitlin feels is hypnotic, but to me his talking style is only annoying), further, his information content per hour is very low. I'm also very critical of what he says, which is often just nonsense. That I'm annoyed rather than impressed or influenced by his speaking, is perhaps my critical nature, which is likely, along with my dislike for authority figures, why I detect (and detest) psychopaths almost always immediately.
I talked about his style of talking with someone who said that she also finds the way he talks annoying...
The low information content per hour, made me think to a writer, Deepak Chopra. I read one of his books and I felt that the 270 odd pages could have been condensed into 10 pages... The connection here is that Chopra, for some reason, praised Rajneesh. At least that's what I read in some places.
The only reference I can find now is this and similar pages:
where it's not made clear from where that comment comes, which is supposedly by Chopra.
When trying to find that again I also came across this:
http://spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/232/deepak-chopra-awakened
Where someone asked whether Deepak Chopra is enlightened. I can easily answer that question: In the book that I read, Chopra talked about being worried someone else might have the same idea for topic of a book, and that he may have finished writing it before he has. If he worries, then he is not enlightened...
In the newrepublic article M.Singer is quoted saying about cults: "They don’t want the streetwise who’ll cause trouble, who know there’s no free lunch. They want the upwardly mobile who come complete with dowries."
And just before that, J.Merritt says about cults that they "typically go after single, white, young, middle-class and upper-middle-class people who have been taught to be open to innovative ideas and to try new experiences. They are often intelligent young men and women who are extremely idealistic and altruistic."
This makes sense, people who are altruistic have a "I want to believe" attitude and that can be very harmful to themselves, when encountering the wrong people. You need at least a modicum of critical attitude at all times. An altruistic attitude is often bound with being not-critical which is what cults abuse. But sometimes it is a choice, as for example Yogananda writes in "Autobiography of a Yogi", that some people are fake gurus, and the people know that some are likely fake, but that on the whole the people accepted it because supporting those who are genuine (instead of checking everyone, and how can you be sure someone is a real guru?), is more important than the fact that some people who don't deserve it get support (food/money).
In progress. I'm typing them in from my handwritten notes...
Netflix TV series "Wild wild country" (2018) Notes made while watching, 11-4-2018 up to ca. 14-4-2018:
- Sheelah talks of a crown on her head. My comment: She clearly has a hugely inflated ego (but does not appear to be a psychopath, so far).
- Bhagwan stops talking to people/giving lectures.
- Bhagwan goes to the USA, and does NOT tell this to the people in the ashram in India! My comment: What a dick!
- Sheelah talks about the ashram in Oregon, about the ground, water, and nature returning, and says "They should have offered us a Nobel prize". My comment: Again a tremendous overvaluation of her own worth.
- About the rajneesh movement being a cult: The retort is that the definition of a cult is better applicable to the US army (1 leader, "the whole is more important than the individual"). My comment: This is possibly correct (I am very critical of all authoritarian structures in society) but it does not invalidate the claim!
- Sheelah: If you don't find the little loopholes in the law, it is your loss. My comment: Hmm, what an a-hole! [ Added note 28-7-2018: Explanation for those who may not understand what I mean: Exploiting a loophole is fine (well, if there is a moral justification), but it is the way she says it that shows she cares about nobody! Why bring others into it? Just justify why you use loopholes, not tell others that they are making a mistake if they are not exploiting loopholes! ]
- Sheela: "If this city goes, of course we have Rajneeshpuram. Either way we are the winners". My comment: This is an indication for a psychopath...
[ Added note 27-7-2018: A short time into Ep. 1 I already thought that Sheela is a psychopath, but then in particular her 'grieving' threw me off a bit, so I delayed my final judgment. Grieving is of course a selfish act, and yet it's considered an act of caring, which it isn't, and yet that concept was how I judged it. I made a mental note of that, and I will never make that mistake again... ]
More to come soon.
- part 1/7: When watching the first minutes of Ashram in Puna (1981), I thought about Dutch student clubs. The term slave labour is mentioned in some places about the ashram in the USA, i.e. the lowly workers at the ranch in the USA could be considered such, as they work 12 hours a day for the good of the commune. Of course there is always some trade off and exchange, you do something for someone or for a group, that someone else or the group does something in return. This is normal, but the balance is missing.
With student clubs, and in the military in various countries, there are similar issues as with cults in how they bond people, how they try to control or at least influence you.
With Dutch student clubs, there are inane initiation rituals, that perform a sort of bonding to the club, and to each other for all those in the group of people enduring that ritual.
In a discussion group about programming in Eiffel, I once mentioned that the source code of GPLed source code was kept non-public by some projects. Someone then asked why, how, as everyone may publish (copy, distribute) the computer source code of software under that licence, if he wishes. To me it was simple, just thinking ahead, emulating what would happen in my mind gives the logical reason: So I said that, at least for software with a high price, when the maker simply says something like "if the code is made public, then we may not continue supporting the software and making new versions as it will not be viable then any more", then that is a strong factor in why that software will not become freely available. The buyers' investment is thus at stake! The high price is thus an important factor that makes this request work, people will not redistribute the program, because people will then have in their mind the possible loss of support which is an issue for the relatively big investment having been made to buy this software, but there is something else: The notion "I paid a high price for it, why should anyone else get it for free?". So some sort of bond is formed with client and customer. Had the software been low price, then someone will just re-publish it because if the cost to that person is not high, the loss (either of the 2 views above) will not be high, and the feeling of gratification from comments from people who like that he re-distributed it, may be worth more.
Similarly, bonding rituals do not just create a connection between people who have been in the same stressful situation, there then forms a bond to the club/military as now they have invested sweat and anxiety! Leave the club and throw that away? Then do another initiation ritual with another club? So you see that student clubs thus prevent people switching clubs, to meet a different type of people, a different atmosphere that might better suit them. With that they are influencing the surroundings of the students, manipulating them. This is an example of a psychopathic system, a system of rules and the structure defined by them, that are more important than the invididual.
And that's not enough, you need to "work for the club" for several months. WTF for? If Im going to work, then for myself, not for some bunch of dicks. You already pay contribution, so why?
Also interesting is that these clubs protect themselves, or rather their assets, by putting those into some construction so it won't get affected by whatever happens financially. That the guy from one club that I visited mentioned that in a brief talk we had, says already that the structure of the club is for them more important than the members.
And so to Bhagwan, you work for him, give your money to him, to the 'system', they make you bond to him, to the system, to the goals he has, but they offer no real wisdom or anything else in return. Well, some people may have thought they got something out of it, but that's no different than Stockholm syndrome. A proper evaluation of what went on makes clear that most people there were fooling themselves.
That this movement was called a religion for tax reasons, and then ended years later: Both are not a problem, for the following reason: It is about using the legal system and making it a religion even if you don't want a religion, for a specific purpose. This is not so bad, after all, you are bound by the system you work in and then you can try to change it, or use it, or even abuse it if you think the rules are unjust.
Just, truth, appropriate: These are words that should be used (everywhere), but clearly are not used as they should in student clubs, the military, and cults.
What is a problem is that Rajneesh should have said it is a religion simply for tax reasons and why this is just. He could have said his 'teachings' are a wisdom of life, not worshipping of gods. A wisdom of life is what the essence of religions is, though many people don't understand this and think the customs such as praying or festivities, are essential... And they are not!
[ hmm, first I thought he may have done that as wikipedia says that the book Rajneeshism, is "a 78-page compilation of his teachings that defined 'Rajneeshism' as 'a religionless religion'." which sounds good, but then after Sheela fled, he said it was her idea and all the remaining books should be burned. I can see getting rid of memories of Sheela is good but it means no bonus points for Rajneesh in defining a religion the right way, or even better would have been to declare his teachings as a way of life, but instead he muddled along and did not define anything. If you think that defining is restricting, yes but it doesn't matter, because all of his followers were and are not enlightened, and in fact I think none will ever be enlightened, because that takes a smart person ages, a follower of a blockhead will definitely fail... ]
Rajneesh's teaching style was supposed to be transformative, as you can read in Wikipedia: "All such behaviour, however capricious and difficult to accept, was explained as "a technique for transformation" to push people "beyond the mind"." And yet, for the people whom he came in contact with, they almost all likely did not get anywhere even close to where this might have been useful (if it is/can be at all useful). For beginners into looking into themselves and trying to find meaning in life and seeing how to live differently, of course something else is needed! Just as you don't start teaching 5 year old children differential equations, you start with addition, subtraction, etc.).
So back to defining a religion as it should be defined: The true essence of Christianity for example, is not in rules, not in dates, not in festivities, not people's names in the bible, not God, not Jesus, not in churches, and definitely not in the Old testament, but in the wisdom from the New testament, such as the sermon on the mound. A religion should be a wisdom of life and view of life, nothing more.
By calling himself a god, and by having lockets with his picture, he already shows from the start what he is. A simple man, who doesn't mind a personality cult, who does what in other religions happened later after the unknowing founder is gone. And that what happened was clearly not the wish of the originators such as Jesus, but it happened because those who were influenced by the wisdom, did not fully grasp the essence and did not understand that worshipping is neither desired nor interesting to anyone who is really trying to make changes in the world, and show people how to do it differently. It's also not useful to anyone, not to the people doing the worshipping and also not to the person they are worshipping...
The comment in "Fear is the master" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNLjDKcadv8&has_verified=1 part 1/4, for the other parts see the links in the full description or in the comments) that Rajneesh was not considered spiritual in India, is thus logical. The same goes for the article in newrepublic, which says:
"One of the things that’s clear is that if someone is an enlightened master, he doesn’t go around spreading dissent and hatred. The way Rajneesh and his followers antagonized people in India inevitably meant that he was not regarded as an enlightened person."
- part 2/7, 01:48 (total time: ) A German woman says, what I summarise as follows: "she was looking for an alternative life, she likes it in the ashram, it's very beautiful there, flowers, trees, grass, the orange clothing, but on the other hand she says everyone wearing orange clothing makes it a bit like a uniform, and that from that a Dogma can form."
Of course there are assumptions and rules everywhere, but yes, there is not full freedom, and not as much freedom as there could be! Which interestingly she felt while being there...
I think the attraction to this life and giving away posessions as many did, comes from the "I want to believe" feeling (I will analyse this elsewhere soon) that this life, is right for them, that it will fulfill them. Of course Rajneesh showed his disregard for all his followers by simply leaving Poona without telling anyone except the 'leaders' about it...
- part 3/7, 13:31 up to start of part 4/7. Here Rajneesh says that "science can only understand the law of cause and effect. If something can be caused, it is bound to fall into the field of science. But truth cannot be caused. [unintelligeible word] in the presence of the master it can happen.".
Here he makes several mistakes. The essence of science, which many people don't understand, is to understand the world around you. Note that the essence of science is NOT measurements, that is just a part of what science is about! Looking for causes or effects is also just a part of science. To understand something, you need to analyse it, i.e. see what goes on, seeing what relates, to create methods of analysis, and to devise ways to measure, in order for 'it' to be understood, and anything else that may be needed to further understand 'it'. So, general analysis is the primary tool. After analysis come experiments and measurements, which are tools used in (or for) the analysis. With science, truth is not known, but science comes as close to what we think a fully accurate description of the world is like, as is possible given our understanding so far. This means there are always certain assumptions, though connectedness is a big pointer towards this being the correct way to go about it and that scientific theories in the exact sciences at least come fairly close to describing reality.
I will get back to this, elsewhere, where I will explain that connectedness is actually an indicator of the truth, but also from connectedness you can derive that falsifiability is a good way to say that a theory is scientific or not.
Secondly he says truth can happen in the presence of a master. Perhaps I'm nitpicking due to the way language is used, and how it can be used, but I feel on the other hand that when explaining you need to explain carefully what you mean. And he doesn't do that. So I will explain: Truth can't happen, truth just is. So, what he says is wrong, what he means and what he should have said is that the 'awareness of the truth' (= knowing the truth = knowing the real essence of the universe and life within it), can happen in the presence of someone who stimulates you in a certain way. This is no different from what various yogi's say about this topic. Note that they also say you yourself must do the work to get enlightened. Perhaps a master can impress you, into feeling and seeing the truth, but then to master this feeling and become enlightened, you must be able to do it yourself.
Note that there is a big mistake in his thinking, about cause and effect related to truth as I will discuss in my next comment.
- part 4/7, from ca. 0:53 Rajneesh says that "something can start happening in you. It will not be transferred from me to you. It cannot be transferred. It will not be caused, I will not be the source of it. You will remain the source of it. But it can be triggered. I can function as a catalytic agent.".
The truth is the truth. Awareness of the truth according to Rajneesh can be triggered, and thus it can be 'caused' because a trigger or any influence that helps, is a cause, which is contrary to what he said before. This contradiction stems from not making the distinction between truth and awareness of the truth. This also means mentioning science's cause and effect (comment 3, which he did to show truth has no part in science and that science can't deal with 'the truth' and thus not say anything about the true essence of the universe and more than the universe, if there is more than the universe) is irrelevant as he actually only deals with "awareness of the truth" (for which there is cause and effect as he says himself!), not "the truth".
- part 5/7, from ca. 0:10 about the difference between being and feeling, being hungry or feeling hungry. This distinction is logical when discussing there being more than just this 3D world, but, you can simply make a distinction when needed. It's a bit the same with names. Some people get annoyed when others say "I am <NAME>" instead of "my name is <NAME>". "my name is <NAME>" is the standard way in Russian (literally it is "I am called <NAME>" but that is the same thing) so there is no choice there, but in many other languages both ways are possible (and used). Then you can think about what it means, when do people use either form? Well, it can be caused by tradition, what you have been taught, as in Russian, but if there was no strong definite guide to either, then using "I am <NAME>" shows you accept the name as part of you. If you say "my name is <NAME>", then it signifies a distance between your name and you. In the same way, if you say "I am hungry" you identify your body as you, or rather as part of you. If you say "my body is hungry" it shows a distance, separation, and yet your body is even if there is more than this 3D world, esssential in this life, and so, essential for you. And identification with it is thus normal. What should be kept in mind is simply that there is more (or for those who are not convinced that there is more than this 3D world, that there 'may be more'). A full separation shows not understanding that the meaning in this life, is in this life, not in an afterlife... (more on this topic with full explanation and examples to come elsewhere soon).
So now we come to what I disagree with. He then says "Because of our ignorance we have created a wrong kind of language too.". No "we" haven't, one can say "I am hungry" or with a bit more distance "I feel hungry" or with even more distance "my body is hungry", so there is no problem...
- part 5/7 from about 3:30 to 10:50 is mostly about a guy who was a reporter from Stern magazine (Germany) about life in the ashram and politics etc., Then from part 5/7 at ca. 10:50 to the end of part 7/7 it is about group therapy and few people telling (in German) their experiences about what is shown of those group sessions. This is a psychological self-discovery which can be useful but should be done quite differently.
This documentary tells the story of the various stages of the community surrounding Rajneesh, from archive film but also from the views of Hugh Milne and Sheela. Milne showed insight into the reality of what was going on and that at the time he already realised Rajneesh was not enlightened. He said/asked (ca. 48:55) "When did it begin to go wrong?" and answered it with the realisation he had 35 years later, that "It was always there. He had ambition.". He doubted at the time already the claim that Rajneesh was enlightened from various earlier statements in this documentary, but in particular about the time of arriving to the USA, with Rajneesh stating "I am the messiah America has been waiting for", and Milne said about that: "To me that was not an enlightened statement".
Milne then describes how Rajneesh was using laughing gas at that time, to feel good. After a while in the new commune he talked to various people about the issues he saw, some of whom reported him. Sheela called him and said something like "You have to shut up or leave", and so he left. Milne then reads what was written about him in the 'Rajneesh foundation international newsletter' (ca. Nov. 1982): his departure was declared to be his fault, for being someone who wants to play with power. This looks to be written by Sheela, and she comes next to reply with a comment: "I know the pain myself. But it is the nature of institution". Ah yes, the typical response of a psychopath. They always blame others, and if there is no way out, then they blame a structure! (and in the process may try to gain empathy points by things such as what Sheela said: "I know the pain myself". well, I'm not fooled!) The same blaming on structures was done many years ago by the psychopath Gerlach Cerfontaine when he was director of Schiphol. He was always in the news with his bullshit stories about the importance of Schiphol to the economy of the Netherlands, he was lying about noise, he was manipulating in the media and in academia by giving courses at the university of Utrecht that his cronies there in the board made possible, a course about 'responsible governance' while in reality he was all the time lying and manipulating. Imagine that, giving a course on ethical behaviour by a psychopath who does nothing of the sort himself. When the mainstream media finally noted one of his bogus claims which couldn't be denied (note that I wrote on my website in Dutch years earlier that he is a liar and psychopath, I think it was since ca. 2003, with examples of his anti-social statements and lies), he said about his lies: "That is normal for a manager". Wrong, it is only normal for an a-hole.
At about 1:19:30 into the documentary Sheela talks about paranoia and says "The nature of paranoia is ugly, it's dangerous." "Our community, harmless community, we had to start thinking like paramilitary". Uhmm, no you didn't. Just because you were paranoid didn't mean you needed to get guns. People don't just get shot by FBI/CIA! Note that this is further blaming something 'outside' (typical for psychopaths, the problems are always caused by other people, or if they can't find other people to blame then it is 'circumstances'), in this case Sheela portrays it as: 'we were paranoid, we couldn't help it!'
Everything I thought already about Sheela was confirmed...At ca. 1:21:30 a reporter asks if he breaks his silence to say something new or that he enjoys the showmanship, and Rajneesh responds: "and of course I am a showman, everybody is, just they don't have guts to say it.", the statement of a very simple man indeed, which again confirms my views: He is a narcissist and is anti-social, and doesn't understand people. No, not everyone is a showman/attention seeker...
Btw., it would not surprise me if he had a stroke and the few years of silence except to close people were done because of that...
These books can be downloaded from http://oshorajneesh.com/osho-books-free-download/.
p.65 Rajneesh says about being foolish and wise are both needed (I don't agree), and writes "But I know that's how perfect wisdom appears." and that Lao Tzu says, "Everybody is wise, except me. I seem to be foolish. Everybody's mind is clear; only my mind seems to be murky and muddled. Everybody knows what to do and what not to do: only I am confused."
Rajneesh then says: "What does he mean? He is saying that 'In me, wisdom and foolishness meet together.'"
No, I don't agree at all. What he likely means, I'm guessing here without the context, is that everyone seems certain of everything in life, except Lao Tzu. So nobody seems to think about a lot of issues in life, they take them for granted. Think to Antoine de St.Exupery's story "The little prince", which deals with this issue prominently. The little prince asks questions that the grown-ups don't ask, asks about topics that grown-ups take for granted. They feel such questions are silly, but they are in a mind-trap, and thus don't want to examine their own assumptions and views on life. And that is likely what Lao Tzu also does, i.e. question why people do and think certain things.
One might counter that with foolishness is meant a foolishness as perceived by others. That is clearly not the case, as Lao Tzu doesn't say he is wise, and he doesn't say others think he is confused, it is about his own views of himself! And that is not an exception, it is a view that you will get when you analyse everything, then you realise most people live without analysis, and that if you analyse, you know how limited your understanding is.
He also writes (or rather 'says', as these are transcripts), that the desire will be gone once you have something. That is not correct. People who are rich are never happy with what they have, people who have 1 Rolls Royce, will want, guess it, many more Rolls Royces! (not quite the same, different colours or interiors, this is no different from collecting things, which is a sort of compulsion)
Desires are gone when you are over them. Buying a product will remove the wish for that product in many cases, but not for more products related to it, none of which may be actually useful or really enjoyable to you. You can see this effect very clearly in collecting (things)...
Osho: My Way: The Way of the White Clouds: pdf.
p.3 Meditation has no purpose? Then why do it? The meaning of life is in this life, even if there is more than this life, otherwise we wouldn't be here... What rajneesh says in fact is giving in to meaninglessness: Nothing has meaning, nothing is important, nothing is interesting.
p.4 "Philosophizing is wrong, because philosophy takes the wrong basic step of thinking of life as a problem.". Not true, though some people think of issues in science or philosophy as problems to solve, others consider them challenges, and indeed discovering about a mystery. Thus his assertion about philosophy vs. religion is wrong.
p.8 "You may not be aware that for five hundred years after Buddha his statue was not created, his picture was not painted. For five hundred years continuously, whenever a Buddhist temple was created, only the picture of the bodhi tree was there. That was beautiful – because in that moment when Gautam Siddhartha became Buddha, he was not there, only the tree was there. He had disappeared for a moment – only the tree was there"
The tree is the symbol for the place where Buddha meditated to reach enlightenment, so that he disappeared, no ego, is a possible explanation, but not necessarily the reason why this picture of just the tree was used. A tree is symbolic for life, and entanglements, so I would assume the tree is more likely used as a symbol for this fact and that there Buddha achieved enlightenment, not for Buddha (or his ego) disappearing. Think of the concept 'the tree of life'.
p.17 This is just nonsense.
p.22 I go along with what he is saying here, there is too much negativity, see "the news" (newspapers/TV), and not enough discovering and enjoying. People aim too much at problems, instead they should call them challenges.
p.26 quoting La Tzu: Here he says that what I criticised, that calling yourself Bhagwan (God) shows you are no God, and even if you consider, what others have said, that everyone is a God, unlimited except by the ideas and feelings he has in this world, then everyone should/could be called God. This view of the meaning of the word 'Bhagwan' and of what people really are (not just a body but that the body is what we use in this life), doesn't make it logical to call yourself God if you don't do it to everyone else. So it's really narcissism.
In case you consider the literal meaning of Bhagwan as 'blessed one', then still it doesn't make sense to use that as a first name, and calling yourself enlightened means you are not enlightened. Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavan, where is written that in Vishnu Purana it says: "He who understands the creation and dissolution, the appearance and disappearance of beings, the wisdom and ignorance, should be called Bhagavān. ". Note that here 'should be called' is almost certainly descriptive, not about changing your name. I will make it more clear with this example: A text on painting may say that a painter who has mastered painting such as Michelangelo, 'should be called master-painter' (as opposed to 'layman', for example). Then it would be stupid for such a painter to change his first name to 'Master painter'! (and ditto nobody would think of changing his first name to layman! ;-)
Ca. p.75 "Only a rich man can become poor, because you can lose only that which you have." etc.
This whole section doesn't make sense because you can compare with what others have, what they do, how they see life, etc. His simplistic comments show that he doesn't understand that the change of wealth can make you understand what is important in life. By having enough of something, then losing it, you realise either that what you lost was either not important, or you realise how much you needed it (for your work for example, to realise ideas, I don't mean possesions to play with for yourself). You can imagine the difference in struggle in life between rich and poor easily, what is harder is to realise that being rich doesn't make you happy. So the change from being rich to becoming poor, and ditto the change from being poor to becoming rich, can make you see what is important in life.
Rajneesh mentions the west, where the ego is 'needed' due to competition. Is that not so then in the East? It's everywhere! That there is a different view is clear, but the reason that he gives for the difference in ability to lose the ego, is wrong.
A bit further he talks of knowledge and that gathering knowledge is not useful, and that is true, but he should have said this, which is how I put it: Gathering is not proper understanding. This is the same difference as understanding a mathematical proof, and being able to produce a proof. The same is clear in any field, where true understanding requires actual work that you put into it, to get a feel for the subject. To know and understand a subject once you have a feel for it, it becomes part of you, you grasp it, and are not just able to reproduce statements or facts.
I will stop here at this time as I find it rather tedious to go over all the things that are wrong, and to think about interpretation issues that often arise in spiritual writings. It's just no fun, and definitely not interesting and nothing he writes (or better perhaps: 'says', as these are transcriptions) is new to me...
I showed in my youtube video this video, to show that comments need to be approved and that happens selectively...:
And with the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pp5mWs8k5I (OSHO: My God! There Is No God!)
I placed this comment that you can't see there as it's not been approved:
Anyone who thinks that Jesus on the cross was waiting for help, doesn't understand him at all. Think of "The sermon on the mound", do you think a wise man like Jesus would be waiting for help from a father? Of course not, what he did, he all did for a reason, and he could know what was going to happen, but surely he didn't care about it except to show people that he would do the right thing and not run away... And if he could do miracles then he would not need to 'wait for help' either! Note further that the bible is written by people who were not as wise as Jesus, and thus what they write has to be interpreted from their level... Rajneesh/osho was a blockhead, I've analysed him, he was not particularly insightful nor smart and definitely not enlightened...
On wikipedia you can read:
Rajneesh revelled in paradox and contradiction, making his work difficult to summarise. He delighted in engaging in behaviour that seemed entirely at odds with traditional images of enlightened individuals; his early lectures in particular were famous for their humor and their refusal to take anything seriously. All such behaviour, however capricious and difficult to accept, was explained as “a technique for transformation” to push people “beyond the mind”.
You can excuse any inconsistencies and stupidity that way. In reality when you look at his actions you know that he is not enlightened, and from what he says, and what is in his transcribed books you see that he doesn't understand a lot of things, and interprets them as he wants to interpret them (i.e. not as they were likely meant). There is nothing deep going on with Rajneesh, contrary to what is written on Wikipedia: "A popular lecturer, he was acknowledged by his peers as an exceptionally intelligent man". Yeah right, well, in philosophy, where there is a lot of BS (just as in psychology and most of the soft sciences), this is perhaps to be expected.
Addition 2023-7-1: Analysis of Rajneesh from pieces on his wikipedia page:
I came across a 31s video of Rajneesh stating "" which was taken from "OSHO: Is Democracy the Best Way of Government? -- (Preview Talk)" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCQoukZvvFo ), which you should watch at speed x2 to make it bearable...
So I went back to his wikipedia page as I wanted to check something and did a bit more analysis...
In progress... More to come soon.
| For email go to the email page |
Last modified: 2023-7-1