Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Archive 2003 to 2006

Legacy of Rajneesh or Osho

I was going to correct the spelling in this section but I just can't see how to extract NPOV information from it. If anyone can, please do.

get drunk

Forget everything, just get drunk by osho. i strongly feel that all the critics haven't heard his discourses nor have ever meditated really. sid, india

rajneesh was against all forms of organized religeon. Pity that his followers (like the followers of all masters!) tried to form an organization around him - like all organized religeons they failed too!

to enjoy osho, read his works or listen to him; dont worship him. very interesting. bv, india

Who runs things around here?

Whoever it is, you are dishonest.

This article is a joke - it is pure hagiography. I can sure see why the neutrality is disputed. It is obvioiusly written by some followers of Rajneesh. Even all the links are pro-Rajneesh and there is no mention in the bibliography of even a single one of the many critical books written by former disciples. I think the level of dishonesty here is the best example of whot sort of fellow Rajnesh was.

Chuck, Japan

chuck you´re wrong . one thing is to follow a leader blindly and the other to understand him .you are doing the same you complain about. understand first ,and after you´ll probably remain silent. moreover ,the bibliography you mention is mostly against osho,was written by dissapointed sannyasins who followed him firth and became his enemies after when they couldn´t understand the teachings.

guruyatri,world citizen.

Chuck -- just fix it then.Msalt 01:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Dear Guruyatri

Although your arguments sound reasonable, after all you use the word understand, I find myself unpersuaded. After all if understanding means I'd come to the same conclusions as you did, then by definition I cannot disagree with you or I don't understand.  Also, if all people who studied with Rajneesh but now disagree do so only because they don't understand, we have the making of a peculiar  proposition: If you understand Rajneesh you remain silent if you disagree with Rajnessh then you don't understand him.  I have had many conversations with friends on this topic and for me the issue isn't about Rajneesh per se but about the whole idea of putting outside yourself the idea of understanding one's true self.  After all it's our own decision, our perspective, that makes Rajneesh the knower and us in the need of knowing. If the premise is we need to learn something, I'd make the argument maybe not.  Maybe the only ignorance here, about who we really are, is the belief that we are ignorant.

     Michael, neither a citizen nor not a citizen

==

You state that "silly as it may be the ® is still part of the name" "Osho®".

Not according to http://www.osho.com/, which features the name "Osho" over and over again, without any accompanying symbol, and nor on any other hit on the first page of a Google search for "Osho". The Anome 20:48 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Poisoning claim

I've seen Rajneesh's US lawyer on video about this. He said, US wanted Rajneesh out for some reason, he was way too popular. Talium was found later, when Rajneesh was released. He tried to visit other countries, but no major country where he had followers let him in. He returned to India. The years before his death he felt extreme pain all the time, said he doesn;t enter Nirvana only because of disciples. That's according to lawyer.

However, Rajneesh did not develop the extreme baldness that, I am told, would result from radioactive Thalium poisoning. There are a lot of lies surrounding Rajneesh, and most of them attempt to show him in a good light that he does not deserve. Luis Dantas 02:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"... and most of them attempt to show him in a good light that he does not deserve." Now is that supposed to be neutral? How does Mr. Luis Dantas know if he deserves it or not? 83.65.42.134 19:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the talk page, which is not covered by the NPOV requirements. Besides, I fail to see the point of faking lack of knowledge. I have an opinion on Rajneesh from pretty much the same sources that everyone else does, mostly contact with followers and reading of his books. He has (unfortunately) left quite a body of works, most of it dishonest or just plain silly. Luis Dantas 11:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The point made by 83.65.42.134 is that you first call the article non-POV, then give a very strong opinion that you did not back up with even an abstract argument, let alone links to stories, or God forbid, plausible evidence. So your statement is a shout in the wilderness. If it matter so much to you, you should add some *information*. -- Crankhandle 06:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Osho himself would disapprove all this discussion. If you like him, great, if you don't like him that's great too. I just can't understand why there are so much people bothered by Osho. If you don't like him, just let it go, do not try to "prove" to others that he was a bad guy. What is bad for you may not be bad for me. Veng 19:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

From religioustolerance.org:

The Osho International Foundation (OIF) has registered the word Osho® in order to promote of certain products. The registration is being challenged before the US Trademark Board of Appeals. Those opposing the OIF allegedly claim that the name cannot be a trademark, and that the OIF committed fraud in its application. While this matter is being sorted out in the courts, we are using the registration mark, to avoid prosecution.

Wouldn't you agree that we'd best follow suit? Mkweise 20:51 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Even if the word is trademarked, it isn't normally used in titles. Should we include the tradmark at Microsoft, Apple Computers, Coca-Cola and Frito-Lay too? Tuf-Kat

I'm just a technical writer who does what he's been taught, but I believe according to the letter of the law (at least in the US) trademark attribution is required in publications, though not in correspondence. Better ask the Wikipedia legal department to be sure. Arguably it could be a serious issue where litigious trademark owners are involved, as with Osho® or Scientology®. Mkweise 21:31 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

You believe incorrectly. Trademarks are trademarks regardless of whether accompanied by the ® or suchlike symbols. Generally, it is only the owner of a trademark who feels obliged to include the symbol, as it is in only their interest to publicize the fact. If you want to CYA, include a footnote saying something like "Foo is a registered trademark of Bar Corporation". (But IANAL.) Rocinante9 21:36 Aug 16, 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the cited page uses the name repeatedly without the symbol, clearly demonstrating that it is not part of the name. The Anome

I've stripped the honorific titles from the entry name, as that appears to be the Wikipedia standard. Mkweise

The trademark attempt failed in the US Courts.

While I've reconstructed the entire childhood episode to make it readable, its not advisable to have something like that for an enclyclopedia page about Osho. It can be made into capsule form, may be in a single paragraph. A new page called Osho's Philosophy can be added to filter out his life from his teachings.
Jay 22:09, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1953 to 1981

These seems to be a gap in the narative between 1953 and 1981 which needs to be filled Lumos3 08:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm much afraid I don't have the book here, so I am writing from memory without dates or, at most, approximate ones.

After his enlightenment at 21 he didn't drop everything he was doing. He worked as a profesor of philosophy in his university in Jabalpur. Later on, afterhours, he started giving discourses to some disciples who gathered around him. These disciples started organizing larger and larger events and even tours around India. His fame grew to the point that he was able to drop his day job and move to a small appartement in Mumbai (ex-Bombay) supported by his disciples and the money collected from his public appearances.

It was in that small appartment (it was said that an audience of a couple of dozens would spill out to the stairwell) that he was found by western seekers (yes, it was in the days when The Beatles had just returned from India and it became fashionable), mainly German.

It was mainly the impetus of the hardworking Germans that produced the Ashram in Pune (ex-Poona) where he moved along his direct followers and where his commune still stands. This commune supported a far larger number of people so his discourses were regularly attended not just by a few dozens at best but by a few hundreds. The commune grew by buying adjoining property so that it could provide further services. Even then, the commune was never able to provide living quarters to the number of people attending the place, so his disciples spilled around all the neighborhood where it is located. At peak time, in the years after his return from the U.S. before his death, I would say Pune could be filled by as many as 10 to 12 thousand people, while attendance to his discourses would usually be around 3 thousand people, growing to 5 to 6 thousand for special ocasions.

It was from this stable base that his discourses started being recorded, first in audio, then in video, which got written down and published under his name. These books and tapes greatly helped his popularity, particularly in the west.

The commune also supported, and it still does, a very creative atmosphere for all sorts of artists. Some of Osho's meditations are supported by specially written music. German musician Deuter (http://www.newearthrecords.com/Biographies/deuter.asp) wrote and performed many of those pieces. Osho's discourses were usually preceded by dancing with live music and some of these musicians are also in the catalog of the record company in the link.

The commune not only provided space for the actual practice of his meditation techniques and to listen to discourse but Osho also welcomed western therapists so that the most advanced therapy techniques that could be found in Esalen were also available in Osho's Ashram.

The commune in Pune was going pretty well when, due to medical concerns, he went to the U.S. to have surgery performed on his back. His way of walking was not just for show, he really had problems in his back. Anyway, he didn't get surgery since some physical therapy helped him, which included the chair he used to give his discourses which was orthopedic.

It was while he was staying in the U.S., actually somewhere in New Jersey, that a group of his U.S. disciples wanted him to stay there and they bought the ranch, as it is often referred to by his followers, in Oregon, to establish the commune. Many of his disciples that came from India with him, lots of them German, kept up their hardworking fame and built a large commune almost out of nothing. In this issue, I feel (and this is clearly my POV) that it is not correct to say that Osho requested his followers to buy the ranch. Being the leader of his group this would be expected but his role was far more passive in the practical matters than one would expect. Had he not been found in his small apartment in Bombay by the very entrepreneural and hardworking Germans, he would have happily remained there, there would not have been any commune in Pune nor any ranch in Oregon. He behaved as the most kind and courteous guest wherever his followers carried him.

His living quarters were always modest. While in the ranch he lived in a trailer. Back in India, he spent all his day either in his very small and spartan room or in the terrace. The place where his ashes lie was built for his room, both bed, living and working room. Actually, his ashes are where his bed would have been. The actual purpose of the room is hinted by the adjoining fully equipped bathroom that, to my knowledge, has never been used and makes no sense on the side of a meditation hall or a mausoleum as the room is sometimes referred. It became a small meditation hall after Osho's death but the bathroom was never demolished nor ever used. The room had been usable by the time of his death, but he never bothered moving there, staying in his small room, where he died.

The story also continues after his death, since the commune in Pune is still running under the direction of some of his disciples, just as it always had. It has grown about twice the size Osho knew it, now even including a hotel, swimming pool, a large auditorium, larger kitchens and eating spaces. There is no spiritual successor to Osho, the directors only handle 'practical' matters. The daily program of the Ashram is still much as it was when Osho was alife, his recorded videos are still shown every night just as his live discourses occurred at that same hour.

The commune contributes to the city by attracting a large number of foreign spiritual tourism and also by direct action, such as the building of a large park in a small stream at the back of the Ashram which was converted from a sewer to a very beautiful and confortable park. The foreign flavour brought by the disciples attract a lot of the young students of the University of Pune so that the whole area around the Ashram is now quite fashionable so that nowadays you see young soon-to-be professionals riding their powerfull new motorcyles( 125cc is powerfull by Indian standards), with cell phones on their belts, asking for decaf capuccinos and female students wearing jeans.

--DevaSatyam 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

POV gone amuk

There has go to be a way of getting this page to be more NPOV. I think if we look at the Scientology page as an example of something that is far more balanced, we can fix this page. I think the criticisms should be put in a section called "Criticism/Scepticism." The current page is extremely POV. That it had talked about the Rolls Royces without giving balance is irresponsible.Aasgaard 15:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is also somewhat shocking to read the introduction with all the description of his names. As it stands it sounds like showing off, like he was shamelessly appropriating the honorific titles of former masters. This has to be seen in the perspective of Indian culture were the use of that many honorific titles is not unusual for someone in Osho's situation. Just like the use a lot of colours and gold lace on their clothes and their paintings. Austerity is not their thing.

Come on, DevaSatyam. You ought to know that you are lying shamelessly. Rajneesh was very much a show-off, as his Cadillac collection proves. He _did_ steal both the title of "Bhagwan" (from Ramana) and that of "Osho" (from Zen Buddhism). Besides, Rajneesh's situation is that of a compulsive liar with delusions of grandeur. Luis Dantas 19:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Dantas,your hatred towards "the blessed one" only shows that you live in"Dantas Inferno",very confused and deluded , you even confuse Roll Royces with Cadillacs ,please do "dynamic meditation", or "yoga" or "something",don´t just sit around reading or writing stupid remarks from your "inferno". (guruyatri@yahoo.com),20:45,0ctober 4 ,2006

Anyway, those names were only used in formal contexts, his followers always referred to him by either Bhagwan or Osho and it should be noted that in this later stage, prior to his death, he explicitly requested that all other honorific titles should be dropped.

--DevaSatyam 15:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Dream on. This page is nothing but a love letter to a cult leader, and it's obviously written by his marks.

This just in

Today someone inserted the following text in the article: He re-hashed and re-introduced hundreds of old meditation techniques from various traditions, ... - is that accurate? Are there "hundreds" of "old meditation techniques" which Rajneesh actually reintroduced? Some sort of reference would be welcome. Luis Dantas 02:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on how you count them or what you call a meditation. If we are talking about formal, structured and regularly performed meditations (actually, meditation techniques, since the technique is the part you can do, the meditation is what happens), there might be just above a couple dozen. There are CDs recorded with the music that goes with about half of these.

Over the years, though, in his discourses, specially when answering questions of his disciples, he would sometimes sugest a meditation technique that, though for someone in particular, it might be of general use to anyone else. Thus, we have a few smoking meditations, for those who want to quit, or meditations to do at work, or against obesity.

Moreover, lots of activities can be performed in a meditative way. Thus, the ashram offers working meditation such as watering the garden (the ashram has a full irrigation system, but if someone feels like doing it meditatively it is Ok), or cleaning a room (there are hired workers for that, but once again, you can do it if you feel like).

So, if you count all of these, yes, they can add up to a hundred. I think 108 is the number cited more often, I don't recall the story behind it but 108 has some historical or mythical thing behind it. Nevertheless, I am quite certain nobody ever did an actual count, eliminating duplicates and categorizing them into full blown structured techniques or minor sugestions, but about a hundred in all would be about right.

--DevaSatyam 15:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Perhaps I am the only one who has spoken on 112 methods of meditation. There is no other literature on those 112 meditations, and I have developed many new meditations which are not included among those. There is great need for literature on meditation from different angles, because there are meditations which you can do while doing anything. It is just an inner process. There are meditations which need specific times. There are meditations which you can do only while making love. There are meditations which need a certain kind of a structure. So much possibility is there for writing theses on meditations. [ ...] These 112 methods that I am referring to are the most significant ones. It is not that there are only 112. There can be thousands of methods. Each person has to work differently on whatever technique he is using, so there are as many techniques as there are persons. Ultimately they all lead to the same thing, but your uniqueness has to be taken into account. - Osho :) -(see also: The Book of Secrets, St. Martin's Press, New York)

"Rajneeshee Cult"

Is there an NPOV way of including the fact that Rajneesh' ashram became referred to as the "Rajneeshee Cult" in the US press and colloquially. The reason why I ask is that I want to redirect Rajneeshee Cult to this article as it provides a relatively sedate non-sensational account of events. Thanks for the input. Courtland 04:34, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Osho" Rajneesh's "Sannyasins"

This controversial and iconoclastic guru (1931-1990) has considerable influence in the "New Age" circles of some countries (Brazil for instance), where his books are sold in mainstream bookstores with nearly as much acceptance as those of the Dalai Lama. His teachings emphasize the search for personal freedom (definitely including sexual activity), often to the point of damaging ethical discernment and leading to enthusiastic yet destructive behavior. His books are often very caustic in their criticism of many institutions and traditional teachings. His followers caused the Wasco County, Oregon scandal (involving political fraud and salmonella poisoning). Much of the information about him is of dubious quality, such as his death supposedly being caused by poisoning with radioactive Thallium.

While it may have been a cult once, nowadays, few people are active in a hierarchically organized group based on the organizational lineage of Rajneesh. Some people may be involved in several unhealthy cult-like groups based on the teachings of Rajneesh.

References:

OCRT essay
"Osho, Bhagwan Rajneesh, and the Lost Truth" by Christopher Calder
Commentary on Rajneesh
Friends of Osho
Biography
Homepage of a Brazilian community of "Osho sannyasins" (in Portuguese)

POV issues

This has been included in the latest version of the article:

Osho was unique in his syncretism of a number of philosophic systems previously though to oppose one another, such as ancient Greek doctrines (Heracletus, Pythagoras and Socrates) and Oriental philosophy (Islam, Zoroastianism and Budhism). His claim that all religions where valid having been founded by an enlightened master (Christ, Pythagoras, Budha, Mohamed) and later corrupted by the official church, granted him a following of a multitude of ethnic groups and beleifs.

That is so POV that it hurts. Rajneesh's so-called syncretism is a lie that heavily distorts most if not all of its sources, most definitely including Buddhism. He is best described as a sort of modern-day Alesteir Crowley, actually.

Even if he had taught some sort of syncretism (which I strongly disagree he did), that would still not make him unique at all. He would have lots of company, from Kant to Ken Wilber, including the founders of the Bahai Faith and of Sikhism.

I will leave this notice here for a day or two and NPOV the text then if need be. Luis Dantas 14:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the second sentence is valid but the use of the term unique does tarnish the validity of the first sentence.

I have read the syncretism phrase elsewhere, I am sure it is copied from some sort of marketing material. I don't even know what it really means because it smells so much of marketting bable that I never bothered to look it up in the dictionary. It is truth, though, that he spoke and commented about most religions and thinkers all in the light of his own phylosophy and in this I think it should be recognized that he was quite impartial with all of them, finding fair amounts of positive and negative things on all of them or, put it in other words, religious people of all colours find his words equally offensive, ignoring whatever good he had to say about them.

--DevaSatyam 12:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think possibly you are placing emphasis incorrectly. The quote you gave is "unique in his syncretism". I think this must be true. If his syncretism was a copied one, there would be little value to his teachings. That Osho is not the only person to have practiced syncretism (whatever that is, I have never heard of it) is not what the statement says. But that seems to be how you are interpreting it, and hence your perception of POV.

What you should instead do is amend the text to correct it, annotating with some note such as "clarifying statement which could be misinterpreted as POV". And probably replace the word with a more common word, or add an explanation. -- Crankhandle 07:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

June 18th NPOV

This article is for me not acceptabel NPOVed. Most gross violation:

He extracted and expounded truth and techniques from various spiritual sources. He has spoken over 10 million words and is :author of at least 600 books in Hindi and English on various spiritual tradtitions including Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Socrates, Zen :masters, Hassid's and every subject under the sky. He was a voracious reader and his lectures were mixed with wit and jokes. :A powerful orator, he used it to convey his message, but insisted that the only reason he kept on talking was to eventually :convince his listeners to start on a path of meditation. He re-hashed and re-introduced hundreds of old meditation techniques from :various traditions, and developed several unique meditation techniques ("Dynamic Meditation", "Kundalini Meditation", "Nadabrama", :etc.)

Obviously, one cannot discern with any degree of certainity how many words one has spoken in life, the quality involved. The idea that one can be the auther of 600 books is ludicrous. Phamplets, letters, maybe, books, no. He was a voracious reader, but how is "voracios" defined? Is quality of what was read involved? Wit and jokes seems to be propping up. Powerful orator is an opinion.

MSTCrow 05:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Info: in one of Osho's books there's a statement by him that he never wrote any of those books, and that the books are just dialogue between him and some sort of audience that gets written by people. Of course, it is also written that he said that nothing that he said should be taken seriously and that he contradicts himself on purpose, just to mess with your head, so... :-)

It´s a pity. It looks like the MSTCrow didn´t make a little research before complaining the whole world his not prooved disbeliefs. I love doubts and people they are in doubts, if then afterwords they start to find out what´s the truth about his issues. If the referred article is in fact for somebody not acceptabel then where is the negativ proof? I´m curios to get some assistant for my own prooved opinion! Instead I saw Books and Booklists from the referred Person "Osho" Rajneesh with my own eys. They counted at least 200 Books. If they are containing for everybody on the planet the same value ore acceptabel values? I don´t Know. But I found out. You can proof with Your own eyes, 200 books You can buy right now, maybe there are older ones also, they don´t offer?: http://www.oshorisk.dk/books_music/EnglBooks/CompleteABC-list.htm I found even more: "a total of more than 2000 individual audiobook titles, each lasting some 90 minutes at a cost of US$ 3.50 per title."http://www.osho.com/main.cfm?Area=Shop&Sub1Menu=Books&Sub2Menu=ShopBooksTitles&Language=English. A little serious research and I think we would maybe be more sure about the topics of our interest? Thank You for Your patients with my kind of english writing...

Aren't these many books just discourses that have been written down? I largely agree with the assessment of Rajneesh as witty but that is an opinion and not a fact and should and can be attributed to preferrably non-followers. Andries 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the case. He didn't write any book at all, he said that himself. All books attributed to him are prints of his discourses improvised live in front of large audiences and personal interviews. This is not to say he is not the author, as I am sure many books out there were dictated to someone else. This also accounts for the number of audiobooks, since each paper book resulted from several daily discourses, usually each chapter in a book corresponding to a day. Most audiobooks contain the discourse of a single date, but some very long discourses (they were in between an hour and a half to two hours, but I heard he once went for 4 hours non-stop) are broken in two audiobooks.

There are also books and audiobooks that contain selections of fragments of several discourses, some of them years appart, all talking about a single subject. With Osho talking about so many subjects something for, sometimes against, it is easy to pick fragments supporting any possible POV so these books, though attributed to Osho are basically the creation of the editor doing the selection. These Osho for Dummies sort of books are partly the reason for his popularity in certain countries and in no way they really reflect his phylosophy.

As for being a powerful orator, perhaps I may provide a hopefully objective measure. All his books are taken directly from his live discourses almost without any editing but adding proper punctuation. His pace was slow, with plenty of pauses both to let the speech sink in and, I am sure, to let him figure out how to go on, a blessing to some of us who translated them on the run since it gave us time to squeeze in the translation while he paused. He never backtracked, at least not that I know of; he somehow managed to carry on the sentence quite elegantly until a proper ending. He did not prepare any of his discourses. The only parts of his discourses that he read were the jokes which were written for him, the material he was commenting or the questions he was answering. You can tell from the audio of his discourses when he was reading and when he was improvising. The jokes he read and then his usually fluent speech went down the drain. You can often hear giggles from the audience when a joke is coming because he was awfull at telling a joke and as soon as the audience saw him picking up the papers where he had them written, the audience started bracing for a good joke awfully read. As another measure of the quality of his speech, I would like to add that the thread of his discourse sometimes jumped from one subject to another one but somehow, at the end, he managed to close all the threads left open in a few masterly sentences. Finally, it is said that he won several debating contests in his youth a skill, it seems, he never lost.

DevaSatyam 12:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

DUDES~! Isaac Asimov:- "Asimov wrote or edited over 500 volumes and an estimated 90,000 letters or postcards, and he has works in every major category..." So why not this crusty old guy? And you needn't remove the reference to his humour - simply reword it. e.g. "Many of his followers found his discourse to be witty..." Try chilling out. You guys are WAY TOO uptight! It's not like this wikipedia thing has any real worth. Of course, it is fun and all, but, really... it's not exactly the Brittanica...

I tend to be harder on proven criminals and crooks such as Rajneesh than with writers of merit. I am funny that way. Luis Dantas 11:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Living Enrichment Center

I fail to grasp what Portland's Living Enrichment Center has to do with OSHO. The former is the largest New Thought church in Oregon, and quite respected nationally as a successful liberal ministry. The later was the head of a totalitarian cult. So why is the LEC listed as a link from the Rajneesh's page?

Trademark OSHO

During my life my work was published under my name 'Rajneesh'. Rajneesh was a registered trademark since the 70's in the US and other countries around the world. Short before my death I changed my name to Osho and I requested that all my work should be published and made known under my new name. I also requested that my name and work should be protected. Osho is a registered trademark in the US and other countries since years. Where is the problem? Friends can refer to me without problem simply as Osho - no need always to place the ® - Enough for today - Osho :)

Are you dead? We've never had a ghost editor before, so far as I know. Though people may have different names before, during, and after their lives, on Wikipedia we tend towards using the names by which people are best known. For example, the former Emperor of Japan was known as Hirohito in life, but became Shōwa after death. Nonetheless, we still have his article under Hirohito because that is where people are most likely to look for him. Likewise with your own name. "Osho" is the final name that you used, but "Rajneesh" is the name by which you are best known in english. They are both fine names, both are discussed, and redirects ensure that users looking for either will find their way. Best wishes for you in the spirit world. Please say hi to my friends and family up there, you'll know who they are. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

In OIF Trademarks there is a list of several trademarks of Osho International Foundation (OIF), including the name Osho and several of his meditations and therapies. By the way, the previous by Willmcw is funny, but I would say that Rajneesh is, indeed, the name most popular amongst Americans (not necesarily all English speakers) of a certain age ;-) --DevaSatyam 15:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The US Patent and Trademark Office web site lists OSHO and several related brands as trademarked. The referred ruling supposedly denying the trademark of Osho is a ruling about the arbitration comittee for Internet domain names regarding a claim against the domain name OshoWorld.com, which actually mentions the trademark of Osho, though it rules that OshoWorld is different enough to avoid confusion. The quote comparing the name of Osho to those of Jesus or Buddha is a complete misquotation of the ruling.--DevaSatyam 21:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Osho: leader, controversial, religious movement

In TFA it says: 'was the founder and leader of the Osho-Rajneesh movement, a controversial new religious movement'. He said (at least as far as I read in his books) that he was nobody's leader and didn't seek to lead anybody. You can say that a bunch of people following you around makes you their leader, but that makes it your own opinion. Also, he said (again from the books) that he was not a Rajneshee and had nothing to do with the Rajneshees, that he was only a guest of the Rajneshees (further clarification: for his part, no such hierarchy as leader-follower, just fellows). The term 'controversial' part may seem opinion but it is right, as osho repeatedly said (again from the books) that he wanted to be controversial and stir things up as much as possible. As for the religious movement thing, he bashed religions like no one else ('all religion is utter crap' or something to that effect) so I think that labeling him as a willfull starter of a religion is somewhat of a mistake... Maybe the 'rajneshee cult' separate page was actually a good idea, at least it would be a good place to put some osho book quotes about his stance towards the people that followed him around, about free will, etc.

We can mention that he did not consider himself the leader, but that doesn't stop him from being the leader. By example, Deng Xiaoping "retired" and for five years his only title was "Chairman of the All-China Bridge Club". But he still ran the country. It would be incorrect for an encyclopedia to take Deng's official title at face value. Likewise, Osho was the leader, whether he liked it or not. Within the article there is ample evidence of the influence of others, and some description of how decisions were made. The egalitarian "followers" is a nice thought, but the followers didn't give the Rolls Royces to each other, they gave them to their leader. -Willmcw 20:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Your analogy proves nothing, since you are comparing someone who WAS the leader of China and became entrenched that way, with someone who taught, afaik, that you should think for yourself, and who rejected any role in making decisions for the people you call his followers. This is a semantic problem similar to many that you will encounter in trying to pin down real-world things to actual words. And Eastern philosophy is about as opposed to that process as any human-created or human-understood thing can be. Hahahaha! -- Crankhandle 07:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote from OSHO: “I teach religiousness not religion”. It is plain dumb to call it a religious movement! --PreetiEdul 06:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiretapping

The article should deal with the fact that in addition to the largest domestic mass poisoning incident up to that time, the Rajneeshee group was also the single largest incident of illegal wiretapping. "The largest single incident of fraudulent marriages, the most massive scheme of wiretapping and bugging, and the largest domestic mass poisoning," according to a former Oregon Attorney General. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. -Willmcw 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the commune itself was the victim of that wiretapping. The group who took control of the ranch, who orchestrated the poisoning in The Dalles was the one that wiretrapped all the commune, including Osho's trailer, the same one that kept Osho completely isolated from the rest of the commune under pretext of protecting him. As a result of this wiretapping it was plotted to kill Devaraj (mentioned elsewhere) who tried to get Osho's support to revert the situation.

The wiretapping was discovered by police authorities when they were called to investigate the sudden dissappearance of a large number of chief officers of the foundation running the ranch and the far more suspicious dissappearance of a lot of money from its bank accounts.

Sheela lives in Switzerland since those days. She was born in India and was a U.S. resident by marriage since before the ranch, actually she headed the group that bought the ranch. Now, there are two ways you can get to reside permanently in Switzerland, either you are born there or you pay your way into the country, pay handsomely. Osho ends up in India, Sheela in Switzerland, now, guess who is the one who run with all the money? Switzerland is also the place where you can find a lot of people who did fiscal fraud, as said elsewhere in the article. Once again, list all the gurus who ever lived in Switzerland, you won't find Osho in that list.

Finally, about the illegal marriages or, let us say, dubious marriages, this is how I see it, which is to say, this is my POV on the issue. You get a bunch of devoted and loving followers of a guru. Guru leaves India and goes to U.S. U.S. disciples want him to stay. They go through all the immigration laws to see how can they manage that. They find a way as 'religious leader' which, of course, requires that there be a religion. So, the guys, young and rebelious decide to f*** the system, lets have fun and make up a religion, so they file for a religion presenting all the made up rites, hierarchy, belief system and all that. Thus, Rajneeshism is born and registered in the U.S. as an actual religion, totally unknown absolutely anywhere in the world. Ain't that fun? Ain't we smart?

So, here you have the guys solving two problems at once, getting a visa for their beloved guru and, by the way, solving the problem of hundreds of followers because, you see, most of Osho's followers back then were European and they wanted to live in the commune with their beloved guru, something they couldn't do with their tourist visa. But, hey, they could marry Rajneeshism style, the rite was there, the Acharia (sort of a priest they made up, though the word does actually exist in Sanskrit) could perform it once properly licensed in the State, which they did.

It is all a big joke, and for several years it does work. Osho's teaching are completely against marriage, but no one was marrying for real, it was just for the papers, and he is also against any religious hierarchy but, it doesn't matter, they all know it is not meant for real, it is only to get all those visas for Osho himself and all the European disciples.

Please notice, though, that the people involved in this marriage business had nothing to do with Sheela and her criminal gang. Osho was detained and finally deported on immigration charges, neither the poisoning, the wiretapping or the attempted murders were ever blamed on him. The dubious marriages and Rajneeshism was a game some fellows played to work the system for the benefit of the commune from within the system in complete disregard of both, the U.S. system and their leader's teachings, but it was only a game, wasn't it? Well, no, it didn't come out that way.

--DevaSatyam 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

This background is very interesting and your perspective is informative. However please know that for the article we need to have verifiable sources. -Willmcw 18:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sure of that and I am much afraid little of this, if any, can go into the article. At most I would like to clarify the situation regarding the several charges popularly laid on Osho. I believe two women have been charged, tried in Portland and jailed for the poissoning, the wiretapping issue was never fully solved, neither the stealing of the money since most of those involved were foreign nationals and are out of reach. Osho, even though his direct responsibility could be questioned, as the leader of Rajneeshism, was charged and deported so I would say that most of what was done against others outside the commune itself, the victims of the poisonning and the violation of immigration laws, have already been settled. It was mostly the crimes commited against the commune itself that have never been solved and it is unfair that those are still blamed on Osho or the commune as a whole.

--DevaSatyam 18:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

If this perspective is available in print somewhere then we can use it as a reference. If it isn't, then perhaps you should write it out and get it published. (Then we can use it as a reference!) It'd be a shame for first-hand accounts to be lost. Thanks again for taking the time to spell it out here. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a ton to DevaSatyam for spelling it here rather than in the article, which may have led to a rv war. I'm completely with Willimcw abt making this perspective available elsewhere so that it can be used as a reference. How abt any on-line spiritual newsletters? A tentative title could be In defence of Rajneesh. --Gurubrahma 11:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

In defence of ... is a poor title. This is a wiki/pedia, not a jury. Presume innocence (or at least good intent ;), and work from there. -- Crankhandle 07:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

More that probably can't go in the article.... No one has brought up the drug dealing by the commune. I witnessed Osho followers dealing drugs in Southern Oregon in the 80's so I know it was going on. Major network news shows did reports on their drug trafficing as well. Given the extent of the corruption of this group I can't see how the leader of it could have been ignorant of what was happening, unless of course he was mentally incompetent.

2tsie 03:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Distinction

This discussion has been informative, and it does have its disputable points. But there is a clear distinction between Osho as a teacher and Osho as a person. I do not think there should be a big chunk of his bio placed in the "cult" section. I suggest two solutions: one make a page of the man that Osho was and leave the cult in there, but have a page dedicated to his teachings, or two make a page for Osho and his teachings and a page for his cult. I find this issue an assault on his credibility as an educated philosopher, in similar circumstance I am not going to link to the Catholic History page and see a link of pedophilia. In those regards this page should be dedicated to his teachings, let his controversy be elsewhere. I would hope all that have commented in this discussion have read his books, you would see he does not wish for followers, and his so called "cult" was not his responsibility, if you have read any of Osho's material you would know responsibility is attributed to the individual. His ideas are not welcome in an American country where catholicism reigns, I see why the controversy. In the future I would like to add his philosophies to a page so that people may know of Osho and his thoughts.LHLbyvirtue 03:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

He was right there at Rajneeshpuram. You can't simply say "the bioterrorism and wiretapping and attempted murder don't reflect on Osho because they weren't his responsibility," or, more to the point, you can't simply decide for the reader that the acts committed at the very least under his nose by people he himself had appointed to high positions have no reflection on his teachings. Beg pardon for questioning whether you might be just slightly biased on this, but I think "catholicism reigns" have a little less to do with his unwelcomeness than the bioterrorism, hmmmm? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it sounds rather like David Irving's insistance that Hitler knew nothing about the holocaust. Boggy was a self-aggrandizing, greedy criminal nut-cult leader, rather like elron, with the slight difference that elron's clambot followers have only targeted individuals. Carrying out a bioterrorist attack was quite an innovation.

Alittle biased, no, taking the contextual material and keeping it objective is the point. Regardless of what happened, which as far as I am concerned is forever unclear, by reason that none of us were there. What we can be clear about his lectures and books. I think the biased perspective is the one in which we take the cult event and pair it with Osho. I do not wish to decide for the reader, I wish to have two sections in which someone can read these events and also read the teachings separately, to this day I know nothing about this "bioterrorism" because it doesn't apply to my life, and all the sources I can read about it will never put into context what happens. So an argument of responsibility, if a christian goes and kills in God's name, he is diagnosed as a lunatic and the Christian religion is disconnected, yet, Mr. I am Biased, Osho has students who become radical and you condem all of his thoughts right? Yeah but Osho was there, well a Catholicist priest touches boys, the priest is appointed by cardinals, who are appointed by the Vatican, and I am not going to say, well it was the Pope's responsibility. So where should we attribute responsibility is the question? Thus I am not biased, you seem to be, I read his material for the knowledge it can provide people with, his information used objectively can help advance mankind, this is a statement in which world religions have not advanced mankind, in fact they have delayed it if anything, am I biased saying that hmmm, something called the Dark Ages comes to mind, biased, maybe, substantiated yes. It is religion that is more important then bioterrorism, see our government USA, does horrible crap all the time, unjustified crap, and it disappears.Things of terrible events disappear, disagreements with religious doctrines, those ones burn brighter then hell my friend. Either way this petty argument would still like to keep Osho objective. I think his stuff is going under a double standard, thats my only point, not to step on toes. (LHLbyvirtue 05:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC))

The difference, Mr. I-Will-Go-Accusing-Others-Of-Bias-Because-They-Don't-Ignore-What-I-Want-Ignored, is that in your hypothetical example it was "a christian" who did whichever deed you are holding up for example. It was not Saint Peter. In this case, the bioterrorism which you claim is irrelevant because it "doesn't apply to [your] life" wasn't just committed by "a" random Rajneeshee, it was committed by Osho's personally appointed second-in-command. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is everyone playing along with this "osho" name-changing nonsense? The man is known as "Baghwan Shree Rajneesh"; it's the name under which he committed his crimes, and the name by which people will look him up in wikipedia.

But they crucified St Pete's "leader" anyway ... and why? -- Crankhandle 07:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

So... Where in my document did I say I wanted this ignored, I only asked for a separation, nothing about ignoring this. You really need to read an Osho book, because taken Osho's way of life many new things surface, mainly the issue of Trust. Osho believed that when you place trust in someone they will be empowered and they will not break that trust, because trust is a human bond. Well unfortunately his idea of trust was never understood by his number 2 person. You see how his teachings don't relate to individual actions. The book Catcher in the Rye, and John Hinckley, two things that are paired together, does that make an intelligent person think "ohh the material in the book influenced the killer"? I thought not. I think your missing alot of points, and your dead set against keeping this fresh in people's minds, so fine leave it, anyone who wants to know Osho can learn the good and bad. (LHLbyvirtue 04:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

Oh, for crying out loud. Sure, I'll read one of Boggy's books. It's on my list, right after Mein Kampf, Dianetics, the unabomber manifesto, and half a dozen other screeds by various criminals with inflated egos.

criminal conviction allegations - lack of references

The following claim lacks any reference to a source.

"In 1999, Sheela was convicted by a Swiss court. In September 2005, Catherine Stubbs pled guilty to conspiring to kill Turner, 15 years after being indicted; she had fled to Germany, where she is a naturalized citizen. In 1991, Germany had declined an extradition request from the United States."

Who claims this? What was Sheela convicted of, jay-walking? What was Stubbs sentenced to? In what court did she plead guilty, the Kangaroo Court?

The above is clarified on the US Department of Justice website [1] which includes all details on the charge against both Catherine Stubbs and the related Swiss conviction of Sheela. This can be used as an authoritative reference source.

Changes by DevaSatyam

Introduction

As I will add later in the American chapter, his depiction as the leader of a religious movement is quite misleading.

Indeed. He is more properly described as a criminal nut-cult leader, who used the common tax dodge of pretending to be a spiritual man.

Sure, we can add that to the page. Who should we credit in the reference? "Anonymous troll 2005"? -- Crankhandle 07:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

He is a spiritual teacher for his followers and I felt that to be more appropriate for a definition.

I also added the honorific Acharya and explained that they are just honorifics bestowed on him by his followers.

I also corrected the origin of the name Osho. Though in his books he mentions any of the many associations the name has, the original proposal was of some Japanese disciples, so I straightened it out.

If you have followers, you are a leader. That's axiomatic. -Willmcw 20:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Do you mind to grant me the courtesy of waiting a little bit and let me get through all of it before reverting my edits? There are many things that can be axiomatically said about him. You can say he was male, and nobody can deny that, but whether is significant here, it is quite questionable. --DevaSatyam 21:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Editing is an ongoing process. I didn't "revert" your edit - I left what you'd added, and restored what you deleted, then reworded it to address your complaint. Rajneesh's position as head of the movement is very important to this article, and deserves a place in the lead paragraph. -Willmcw 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I get there, I expect to be able to straighten this Rajneeshism thing. As even the federal prosecutor of the Rajneesh case meant to prove the religion was just a cover up to be able to get Rajneesh a visa as 'religious leader' and for several other immigration irregularities. He always said that he didn't want a religion to be built around him, which was quoted somewhere in a previous version of the article. Rajneeshism was never known outside of the USA, it didn't exist in India before they moved to the USA and it doesn't exist nowadays. All these further support the non-existence of the 'religious movement' and thus, I found misleading to state that in the first paragraph as an introduction. I expect to fix the 'US Chapter' section to be more explicit about the immigration charges and thus clarify the non-existence of Rajneeshism.

It also states that he lived in India and the USA. As a matter of fact, he lived in several other places, such as Uruguay where he lectured long enough to have three 400 pages long books (Beyond Psychology, The Path of the Mystic and The Transmission of the Lamp) printed out of those lectures.

As for this being very important in this article, please notice that out of about three decades of teaching, many more if you include those years since his death (many people know him just from his books), the four years in the USA already have a disproportionate share of attention. It also includes in the same bag a series of crimes some of which were committed against Osho and his commune, and it doesn't mention the stash of money Sheela et al. run away with, without discriminating which ones were to be blamed on Osho. This section should be no surprise since many English speakers would have read about all this first hand from the newspapers, and the news of those events were very confusing and handled in a very sensationalistic way, but it certainly fails in perspective. Quite probably, in editions in other languages, this whole section would be stripped to a bare paragraph, not a whole section. Actually, I mean to translate it to Spanish and should I be so long in the 'US chapter' readers would ask me why should they care!

Imagine a German version of this page. There is one, but I don't read German so, let us imagine it. In 1980, a German Prince died in the commune, then at Pune. I am not making this up, it really happened, his ashes rest in the garden of what used to be Osho's residence, right by those of his father. He was living in the commune with his wife and daughter. When this happened, the family of this prince, a very wealthy and traditional family, went to the courts to gain custody of the child, out of her 'brainwashed' mother. I don't know how this whole issue ended, but at the time it was nasty and it got to the press and turned out to be a great scandal. Now, imagine some German, out of his memories from press articles of this absurdly overblown issue writing pages and pages out of it in Wikipedia.

So, that is why I think it does not belong there. It might trigger a memory of those days for US readers but it cannot stand the passage of time nor of distance. --DevaSatyam 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DevaSatyam that the US chapter is disproportionately well represented when compared to e.g. the Pune episodes, but this should be solved by expanding the Pune section. An alternative solution is to move some of the information to Rajneeshpuram (now a redirect) or to the Osho-Rajneesh movement. The assertion by user: DevaSatyam "Rajneeshism was never known outside of the USA, it didn't exist in India before they moved to the USA and it doesn't exist nowadays." sounds like complete nonsense to me. Rajneeshism was quite popular and notorious here in the Netherlands in the 1980s. There is still a movement of followers of here in the Netherlands. Or may be I misunderstand DevaSatyam. Andries 12:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I was referring to Rajneeshism as a formal religious movement. There are disciples of Osho aplenty everywhere, Osho called them by the Indian term, sannyasins (which, as many translations from a different culture, does not match disciple precisely), but they are not Rajneeshes. Except for the old timers, most of them wouldn't know what the word means or used to mean. The organization as there is (OIF), is devoted to spread his teachings and the practice of his meditation, via books, audio and video tapes and meditation centers plus the commune itself, just as would be expected of any teacher. It does not support any sort of religion.

This religious movement thing started in the US and ended right there. There is no designated successor of Osho nor any reincarnation, messiah or any form of ghostly return expected. The Foundation is managed by a group of his followers, originally designated by Osho, though its members were renewed as some of them quit and few of the original ones remain nowadays. They have no particular position in any spiritual hierarchy, simply put, there is no such thing. Thus, it can hardly be called a religion, as Rajneeshism supposedly was.

I'm afraid that I meant to update the US chapter part but tomorrow I depart on a fascinating trip, coincidentally in the Dutch vessel Stad Amsterdam and I have not found the time to do so. --DevaSatyam 17:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, but I consider it unconvincing. There is no need for a formal structure for a movement, in contrast to an organisation. And clearly the teaching of Rajneesh had strong religious aspects, including the terminology that they use themselves like "sannyassin". An analogy there is something like a New Age movement that has no formal structure at all, though the existence of such a movement is undisputed. Andries 17:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is a matter of definition. Rajneeshism as know in the US at the time of the US Chapter was a religion and Rajneeshism was its formal name. In order to be recognized as such and gain immigration benefits (I believe it would have had the same non-profit tax benefits whether religious or not) a formal presentation was done indicating such things as rituals (such as for marriage and baptizing), the hierarchy of priests and so on. This is the meaning of Rajneeshism as it fits the 'US Chapter' and, actually, it was then than the expression originated.

As for the strong religious aspects you mention,Osho's teachings are more on the spiritual line than the religious line. He talked as much about spiritual teachers and some of the religions founded on their behalf, as he talked about philosophers and poets. His followers are disciples, not devotees. He was a Bodhisattva, that is a spiritual teacher, not an Avatar which is a deity incarnated. For me all these subtle differences makes it a spiritual rather than a religious teacher. As I said, knowing it might happen, the use of the word sannyasin, taken from a culture so foreign to us, might be misleading.

Thanks for your interest in the subject and for this polite conversation. I hope you won't mind that I drew a line before your first comment so as to reduce the level of indentation of this conversation. --DevaSatyam 18:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

"Thanks for your reply, but I consider it unconvincing." You asked for a clarification, and one was given. DevaSatyam clarified that by "Rajneeshism" he meant a particular, formally-incarnated, legally enacted, beauracratically defined movement recognised as such by the associated US government bodies. It is not within the realm of possinbility for this clarification to be "unconvincing" unless you argue that there was no such formal recognition. This limited group embodied by the respective legal definition is exactly the group about whom DevaSatyam gave discourse. No more, no less. That is the clarification you sought, and I reiterate, it cannot be misconstrued or "unconvincing", because it is simply a definition, of an already well-defined entity.

The solution to this all is to move the stuff about the "US chapter" ie the formally defined, but religiously, personally, and morally meaningless, "religion" to a seperate page, such as Rajneeshism(TM) or similar, with cross links between the pages, but a clear distinction and explanation of what and why content goes in each page. Please do this, as I am interested in learning about both aspects, but do not want the emotional confusion resulting from your lack of clarity in discussing the issues, and the abuse hurled by people who have no idea whatsoever, and whose total knowledge of the situation seems to amount to a headline or prime-time current affairs tv show they once saw and dimly recollect. -- Crankhandle 08:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have a 1981 dissertation (in Dutch language) (by Paul Schnabel) that classifies Rajneesh under New religious movements. This contradicts your assertion that Rajneeshism was only a new religious movement during the USA episode. Andries 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No, what that does is provides evidence that by someone, ie Paul Schnabel, considered Rajneesh to be part of a New religious movement. And what DevaSatyam said still stands, and you still seem to have not fully grasped: the movement falsely demonstrated elements of religiosity in order to obtain visas, elements which were not authentic parts of the movement, and which profoundly contradicted the teachings of the gentleman in question. The argument that this was not a religious leader still stands. Since you are apparently telling me something about religion, should I call you a religious teacher? This is what I think Osho did, he taught people about religion and philosophy, just as it is taught in University by philosophy teachers, in fact lo! Osho was a University Philosophy lecturer. He appears to have taught about religion, perhaps a little like a comparitive religion teacher may teach, and to have given guidance on internal psychological matters, as a psychologist might. Coming from an Eastern background, his teachings do not fit your idea of "university course" and so you have lumped him with "religious leader". And so have perhaps many of the people who embraced him. This does not a religion make, and even if it does, it does not make him the religious leader of a movement, if a religious movement did arise in his sphere of influence which held him in religious reverence. This is easy to prove because of the fact that he taught the opposite of religion, that is he taught there is no higher being than you, and you must think for yourself, there is no afterlife, and your actions gain no reward beyond what you experience in this world. OK? I have not read more than a few words about him, but I have met some who followed him, my understanding may be imperfect, for which I apologise, but I think it's better than you'n. I hope you read it and it helps. -- Crankhandle 08:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is absolute... I'm sorry, nothing less than strong language will do... horseshit. I don't know much about the cult or the history, but I've read some of Bhagwan's actual writings, and he absolutely :::did NOT say::: you must think for yourself. The exact OPPOSITE was so: what he said was that you get nowhere by thinking, that the only way to know anything is to sit at the feet of the Master and receive wisdom (with himself conveniently defined as the "Master"). Read _The_Mustard_Seed_. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.183.246.200 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Somewhat off-topic may be but with regards to "sannyasa" (the usage of the term by Bhagwan followers was and is an offense to orthodox Hindus), I strongly disagree with the view that there is something like an "Eastern culture" that "Westerners" cannot understand. Yes, there are differences, sometimes major differences, but to say that "Westerners" cannot understand and know the "Eastern culture" after learning and acknowledging these differences is simply untrue. (I consider myself a Hindu.) Andries 19:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Biographical notes

I placed the two current biographical sections under this heading, and split those into further sections. The last one I have to expand.

Childhood etc

I addressed what happenned in the gap from his enlightment until departing to the USA, as requested in Talk:Rajneesh#1953_to_1981. This went into the section titled The Commune

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory info

Anyone who wishes to add derogatory information, such as about the subject's health or purported drug use, should proivide a citation from a reliable source.

Copy of letter sent to Wikipedia

Dear Sirs,

My name is Christopher Calder and I was Rajneesh's second Western disciple to become an initiated sannyasin. I lived with Acharya Rajneesh in his Bombay apartment, staying in the bedroom just across the hall from his, from December of 1970 to April of 1971, and was at the Poona ashram until September of 1975. Your article on Rajneesh is full of factual errors, outright lies, and is in fact a crude propaganda piece. I corrected the article to make it at least minimally truthful and someone keeps switching in back. What kind of ethics does your organization have to promote such falsehoods on the Web?

1) You wrote:

"As is customary with spiritual teachers in India, Osho received several honorifics over his life. He was known as Acharya Rajneesh (teacher Rajneesh), later Shree Rajneesh and finally Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh".

Acharya Rajneesh was never called "Shree Rajneesh" as stated in your article. He went straight from Acharya Rajneesh to "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh." No one gave him the title "Bhagwan Shree." He never received that "honorific." He gave the name to himself. I know because I was there! I was sitting in the hallway of his apartment late at night with Swami Yoga Chinmaya. Ma Yoga Laxmi, his secretary, came out of Rajneesh's bedrooms and told us that he had decided to change his name from Acharya Rajneesh to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, basically because it had more clout. He gave himself that "honorific." No one wanted him to change his name and no one called him "Bhagwan" spontaneously. It was all his own doing and an honor he bestowed upon himself. He did not win any prize and was never elected to any post as GOD. It was all his own idea and his own self praise.

2) You wrote:

"This was a bit inconvenient so his disciples proposed several names over these weeks until he accepted the loving offer by his oldest American disciple Swami Harideva (who introduced Osho to the West and organized Rajneesh's last international festival in India) to use the name "Osho" which had previously been used for hundreds of years in Japan when addressing a spiritual master. The name "Osho" in this context means "The Friend.""

I do not remember any "Swami Harideva" at the Woodlands Building in Bombay, and whoever this self-deluded person is, he was not the oldest American disciple. The very first American (or Western) disciple to become a sannyasin was Ma Prem, a short, dark haired Jewish woman from New York City who spoke with a thick Brooklyn accent. I was the second Western Sannyasin and was given the name Swami Krishna Christ. No one person "introduced Osho to the West," as the West came to him. People from all over the world came to the Woodlands Building and no single individual other than Rajneesh himself was responsible for his growing fame. It was a gradual growth from the dissemination of his books and simple word of mouth. That paragraph is pure propaganda and written by someone with a delusional and egoistic agenda.

3) You wrote:

"In this regard, it is worth noting that Osho, as a spiritual teacher, was what is sometimes referred to as a Bodhisattva, that is, a person who has achieved enlightenment and is willing to transmit his wisdom, thus, he has disciples. This is in contrast to an Avatar who is an incarnation of an immortal being in a mortal body and thus has devotees. Though immortal beings might be in short supply so that few may turn into an Avatar, Osho insisted on the Buddhist concept that enlightenment is a condition that can come naturally to everyone, just as himself, meditation being the best path to this. The traditional Indian greeting Namaste can be interpreted as "I salute the Buddha in you", a reminder of this capability."

This is pure propaganda and hogwash. It is not appropriate for any encyclopedia to declare anyone a "Bodhisattva." This is pure egoism and cultism and throws any semblance of neutrality out the door.

4) You wrote:

"While these controversial events brought much negative publicity to the commune, it is worth noting that Osho himself spoke very strongly against these acts, and that it was only a handful of people who were responsible out of the thousands of people who were living in the commune either permanently or temporarily."

This is true but you fail to mention that Rajneesh never apologized to any of the victims of the germ warfare attacks, some of whom were women and little tiny children. What kind of a "Bodhisatva" is so callous, arrogant, and irresponsible that he does not take responsibility for a dreadful situation that he himself created. Rajneesh hand picked the people who committed the crimes and he had a duty to make sure they behaved themselves. The problem was he was too busy inhaling nitrous oxide, popping 60 milligrams of Valium a day, and swimming in his indoor pool and watching movies on his projection television to notice that he had created a concentration camp in the Oregon desert run by maniacs and fools.

5) You wrote:

"In one of his daily discourses after Sheela left, Osho claimed that he chose Sheela as his secretary for several reasons, and one was to teach his followers not to blindly follow authority. He claimed that he wanted to make it clear by example that even if a beloved leader's first in command says to do something that it is ultimately up to each individual to make the right choice. In this view, Rajneeshpuram was a risky game, a lesson in questioning authority."

This paragraph is so pathetic that it is unworthy of any encyclopedia entry. Rajneesh demanded total surrender and the giving up of an individual's sense of right and wrong. Rajneesh wanted 100% total obedience to his word and the word of his mangers. It was either his way or the highway. After the disaster and scandal Rajneesh came up with all kinds of pathetically dishonest rationalizations for why it all happened, and only the demented believed them. The quality of his lies and rationalizations went downhill due to his constant drug use and in the end he made no rational sense at all.

6) You wrote:

"On January 19, 1990, four years after the arrest, he died. Osho claimed, and there is in fact debatable evidence to support, that his rapid health decline leading to his death was caused by his poisoning by US authorities while he was in prison. He claimed a plot led by the CIA and Ronald Reagan to assassinate him had been carried out due to their fear of Osho's controversial and counter-cultural teachings combined with his powerful ability to influence people. While this may sound like a typical conspiracy theory, it is worth noting that Osho's commune was rapidly growing and hosted an annual festival that attracted tens of thousands of seekers."

Your statement that "there is in fact debatable evidence to support that his rapid health decline leading to his death was caused by his poisoning by US authorities while he was in prison" is an outright lie. There is no and has never been a single shred of evidence at all! This is all just made up propaganda! Rajneesh first claimed to have been poisoned with the element thallium, which is an obvious lie because thallium causes rapid and profound hair loss within one week of exposure. Rajneesh never had any abnormal hair loss at all. Later his disciples suggested that he was exposed to radiation in prison and that is why he was sick. Again, radiation causes obvious specific symptoms which he did not have, including major hair loss. Even later Osho himself suggested he was poisoned with "synthetic heroin," which is ridiculous as all of the synthetic opiate drugs are short acting and all are relatively nontoxic as long as you don't overdose and die immediately from respiratory arrest. No CIA poisoning scheme could possibly explain his mental and physical problems, which date back to his early years in college, long before he even came to the USA.

Rajneesh had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and he had it all of his adult life. That is the reason he was so sensitive to smells and chemicals and why he went for weeks without leaving his room in his Bombay apartment. He was almost always weak and sick from his teenage years until the day of his death. With Chronic Fatigue Syndrome there may be periods of remission in the early stages of the disease, but by his thirties he was constantly weak and always getting what he thought were colds and flu, one right after another.

On top of his having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which is know to cause cognitive problems and mental confusion, Rajneesh started to take excessive amounts of Valium in the early 1980s (or possibly even earlier), and experimented with all kinds of sleeping pills. He combined sedative drugs, which is a very bad thing to do. On top of this he developed a liking to nitrous oxide after having routine dental surgery. Over the years Rajneesh probably inhaled more nitrous oxide than any human being in the history of the world. He had tanks and tanks of the stuff delivered to both the Oregon ranch and the Poona ashram after his return to India. His dentist admitted much of this publicly and part of the story can be found in the article "Osho in the Dental Chair" at:

http://www.sannyasnews.com/Articles/OshoDentalChair.html - Parmartha's article

also see:

http://www.justsayn2o.com/nitrous.dangers.html - article on N2O dangers - why Osho went insane

Hugh Milne (Swami Shivamurti) did a excellent job of documenting Rajneesh's drug use at the ranch and several other books have been written by other commune insiders that make the same claims of drug use, corruption, and constant dishonesty. The FBI knew about Rajneesh's Valium addiction and nitrous oxide use and this was extensively reported in newspapers around the world, including "THE NEW YORK TIMES" and "THE OREGONIAN." Denying Rajneesh was a drug addict is like trying to deny that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. If you don't know about it you have had your head in the sand.

Jim Weaver, a former Oregon Congressman who represented Oregon's 4th District in Congress from 1975 to 1987, visited the Oregon commune after it was abandoned and wrote the following in a newspaper article which was published in the Eugene, Oregon's "REGISTER GUARD" newspaper(see the full article at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/Weaver.html ).

"I went through the abandoned city of Rajneeshpuram and saw things that were almost unbelievable. Ma Anand Sheela's headquarters, a group of mobile homes pieced together, was a hive of secret doors and hidden tunnels, her private room a command post with electronic listening gear tapped into every room in the development. The Bhagwan's parquet-paneled quarters had nitrogen oxide spigots by his bedside, and was surrounded by huge bathrooms with multiple showers." - Jim Weaver

When you become such a heavy nitrous oxide user that you have nitrous oxide spigots installed by your bedside, you are a serious drug addict! Rajneesh's drug use is a proven fact of world history, not speculation, not rumor, and not personal opinion. It happened! He did it! Those who deny his drug use are either woefully ignorant or premeditated liars!

7) You leave out important information, as his drug use, and the bizarre circumstances surrounding his death. His death seemed planned and his body was cremated immediately without an autopsy or investigation. Vivek, his longtime female compassion, had committed suicide in a Bombay hotel a month earlier by taking an overdose of sleeping pills. It was widely speculated by the media and those who knew Rajneesh that he himself had committed suicide because of his poor physical and mental health. He was so deranged and paranoid in the final months before his death that he actually thought a group of German cultists had cast an evil spell on him and were using death chants to kill him off.

If your organization wants to be a real "encyclopedia" and not just a devious mouthpiece for what's left of the Osho cult, I suggest you ban whoever wrote that propaganda piece from working on the article and do a complete rewrite that is truthful and not just ridiculous fiction.

The most complete Web source for the Rajneesh-Osho story can be found at: http://home.att.net/~meditation/Osho.html - "Osho, Bhagwan Rajneesh, and the Lost Truth"

The best book source is "Bhagwan: The God That Failed," by Hugh Milne, Saint Martin's Press. This book can be bought second hand through Amazon.Com.

Also of value is "Promise of Paradise: A Woman's Intimate Life With 'Bhagwan' Osho Rajneesh," by Satya Bharti Franklin, published by Barrytown/Station Hill Press. Her book is also out of print but can be purchased secondhand through Amazon.Com.

Unlike the fictional "Swami Harideva," Satya Bharti Franklin and Hugh Milne were actually at Rajneesh's Bombay apartment in 1971, and Satya Bharti Franklin did ghost write Rajneesh's second full book that was published in hardcover form. Both authors know me and can verify that I was there, as can many early Indian disciples including Swami Yoga Chinmaya, Swami Krishna Saraswati, Ravi, Karuna, Kabir, Taru, Ma Yoga Laxmi and a dozen others who frequented his Bombay apartment. Funny how I can remember all those people but don't remember a "Swami Harideva" at all. You people have been hoodwinked!

Regards, Christopher Calder http://home.att.net/~meditation/ - my home page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.85 (talk • contribs) April 2, 2006

dear mr. calder

seems to me that throughout the field of 'sannyasism' there are signs of those most advanced in therapeutic skills and meditation to unwear their malas and signing out from the disciplehood, and even questioning the whole master-disciple - game - not only on personal level, or with osho, but on more general level as well. also serious reflectioning over all the controversiality concerning osho - including the ranch and drug use - is happenin among the sannyasins, sometimes with more, usually with less success what comes to any meaningful explanative realisations (as i have come to understand lately, there really are no answers, only ever-deepening reflective circle of question-making leading to self-realisation; actually one comes sometimes to think that osho rajneesh never really wanted any disciples and the more any of them grew in awareness the more so was his effort to get rid of them. all as an effort to teach people to stand truly on their own, maybe but still...

so what bothers me with your obviously very experience-based writings is the total lack of notion of love and respect towards your (late?) master. i do understand the nature of this venue, being a dick-tionary but even so... for i do think that all those sannyasins awakened after osho left his body or those that used to be very close to him while in his body radiate his energy very strongly and it is impossible to dismiss the deep love they carry towards their master, regardless of any controversies (because of them?). what i mean is that even if there is no arguing against the facts you put forward, i dont really understand someone with long history of mediatation getting invovlved so wholeheartedly in recommending anti-osho literature, revealing the 'bhagwash' and creating an impression that osho was 'a god that failed'? how can a god fail? from what point of view is that opinion laid upon him? well, if that is taken as a duty, nothing wrong in that but could it be there are some personal disappointments lurking behind that? or just a need to follow a different, more modern and 'scientific' path (whatever that means) with less interest in exposing control-freak-out-points whatver the means needed. or... is there something else...(in which case do apologize my arrogance and bow down deeply)???! i myself do think that there really is no way of havinhg any truly meaningful discussion that actually transcends the 'gossip-zone' without having profound background understanding over osho's position as a true reformer over the whole field of spirituality; what the academic jargon states as syncretism is one thing (it being actually a huge and totally unique effort of preserveing, making available and revealing the immense beauty of the true heritage of mankind, namely the ancient paths and techniques of transformation as well as the stories of those developed them, for without someone doing that, conneting them on the deep level of truth and exposing and destrooiying all the lies and misunderstadings involved the danger of them being lost forever would be far more real...)

actually those making a similar effort in transmittying and preserving the ancient wisdom of tibet in india are the ones to understand the importance of osho's work on that matter, hence the statements of dalai lama and some other teachers of tibetan buddhism over osho's work.

the other thing is to bring light (ie. spiritualize - or actually de-spiritualize, depending on how one looks at it) to the regions of our collective unconscious that have been doomed as sinful or whatever for centuries and thus creating and sustaining the tension and violent gap within the modern man. sexuality, female power, transforming many of the old 'black arts' in useful and understandable forms of therapeurtic techniques or simply as pure nonsense, the need of active meditations, only few examples to be mentioned; this tantric' approach on life and spirituality which is based on total acceptance, including all forms of human behaviour and thinking and allowing experiencing things (instead of endless mental ponderings)to be the true definition of religious man (zorba the buddha), should be througly realised before entering the questions over the drug-use, rolls-royces or tha apparent fascism that took place in the place called the ranch. i dont think it is an excuse (no need for any) or brainswashed thinking to state that actually viewing enlightened master in dental chair, hilariously sharing his experiences over the books he has loved carries on extremely important message; also his statements over the nature of drugs and their realtionships both to meditation and the surrounding society are as insightful as any comment on sufism or christianity, helping to release much of the tension withheld by and within these questions. further, the parallels between osho's crusade in usa, fundamental christianity, nazism and all that reveal in my view something about acceptance on the enlightened level (and beyond). the bottom line here, with no major understanding demanded, is that judging osho as failed proves that something of the upmost essentiality of his spirit has been missed. sadly enough. and,what comes to his death, whether planned or whatever... the christ had his body preserved in his disciples (church) just as that of osiris' was cut in peaces and only after re-uniting was he divinized... the bodyparts of osho have been spreading all over this planet well over a decade now, creating something that may become understandable only due to the course of time for it is eventually out of any control, whether the head-quarters of sannyas movement in NY or its heart in pune, slowly penetrating the lives and bookshelfs of those having no previous label of being spiritual or whatever.. a revoultion, some might say...? after all, it was osho's repeated wish to 'let me go, iam much more use to my people when not in my body'... however tha is (not an encyclopedia-fit statement?)i do think that sometimes when in need of explanations (further turning into takjing positions for or against) it helps just to view (the latter part, at least) of osho's life and teaching as a divine play (comedy?) becoming flesh and blood, just to disappear again... . . . love and respect,

manish

May be some old useful info in Wikipedia

See here Andries 18:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oceania and Nitrous Oxide edits

Please discuss before making significant changes to the article.

The nitrous oxide content had a source, and so deserves a place in the article. Sfacets 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just some extra info's on the Nitrous Oxide section (I was employed in 1986 for a couple of years to strip out the assets of Rajneeshpuram).

Parmartha (of sannyasworld.com) is widely recognised as the origin of many of the NO2 stories although it has never been clear whether it was his joke or not. Certainly the 'spigots by the bed' came from him.

Jim Weaver doesn't say when he visited (and I can't find any reference online) but "Sheela's bunker" was not a warren. It was a door behind the jacuzzi room that led downstairs to a bunker with two rooms and a small toilet. One of the rooms had a small kitchenette in the corner. There was a hidden exit that came out through a tunnel, down by the creek. It flooded in the winter of 1986 and most of the bunker was destroyed, so I doubt the Jim Weaver story. Plus the listening center was downstairs at the main office building (where the phone lines entered the property), there was nothing like that in Sheela's bunker. She had other people do the listening and the 'listeners' room at Socrates (the name of the office building) was full of line taps and recorders.

Osho's trailer burned down a year or two later, again casting some doubts on Weaver's claim that he visited it some years later. The dental and medical equipment were some of the first assets to be sold off and I personally was involved in uninstalling them. There were no bedside spigots.

Whether you want to use this information in the article is up to you. You can contact me for further information if you want.

jalal 19:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone add a photograph of him? --Acepectif 10:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Article copied in - please remove.

Edits of mine were reverted (19 July: (→The U.S. chapter - rm copyvio) and (→Bibliography - ==Notes and references==) ).

I had deleted a large slab of text, which was the entire text of an article available on WBUR (safe assumption that it's copyright, and anyway Wikipedia isn't meant to just be a compilation of copied texts) and I added a reference as follows:

<ref>[http://www.wbur.org/special/specialcoverage/feature_bio.asp Bioterrorism in History - 1984: Rajneesh Cult Attacks Local Salad Bar], ''[[WBUR]]'' </ref>

It was reverted with the comment: (copyvio? you removed links to references...) - which I don't understand as I added references.

Sfacets, perhaps you misunderstood my edit? I believe my edit was correct. --Singkong2005 ^talk 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my apologies... there must have been a problem rendering the page (my internet connection is running very slow - or maybe it was the coffee? :) so I didn't see the rest of the page, just the removed <ref> section... I have reverted to your edit. Sfacets 01:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Please Comment My Friends: Kaanan KapurPlease Comment on the '''Legacy Of Osho Part added by me''',and please be assured that its purely an ocular account (not my osho fetish) born out of my regular visits to pune (I Live In New Delhi) over the last decade when every visit of mine after a couple of years surprised me that the osho commune was not only running but doing great business, after 16 years of his death. This was very very interesting and surprising. i read and listened to his discourses and read a couple of his books and had my ansewer. I saluted his intellectual prowess if not entirely his philosophy.

Then I thought to myself (in a lighter vein) that the only 5 things india gave to the World were : 1) The Zero Numerical, 2) Gandhi's Non Violence, 3) Mother Theresa's Compassion 4) Information Technology /BPO's, 5) And Rajneesh. WHile the world took the first 4 very with both hands, the fifth was too hot to handle and the entire world (litrally-his infamous world tour)resiled and refused him an entry.

Rajneesh's Meaning of 'Fuck'

Many years ago I heard an absolutely hilarious recording of Rajneesh talking about the various meanings of the word 'fuck.' He was deliberately being humourous....and I think he ripped the idea off George Carlin....however Rajneesh's version is a classic. Does anyone have the source material and can someone mention it in the article? Also a link to an mp3 file would be great so we can all hear it again :-) This is a must have. I hope someone out there can do this and knows what I'm talking about bunix 03:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Here you go Brother
Question: 'Bhagwan I feel shocked when you use the word Fuck'
Answer: "........what to do.? It is one of the most beautiful words in the English language. The English language should be proud of it. I don't think any other language has any such beautiful word."

'One Tom from California has done a great research on it. He says, one of the most     interesting words in English language today is the word Fuck.'


  'Just by its Sound it can describe Pain, Pleasure, Love and Hate'

  'In Language it falls into many grammatical categories'

  'It can be used as a Verb'

  'Both transitive:- John Fucked Mary'

  'And intransitive:- Mary Was Fucked By John'

  'And as a Noun:- Mary Is A Fine Fuck'

  'It can be used as an Adjective:- Mary Is Fucking Beautiful'


'As you can see there are not many words with the versatility of Fuck. Besides the sexual meaning, there are also the following uses.'

FRAUD
'I got Fucked at the Used Car Lot'
IGNORANCE
'Fucked if I Know'
TROUBLE
'I Guess I am Fucked Now'
AGGRESSION
'Fuck You'
DISPLEASURE
'What The Fuck is Going on Here?'
DIFFICULTY
'I Can't Understand This Fucking Job'
INCOMPETENCE
'He Is a Fuckwit'
SUSPICION
'What The Fuck Are You Doing?'
ENJOYMENT
'I Had a Fucking Good Time'
REQUEST
'Get The Fuck Out Of Here'
HOSTILITY
'I Am Going To Knock Your Fucking Head Off'
GREETING
'How The Fuck Are You'
APATHY
'Who Gives A Fuck'
INNOVATION
'Get A Bigger Fucking Hammer'
SURPRISE
'Fuck You Scared The Shit Out Of Me'

ANXIETY
'Today Is Really Fucked'

'And it is very healthy too, if you do it as a Transcendental Meditation. Just when you get up, the first thing, repeat the Mantra "Fuck You" five times. It clears the throat. That's how I keep my throat clear.'

'Enough for today.'

Want to hear - by your two ears - go here - http://www.iosho.com/iosho02.html
AnandMunish

Hey Brother, that's awesome thank you! Now can we link to an mp3 of the voice recording of this? Can someone mention this in the article itself? (I said mention not put in verbatim)...it is a true classic :-) bunix 09:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't post an MP3 of Rajneesh reciting this even if you can find it -- he most certainly ripped it off, though not from George Carlin, as logical as that would be. It's a famous piece of Internet humor, according to Wikipedia's Fuck page, recorded in its best-known form by Jack Wagner (the voice of Disneyland). Listen to or read it and you can see that the Rajneesh quotes here are almost word for word out of the recording. Article about it -- http://www.montypythonpages.com/fuck.htm Actual recording -- http://files.kavefish.com/audio/usage_of_the_f-word.wav

"Famous piece of Internet humour"? Though it may be hard for some of our younger audience to remember those times, the Internet wasn't even invented then. We were writing the Year of Our Lord 1980 ... and as Osho said quite plainly, it wasn't his original research at all, but research done by the famous Tom of California. Jayen466 22:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Fuck lacture in YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7rWLzloOI

Something About ROLL ROYCES

I read an article by someone saying that "Rajneesh was very much a show-off, as his Cadillac collection proves." Well now that the point is raised let me tell you something about his Rolls Royces.

1. He possessed nearly 100 Rolls Royces. And this fact alone is enough to make him bhagwan or divine one. 2. He wanted to increase his collection of Rolls Royces to 365 (why? Because there are 365 days in a year; except leap year though.) 3. He used to drive them at their maximum speed when he was in USA. 4. He escaped some accident miraculously(Which also shows that he really was a bhagwan). Visit this page to see some pics http://www.otoons.com/osho/roll_royce.html Now here is something osho has to say about his rolls royces :--

"I was just a tourist there (USA - Oregon), and I made the whole of America disturbed. They had enough money; they could have purchased more Rolls Royces if they wanted. But they had no guts for that either. They were condemning me, saying that I am a materialist. And you will be surprised; one bishop who was continuously condemning me as a materialist, wrote me a letter, privately, saying, "It would be very compassionate of you if you could donate a Rolls Royce to my church. It won't make any difference to you -- ninety-three or ninety-two -- but it will make much difference to us." And every Sunday he was condemning me. His condemnation was not about my materialism; his condemnation was to hide his jealousy. The politicians, the rich, could have managed it for themselves -- why were they worried? But the worry was that a tourist, who has not even a valid visa, has defeated all the super-rich; it hurts! If they were intelligent enough, they could have understood that there must be a purpose behind these Rolls Royces. It cannot be just the one-hour ride. For that, one Rolls Royce would have been enough. Everything that I have done in my life has a purpose. It is a device to bring out something in you of which you are not aware."

AnandMunish

Wha gwan bhagwan? I take it that owning a hundred Rolls Royces making him divine is a joke?

-Metal Guru

You have shown real wisdom (Don't you got it brother the whole paragraph is a joke and nothing More read it and laugh if you can. Don't go scratching your head making conclusions out of it.)

Anand Munish( sep 3 2006)

Oceania

The interview should not be removed. It is not defamatory to the subject of the Biographical article, and is a relevant interview that impacted on the lives of Australians and New Zealanders for many years. I am looking for a source for this... Sfacets 17:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

At best, this is MARGINALLY part of this article. Given the complete lack of a source, I've hidden the text until there is a source. Mdbrownmsw 15:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was broadcast on the Australian version of 60 Minutes sometime in the 1980s. Bert Newton's 20-to-1 (episode "Tears and Tantrums") rebroadcast excerpts of the interview a few nights ago. I am sure if someone contacts channel 9 they can give us sufficient references, e.g. airdates. I have just done so myself, let us hope they answer... Its probably unimportant to most people in the world, but it is somewhat important as part of Australian popular culture. -SJK 11:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

True Masters and Charlatains

Let the truth be said. In this 21st century of ours, we have enough information on true masters and fake masters. It's amazing to see so many people still waste their time and follow these charlatains, such as Osho, Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy. There is plenty of information on the wrongdoings of these fellows, including hundreds of lawsuits. It could be understandable in the past, with the lack of informations. But come on guys. It's more than time to wake up. It's been a long time now since the 60's and 70's. There is no easy path. Self knowledge is the hardest path of all. If you can't take it, go practice something else, but don't think you'll know yourself by taking drugs and having sex, self knowledge is not a party. I'm sorry. It just won't happened without self effort and sacrifice. The words of one charlatain compared with the words of all the real masters is like comparing a spark with the sun. This is not an opinion. Go ahead, study all the great spiritual classics of humanity, such as the Bhagavad Gita, Ramayana, Upanishads, Puranas, Mahabharata, Yogasutras, The tibetan book of the dead, Buddha's gospel, not to mention the Bible and Coran, and these books will confirm what true masters state, such as Krishna, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Nanak, Patanjali, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Abedananda, Ramana Maharishi, Trailanga swami, Nagendranath Baduri, Sri Yogananda, Sri Yukteswar, Morihei Ueshiba, not to mention western masters and saints. It's all there, the same truth, the same words, the same life-examples, in very similar practices. So please, give us all a break. Denying what is writen here is nonsense. "Only fools follow fools".

Yogi. December 5th 2006.

Mentioning law suits, that reminds me of this dubious jewish heretic, this Jesus from Nazareth, bless God authorities finally got him.Hirsch.im.wald 09:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic at hand, it's not for us to judge who is a messiah and who's a fake. We just need to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. -Will Beback • † • 09:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

have you really read all these books? wow.

"verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view". That's exactly the point...there are loads, thousands, gazilions of reliable sources to have a realistic neutral point of view my friend...just type the words on your computer. You'll find them all Concerning the books, yes, I've read them all. And I'm sure you'd have the same neutral, realistic point of view, if you had read them too! Yogi - January 3dr.

Revert on 1 December 2006

I just reverted a huge edit to the page.

The long list of books is not appropriate for wikipedia. Perhaps if there is a page that duplicates this info, it can fit in as a source (see below).
The external link style is in keeping consistant with the rest of wikipedia.
Some of the information in the following block of text may be worth returning, with significant changes:

There are more than 650 published books in Hindi and English languages. His books were published in Hindi until early seventies. He spoke in Hindi then, as most of his audience were Indians. Later when listeners from outside India became the majority he regularly spoke in English. Henceforth, books were published in English. Many earlier books in Hindi were also translated into English. Many of these books are translated later into number of other languages of the world including Russian.

From this section, the number of books and the general transition between languages may be of interest, but needs to be sourced.

In this section:

Books in English language series can be studied in two ways. In chronological order and subjectwise study. It is interesting to note that Rajneesh hardly wrote anything himself except for the letters he wrote early in life. He spoke to his listeners who came to him with their questions. He answered their queries. He selectively spoke on the works by various mystics around the world, on selected portions of various scriptures as commentaries. His favorite means to give his own message through the above exercises. These talks were transcribed into written word and published as books. A list of all the books in English by Rajneesh is given hereunder.

That all of his books were "written" by someone else is of interest, but must be sourced, much of the rest of it is simply Original Research and cannot be included. Mdbrownmsw 19:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Corrected some language errors

Hello friends. I made a correction regarding the meaning of the word 'osho' in Japanese and Chinese, pursuant to my correction of a similar error in the disambiguation page for 'osho.' I can't speak to whether 'osho' acquired the meaning of 'friend' or 'ocean' after it was adopted by Rajneesh, but it certainly has neither of these meanings in Chinese or Japanese. See the above disambiguation page for the correct Japanese meaning.

--Gunnermanz 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you are correct in stating that "Osho" does not have the meaning in Japanese that sannyasins attribute to it. At least I have been unable to find an English-language source on the net that would indicate any such use in Chinese or Japanese zen traditions. Note though that the alternative etymology "oceanic" has nothing to do with either language, it is simply about the sounds being similar. Historically, this was the earlier explanation given for the name in Osho's publicity materials, the other one came later. For a while, the statements drew attention to William James' term "oceanic" as the explanation of the name, and then added something like "Later, Osho came to know that Osho is also an ancient term used for a Zen master in certain traditions ...". It should be noted that factual inaccuracies of many sorts abound in Osho's oeuvre, and that Osho was quite conscious of it, and indeed considered it a part of his teaching. If he told a story by Turgenev, his version would have characters in it that were not in the original; if he told a story from Gurdjieff's life, it would be found to be factually impossible (though somehow quite representative of the spirit of Gurdjieff's teaching), and so forth. This can be quite annoying to the literal-minded, but has its own charm. I would advise anyone against using Osho as a source of academic work on the history of religion, though he makes excellent source material for an inner understanding of these traditions. Jayen466 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for comments

Thank you for your comments Jayen. My only intention here was to clear up the meaning of the Sino-Japanese word in this and other entries, particularly the entry for 'Osho' (not related to Rajneesh). By the way, I don't think R was the incarnation of evil, but I wonder why there are no links to Web sites critical of him, of which there are many. Is that in line with NPOV policy? Regards, --Gunnermanz 07:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Gunnermanz, No -- Wikipedia guidelines on External links say, "Avoid giving undue weight on particular points of view." See Wikipedia guidelines on External links at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links. Other considerations are the guidelines on Reliable Sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources -- in particular the notes given there concerning self-published sources, e.g.: "Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or even insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge with the world. Only with independent verification by other sources not holding the same POV is it possible to determine the difference." Primarily, we are trying to provide information, rather than judgment, which should be left to the reader. I have added a couple of NPOV links today; but generally, external links should be balanced. If you can think of good sites with a negative slant that fulfil the Wikipedia criteria, kindly add them. Jayen466 16:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Rajneesh/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Review:

Licenses suspect: Commercial use should not be prohibited --DONE, now copyrighted picture with fair-use rationale Jayen466 12:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No infobox --DONE
Should use Indian English spellings --DONE
Excessive quotations. Only key quotes <4 should he here: rest go to Wikiquote -- Number of quotes reduced to essentials
Pic of Osho's ashram could be useful --DONE
Remove inline external links --DONE
Unwikify standalone years --DONE
Personal life -- parents, siblings? --DONE
Remove duplicate wikilinking --DONE
Did he marry? --DONE

=Nichalp «Talk»= 15:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will get onto these.

No infobox

Which infobox would be the appropriate one to use? Jayen466 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Copied template from Tagore Jayen466 23:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)