Osho and his later talks on Zen, by Nityaprem

Nityaprem offers food for ‘no-thought’ re Osho’s focus on Zen during his final years.

In the later years of Poona 2 Osho talked a lot about Zen, the Zen masters and Zen stories, and I wonder at the meaning of that. It seemed a departure from earlier styles of discourse, the talks on consciousness and wide ranging spiritual topics of the 1970’s, to the real world topics of the Ranch and immediately after, and then finally Zen. You can guess the year of a discourse by the sound of Osho’s voice, which changed over the years, and you can gain an indication from the topic.

So it makes me wonder, was Osho trying to indicate a path for his sannyasins with the many talks about Zen? One of the many things he said about Zen was that it would not make you a holy man, but instead it would take you back to ordinariness. Osho was not trying to create a religion of holy people it seems.

“To understand Zen you need not make a philosophical effort; you have to go deep into meditation. And what is meditation all about? Meditation is a jump from the mind into no-mind, from thoughts to no-thought. Mind means thinking, no-mind means pure awareness. One simply is aware. Only then will you be able to understand Zen – through experience, not through any intellectual effort.”

Osho, Walking in Zen, Sitting in Zen, Talk #16

 In Buddhism you sometimes come across monks who react from awareness, and no longer from the impulsiveness of arising thoughts. It makes me wonder whether any sannyasins reached to that place of mind, where thought no longer arises.

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Osho and his later talks on Zen, by Nityaprem

  1. Klaus says:

    NP,

    I must have skipped a few lectures and books in that period.
    Maybe there is a chance to check out some…

    With regard to the b.m. cartoon the least we can say is that Osho did fairly and squarely well in the field!

    Sorry, there is no better take at the moment.

    • Nityaprem says:

      Here is a list of Poona 2 discourses with the gibberish meditation at the end, in chronological order I believe, you can see how many were Zen from the titles…

      Live Zen
      This, This, A Thousand Times This: The Very Essence of Zen
      Zen: The Quantum Leap From Mind to No-Mind
      Zen: The Solitary Bird, Cuckoo of the Forest
      Zen: The Diamond Thunderbolt
      Dogen, the Zen Master: A Search and a Fulfilment
      The Miracle
      Turning In
      The Original Man
      The Language of Existence
      The Buddha: The Emptiness of the Heart
      Ma Tzu: The Empty Mirror
      Hyakujo: The Everest of Zen, with Basho’s Haikus
      Nansen: The Point of Departure
      Joshu: The Lion’s Roar
      Rinzai: Master of the Irrational
      Isan: No Footprints in the Blue Sky
      Kyozan: A True Man of Zen
      No Mind: The Flowers of Eternity
      Zen: The Mystery and The Poetry of the Beyond
      One Seed Makes the Whole Earth Green
      Yakusan: Straight to the Point of Enlightenment
      Christianity: The Deadliest Poison and Zen: The Antidote…
      Communism and Zen Fire, Zen Wind
      God is Dead, Now Zen is the Only Living Truth
      I Celebrate Myself: God Is No Where, Life Is Now Here
      The Zen Manifesto: Freedom From Oneself

      The gibberish meditation I quite enjoy, because it frees one from the linear processing of language. You focus on making gibberish sounds, and because of that you can’t think in a language you know, so you are freed from internal narration for a while.

  2. Lokesh says:

    NP says, “So it makes me wonder, was Osho trying to indicate a path for his sannyasins with the many talks about Zen? One of the many things he said about Zen was that it would not make you a holy man, but instead, it would take you back to ordinariness.”

    I think it is more likely that Osho was endeavouring to cut out a path for himself. By this period in his life, his past behaviour would have made it difficult for him to imagine himself as being a holy man. As Sheela wanted him to confess publicly, he was on many levels an ordinary man, with all the desires, faults and defects that make a man ordinary, human. Osho had, of course, claimed many times that he was an ordinary man in his discourses. Nobody wanted to believe that because externally there appeared little that could be described as ordinary about him. As it turns out, he was telling the truth. We just did not want to hear it.

    In being ordinary, Osho had to, like the rest of us, live with himself, and stay sane in an insane world. Adopting a Zen attitude, wherein the obvious extreme contradictions in his life could be integrated into a more holistic worldview, would have certainly looked appealing. And therefore he was able to say things like, “Experience life in all possible ways ̶ good-bad, bitter-sweet, dark-light, summer-winter. Experience all the dualities. Don’t be afraid of experience, because the more experience you have, the more mature you become.” Well, he certainly lived that.

    In other words, he was, “Simply saying that there is a way to be sane. I’m saying that you can get rid of all this insanity created by the past in you. Just by being a simple witness of your thought processes. It is simply sitting silently, witnessing the thoughts, passing before you. Just witnessing, not interfering not even judging, because the moment you judge you have lost the pure witness.”

    There is so much to be learned from Osho’s life. In saying that I am not referring to his discourses, but rather how he lived as an ordinary man in a world that is a madhouse and in the end encountered death in a dignified and enlightened way.

    • Nityaprem says:

      Thanks, Lokesh. Your perspective is different and useful as always. You may well be right that he was trying to shift his ground from guru and holy man to more ordinary man of Zen.

      I think for the normal sannyasin who was there in Poona 1 he was such an amazing figure, that it is hard to acknowledge those things about him that made him show up in a more ordinary light.

      • swamishanti says:

        Ordinariness was always a big part of Osho’s vision for ‘the New Man’, and he valued ordinarines, yet mentioning ordinariness in his later talks was absolutely nothing to do with “endeavouring to cut a path for himself”.

        It was always how he always delivered his take on Zen.

        Here is an older quote from an early Zen series, ‘A Bird On the Wing’:

        “And this is a miracle — when you accept your nobodiness, when you are just as ordinary as anybody else, when you don’t ask for any recognition, when you can exist as if you are not existing. To be absent is the miracle.”

        Discourse Series: ‘A Bird on the Wing’, Chapter #6
        Chapter title: ‘The Miracle of Ordinariness’
        15 June, 1974 am in Buddha Hall

        By the end of Poona One, sannyasins had placed Osho on a huge pedestal.
        He didn’t want that and made tremendous efforts at the Ranch to challenge that perception of him. Of course a lot of those measures involved have resulted in attacks from critics who wished he had stayed as a traditional guru saint model, in the simple white robes.

        But Osho intentionally destroyed that holy image and also made efforts to destroy his own respectability.

        He said sometime at the Ranch in 1984 that “Everyday I am making efforts to come down off the pedestal you have put me on” and he said that he was “just an ordinary man”- long before Sheela fled to Germany and gave her little tantrum on the tv.

        • Lokesh says:

          SS says, “By the end of Poona One, sannyasins had placed Osho on a huge pedestal.”
          Incomplete sentence. The correct way to write it is: “By the end of Poona One, sannyasins had placed Osho on a huge pedestal due to his encouragement.”

          “But Osho intentionally destroyed that holy image and also made efforts to destroy his own respectability.” Oh, wow, you mean it was all a device for our awakening? Deep!

        • Nityaprem says:

          There was a time when he was just Acharya Rajneesh, more a teacher than a guru. That god-man image is a pedestal he himself climbed onto I think, but he didn’t find in it what he wanted. In Zen there is no such thing. There is just the Zen master and there are the students.

          Did he actually adjust his method of teaching? Did he try to really embody Zen? Or did he just want to talk about it, passing it on to his sannyasins just as he had stories of the Sufis and others?

          • satyadeva says:

            Interesting points, NP, although another perspective would be that he was moved to do or to be whatever was according to the ever-evolving realisations of his enlightened state, and which best suited the overriding ‘Masterly’ goal of helping to bring his people to their own spiritual freedom. Including a strong wish not to be seen as a conventional ‘holy man’ by present and future generations, to avoid the potential traps of reducing his teachings to ‘morality’ and the effect of his presence to ‘god worship’.

            Those factors may well be the case but another explanation might be that he simply could do and did whatever he wanted, and now and again made a mistake.

            Or, that there’s truth in both!

            • Klaus says:

              How did Osho’s talks evolve? I have a memory that he talked about the various paths and traditions as all leading to “the One, the centre, God….”. As people are individuals not only one path would feel attractive to them. So he spoke about all (??) of them. Which allowed people to reach more to the centre. Through whichever ‘opening’ suited them.

              Imv, he himself always spoke from ‘the centre’.

              Sometime ago I posted the attached drawing: the centre could be represented by the Japanese ‘enso’ circle.
              Of which Osho said:
              “When you see the circle” (added by me: and all the lines and circles and written words) “then you are in the mind.
              When you see the space, then you are in meditation.”

              It is most remarkable that he ‘lived himself from the centre’ in everything. Not being bound by any tradition and their concepts and morals.
              Not even Zen.

              As to us, we could be seen as spots distributed all over the drawing – everywhere in faraway corners and around and in the centre. Wherever we may stand.

              PS:
              The drawing itself could have been done more artistically. For sure….

              Cheers.

            • Nityaprem says:

              Satyadeva said, “which best suited the overriding ‘Masterly’ goal of helping to bring his people to their own spiritual freedom.”

              It could be. I once heard that Osho said “enlightenment? Why would you want that?” When someone indicated they’d like to be enlightened. So it seems to me that perhaps Osho’s goal for his sannyasins was not enlightenment.

              He emphasised celebration and creativity, so who knows what other goals he had in mind for us?

          • swamishanti says:

            “In Zen there is no such thing. There is just a Zen master and there are the students.”

            That is where Osho really had much more esoteric knowledge and understanding- and experience than just one spiritual path such as Buddhism or Zen alone.

            He also had the Indian understanding and experience – of the Brahman-God- realisation. The sixth,seventh body & beyond.

            “This statement, ”Aham brahmasmi”, is a declaration of enlightenment – literally it means, “I am the divine, I am the ultimate, I am the absolute.” It is a declaration that, “There is no other God than my own inner being.” This does not mean that it is a declaration of a single individual about himself. It is a declaration, of course, by one individual, but it declares the potential of every individual.

            It denies God as a separate entity. It denies God as a creator. It denies God as a ruler. It simply denies the existence of God, other than in our own existence.

            It is the whole search of the Eastern genius.

            In thousands of years they have discovered only one thing: don’t look for God outside your own being. If you can find him you can find him only in one place and that is in you – other than you all the temples and all the mosques and all the synagogues and all the churches are inventions of the priests to exploit you. They are not in the service of God; on the contrary they are exploiting all the potential gods….

            But, unfortunately, even the people of this country – where this statement was made some five thousand years ago – have forgotten all about the dignity of human beings. This statement is nothing but the ultimate manifesto of man and his dignity.

            Even in this country, where such individuals existed who reached the ultimate awakening and illumination, there are people who are worshipping stones. There are people who are enslaved by ignorant priests. There are people who are living in the bondage of a certain religion, creed or cult. They have forgotten the golden age of the Upanishads.”

            Osho: ‘Yoga Pratap Bharati’

            So in the talk above, which was translated from Hindi, Osho is making it clear that enlightenment, God- realisation, does not mean anything to do with a father in Heaven that is judging or creating everything.

            Thus he wanted to make this distinction clear towards the end of his life. Because we all know the damage that has happened historically in the name of God and blind belief systems in a God – that is ‘on your side’. And the majority of sannyasins in the seventies and eighties were Westerners who were who had deeply Judeo-Christian notions and programming about ‘god’. They had been given the belief, that ‘god’ it is a person who is sitting up in heaven and judging people.

            He had his experience of fully dissolving into Brahman, god, and knew his physical death would make no difference, yet had no experience of any god other than That.

            Q: WHO IS BHAGWAN SHREE RAJNEESH? HOW DID YOU BECOME BHAGWAN?
            A: The word Bhagwan means ‘the Blessed One’. When people started feeling my blessing throbbing in their hearts, when they started feeling that something has happened to me of immense value which they would like to share, they started calling me Bhagwan. I could not deny it because it was a fact: I was the Blessed One. “

            Osho: ‘The Last Testament’ – Vol 1

            Name change from Acharya Rajneesh to Bhagwan:

            “It sorted out well,” Osho later said. “Only those who are ready to dissolve with me remained. All others escaped. They created much space around me. Otherwise, they were crowding too much, and it was very difficult for the real seekers to come closer to me. The crowds disappeared. The word ‘Bhagwan’ functioned like an atomic explosion. It did well. I am happy I chose it.”

            (Osho: ‘The Discipline Of Transcendence’ vol 2 1976)

            • swamishanti says:

              Why did Osho talk so much about Zen during the last two years? Well, he was well into Buddha at heart. Some believe he was helping to complete Gautama the Buddha’s teaching.

              But some of it was clearly spontaneous.

              The talk ‘Christianity the Deadliest Poison and Zen: the Antidote to All Poisons’ , was a new series given in the presence of 21 Jesuit priests who came to visit the commune. I think Osho initially intended it to be a talk on Zen, but as his usual style, he couldn’t resist provoking the egos of those monks.

              He would have done the same thing if he had Buddhists in his company, or anyone indentified with any other faith, and he did. But all in all, I think the book is quite a good criticism of some of the faults of Christianity.

              Osho also believed he had been poisoned by Christian Fundamentalists which may have also influenced the title of that book.

              And Osho cleverly also contradicted some of his earlier talks to help prevent a dogma.

              “I am putting gunpowder here and there which will go on exploding for centuries . Each sentence is going to create trouble for anybody who wants to create an organised religion around me..” :
              https://youtu.be/VykiHkOA85Q

              Personally, I’m not really into Zen much.

              • Lokesh says:

                SS declares, “Osho cleverly also contradicted some of his earlier talks to help prevent a dogma.”

                It is clearly the case that Osho was not successful in preventing a dogmatic mindset from entering SS’s inforamation-packed head. Dogma is defined as “a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted.” SS ticks all the boxes there. When I read the second above post of his, replete with where he took the quotations from, it made me think of a Catholic sannyasin priest giving a short sermon to the faithful in a church that smells of mothballs.

                SS concludes by saying, “I’m not really into Zen much.”
                That’s an understatement.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Baldy strikes.

                  Lokesh chirps:

                  “When I read the second above post of his, replete with where he took the quotations from it made me think of a Catholic sannyasin priest giving a short sermon to the faithful in a church that smells of mothballs.”

                  It’s quite a change then, instead of sannyasins being fed up with Lokesh’s writing on this site, he is now getting angry about someone else’s.

                  I think the main mistake you are making, Lokesh, is that as you yourself have no trust, you also assume that others are simply believing parts of Osho’s quotes without any experience.
                  Which is not the case.

                  And even if they do believe or trust a certain piece, what is the harm in that?

                  You have a habit of telling people that they are delusional, stuck deeply in your own doubts about Osho as you are.

                  And you like to put yourself on a pedestal, imagining you know best and everyone is gullible.

                  “Catholic sannyasins’ appears to be a term used on this site to mean anyone who actually gets anything out of Osho or speaks positively about him. Which has been rare here for some years now.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  So SS do you think we should speak only positively of Osho and put him back on his pedestal?

                  It seems to me it’s a good thing that we have people who speak the good and bad of Osho, that we come to terms with the places where he was ordinary as well as the places where he was mystical and mysterious.

                  I think it is interesting that he chose in the end to focus on Zen, where the paradigm between teacher and student is very different than the Indian Master and disciple.

                  The thing that I find lacking in Zen is a focus on the emotions.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Nityaprem, I am also sometimes critical of Osho – the man. There are many points where I disagree with him, and also in some places I can see where he is incorrect in some of his assumptions in his talks which were not based on his own experience.
                  Yet, this is one of the gifts of Osho, that he gave tremendous freedom to his people, he wanted them to think for themselves. Therefore it is the opposite of a ‘cult.’

                  Speaking positively about Osho , doesn’t put him back on his pedestal. He is already on a pedestal for millions of people.

                  For many people he was the greatest enlightened master in recent history.

                  His contributions to spirituality, have changed things for the better.

                  “ It seems to me it’s a good thing that we have people who speak the good and bad of Osho, that we come to terms with the places where he was ordinary as well as the places where he was mystical and mysterious. “

                  Yes, but it completely depends on how people interpret the ‘good and the bad’ – and many assumptions and speculations are being made.
                  People will have completely different ideas about what was good and bad.

                  “ I think it is interesting that he chose in the end to focus on Zen, where the paradigm between teacher and student is very different than the Indian Master and disciple. “

                  Yes, he did focus on Zen in the last two years of his life, but in Pune Two there were also many other talks for example ‘Satyam, Shivam, Sundram’, ‘Hari Om Sat’, ‘The Messiah- talks on Kahlil Gibran’s the Prophet’, ‘The Golden Future’, ‘The New Dawn’, ‘A New Vision of Womens Liberation’ , and others.

                  “…where the paradigm between teacher and student is very different than the Indian Master and disciple. “

                  Yes, perhaps, but in those Zen talks Osho was not just speaking strictly on the Zen methods and tradition alone.
                  That was never his way, whatever he spoke about.

                  He did also speak about the master-disciple relationship in those talks, there are some beautiful qoutes.

                  In his last talks he also sometimes encouraged some of his audience to learn how to connect to his light body and his non-physical presence.

                  I am not feeling that well over the last couple of days so my comments may not have been up to scratch.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Actually, looking at the book list, Osho’s last talks on Zen didn’t begin until 22nd April 1988, by which time he was very ill and not coming out and talking every month. He finally stopped speaking in April 1989.

                  Previously to this, there were a lot of talks on different themes in Pune Two.
                  There were a couple of talks on Zen from 1987 but there are many more talks on Zen from the Pune One period.

                  Here’s the full book list from Osho’s return to the Pune ashram in Jan 1987:

                  The Messiah
                  The Rebellious Spirit
                  The Razors Edge
                  A New Vision Of Womens Liberation
                  The Hidden Splendour
                  Zarathustra: A God That Can Dance
                  The Golden Future
                  The Rebel
                  The New Dawn
                  Bodhidharma
                  The Great Zen Master Ta Hui
                  The Invitation
                  The Great Pilgrimage
                  Jesus Crucified Again – This time In Ronald Reagan’s America
                  Satyam Shivam Sundram
                  Sat Chit Anand

                  Jan 1988 Om Mani Padme Hum
                  Hari Om Tat Sat
                  Om Shantih Shantih Shantih

                  YAHOO: The Mystic Rose last discourse: 5 Apr 1988 pm

                  And then, the start of Osho’s talks on Zen themes:

                  Live Zen: 22 Apr 1988

                • Nityaprem says:

                  The thing is, I’m not so much into other people’s metaphysics. For me, talk of chakras or higher bodies is an immediate turn-off, because I cannot observe it in my own body or energy field.

                  I expect any person worth their salt to have their own private metaphysics, and that discussing these is not likely to yield anything but confusion.

                  Anyway, I agree that for many people Osho is still on a pedestal, and that’s why public attempts to find a middle ground are valuable.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Well, NP, he has people trying to attack him in public, hard all over the internet, attempting to scare people away from interest in him.

                  For not being on the pedestal of the Buddha, the Jesus holy image they have been fed with.
                  Religious people are often threatened, often Americans who had have that strong Catholic conditioning, which gave them this belief that they are the world’s moral policeman, feel most threatened by him. Thus, many people.

                  When I wrote Osho is on a pedestal what I meant was that he is being highly respected by a large number of people (mainly in Eastern cultures) as one of the greatest enlightened spiritual masters yet, a move forward in a new direction, a ‘Zorba the Buddha’.

                  Rather than the old spirituality. India’s ancient spiritual culture can easily absorb an Osho and learn from him. They have many gurus, many spiritual lights and Osho’s books are everywhere.

                  And he is popular not only with young seekers, but with the older generation too and the most respectable people in high positions in society are now willing to come out in public in support of him. Of course, it is safer to do this now that he is dead.

                  Even the prime minister of Nepal recently gave a speech in favour of Osho.

                • swamishanti says:

                  The prime minister of Nepal speaks on Osho in 2021: “People will recognise Osho, his wisdom and his truth”:

                  https://youtu.be/LAjaAOVE6f4

                • Klaus says:

                  Nityaprem says:
                  21 November, 2022 at 7:50 pm

                  “I expect any person worth their salt to have their own private metaphysics.”

                  That is powerful wording, NP, to me.

                  No need to discuss “the metaphysics”.
                  What seems to be worthwhile to me, however, is describing one’s perception:
                  what does one see?
                  how does one experience the body – feelings sensations?

                  That is the personal.

                  ‘Believe’ is in words and deeds, I guess.

                  “I believe I dust my broom” – Elmore James
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKo80b-QfK0

                  If that leads to
                  ‘Redemption’ – Joe Bonamassa
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDe-dI3c5d0
                  https://genius.com/Joe-bonamassa-redemption-lyrics

                  I do not know.
                  Maybe, too.

                • Lokesh says:

                  I’m surprised you would care what the prime minister of Nepal has to say about Osho. Rest assured that whatever he says is politically motivated. The guy is corrupt and being investigated for taking backhanders from China and awarding lucrative business contracts to the ‘yellow peril’. It was precisely people like him that Osho spoke out against, calling them the mafia of the soul.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Lokesh, perhaps you should wake up from your sleep and go and see the world.

                  “Farid, wake up from your sleep and go see the world.”

                  Abida Parveen:
                  https://youtu.be/pGaWRdyZQNE

                • swamishanti says:

                  The point I was making is that Osho is popular enough in certain parts of the world for ‘respectable’ people to openly express their admiration.

                  Indira Gandhi was also an admirer of Osho, and asked his advice but wanted to keep it quiet at the time due to his notoriety.

                  Actually, the King of Nepal was also very much into Osho, and this was not politically motivated. When Osho came to visit Nepal in 1986 Osho gave him some instructions for meditation.

                  The king was willing to allow Osho to stay and build his commune there but only under one condition: that he didn’t speak against Hinduism.

                  Osho of course wouldn’t accept any conditions like that.

                  The video is from one of the previous prime ministers of Nepal – KP Oli. It is not the same as the present one.
                  Many Nepali politicians visit Osho Tapoban. There’s a lot of interest in Osho in Nepal.

                  The first hotel I found, when I crossed over the border with India, happened to be run by sannyasins. Which I only discovered when I saw a copy of the Nepali ‘Osho Times’ in the foyer.

                • Klaus says:

                  SS,

                  I am wondering just a little bit that you do not seem to be fed up with “elites” and “elitism”.

                  Status, power, influence, money.

                  I have seen some of such people of the ‘elite’.

                  And I am damn fed up with their ways.

                  Ordinariness would be grounded and connected to this earth and its people, indeed.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Indeed.
                  But, having such an elite is one of the natural outcomes of capitalism.

                • Klaus says:

                  SS,

                  Haha. I thought that we now have capitalism because we have had elites for so long.

                  It seems to be going back to Adam & Eve and the clans with the chiefs.
                  And then came the public lawyers who confirmed ownership of sth. in writing.

                  We have it all now. Natural?

                • satchit says:

                  NP wrote:

                  “The thing that I find lacking in Zen is a focus on the emotions.”

                  Is it not that one should watch the emotions in Zen?

              • Nityaprem says:

                Satchit wrote, “should one not watch the emotions in Zen?”

                Well, one should certainly watch one’s thoughts, and an emotion is usually caused by a thought.

                For example, anger is usually caused by thinking you (or something you consider to be ‘yours’) have been damaged somehow, by someone.

                But in Zen this makes no sense anymore because Buddhism as a whole holds there is no real self, the self is an illusion. So who is there to have been damaged? And by who, exactly?

                So you see, once you proceed deep into Buddhism, a lot of these things disappear. What is left is the Four Divine Abodes, which are loving-kindness, compassion, joy in the joy of others, and equanimity.

                • satchit says:

                  Well, NP, this can also be just a thought to watch that “the self is an Illusion” and no real experience.

                  Emotions can also exist without thoughts, without any reason. Mind makes it possible.

  3. satchit says:

    Osho talked about Zen already in the early days (1974…’And the flowers showered’…).

    Now feeling his death coming closer I can imagine this talking much about Zen could have been a gift to his people. For Zen and Meditation no Master is needed.

    It could have been a suggestion to now walk alone.

  4. Lokesh says:

    ‘Catholic sannyasin’, as defined in The Oxford Dictionary of English: a right fucking dummy who believes that whatever bullshit Osho came up with was needed for their awakening.

    • swamishanti says:

      No one actually believes that “whatever bullshit Osho came up with was needed for their awakening.”

      What to do with people who have lost all their trust in Osho?

      Usually they were those who who were put off by his devices – or- are hung up about money – or – something else. And that’s certainly easy to see how that can happen with Osho, especially if one doesn’t have an inner connection with him. And those who do won’t broadcast it much.

      Only at the loveosho podcasts you can find some of them.
      In your case, you were not actually at the Ranch, or Pune Two. If you were perhaps you would have a different idea.

      • Lokesh says:

        SS, there is something very contradictory in what you are saying.

        Besides that, if someone has lost their trust in Osho, what business is that of yours? By asking what to do with them you are making it your business.

  5. swamishanti says:

    It becomes someone’s business if people are hanging around on Sannyas sites and telling people who speak of an inner connection with Osho that they are delusional, because they themselves have not had that, or believing that they are gullible.

    If people want to spend all their time doing that on an Osho site then is becomes the business of a lot of people who either:
    a) have respect for and trust in Osho and get something out of his talks, meditations, etc., or sat with him in the past.

    Or
    b) have an inner connection with Osho, either those who developed that connection with Osho when he was in the body, or those who have developed that connection with Osho since he has not been in the body.

    I don’t have the energy to argue with you at the moment.

  6. Lokesh says:

    SS says, “Lokesh, perhaps you should wake up from your sleep and go and see the world.”

    What world?

    • swamishanti says:

      Na khuda maseehtay labda
      God is not found in mosques

      Na khuda vich kaabay
      Nor in the Kaaba

      Na khuda quraan kittabaan
      God is not in the Holy Scripture

      Na khuda namazay
      Nor in prayers

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Sanu pyaar da, dildaar da
      The Beloved, the very dear

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Na rab arsh mu allah uttay
      God is not in the skies

      Na rab khanay kaabay hoon
      Nor in Kaaba

      Na rab ilm kittabi labhaa
      God is not in books about religion

      Labhaa, na, na, na… labhaa
      I could not find him anywhere…

      Na rab ilm kittabi labhaa
      God is not in books about religion

      Na rab wich mehraab-e ho
      Nor in the minarets

      Gaanga teerath mool na milya
      God is not on the banks of Ganges

      Painday baihisaab-e ho
      The pilgrimages have all been in vain

      Jab da murshid milya baaho
      When Bahu finds the Beloved

      Chutti sab azab-e ho
      All miseries disappeared

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I’m in love

      Sanu pyaar da, dildaar da
      The Beloved, the very dear

      Maula… Ali, ali, ali, da

      Bulleh Shah, Bulleh Shah kaun hai
      Who is Bulleh Shah?

      Bulleh Shah, au kaun hai
      Who is Bulleh Shah?

      Uttam tera yaar
      Who is your supreme friend?

      Us key haath Quran…
      In one hand, he holds the Quran

      Us key gal zonaar
      In his neck, he wears the holy thread

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Sanu pyaar da, dildaar da
      The Beloved, the very dear

      Maula da, maula, maula da, maula da
      God…

      Kalaay maidayy kapray, tay kala maida bhais
      My clothes are black and so is my appearance

      Ghunaah hi bharya mein phirain, log kahain dervish
      I am full of sins but these people call me a mystic

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Uth Faridon suttya, uth Farida
      Farid, wake up from your sleep

      Duniya vaikhan jaa
      Go see the world

      Jai koi mil jaye bakhshiya tey too vi bakhsha jaye
      If perchance you encounter the forgiven to be forgiven

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Masjid dhaa dey
      Tear down the mosques

      Mandir dhaa dey
      Tear down the mandirs

      Dhaa dey jo kuch dhaindha
      Tear down whatever can be brought down

      Par kisi da dil naa dhaa
      But don’t break anyone’s heart

      Rab dilon vich rainda
      God resides in hearts

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Sanu pyaar da, dildaar da
      The Beloved, the very dear

      Dil ki bisaat kya thee
      But then what is the worth of this heart

      Nigah-e-jamal mein
      In front of the Beloved’s eyes

      Ik aina tha toot gaya dekh baal mein
      It’s like a mirror that broke whilst caring

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Raati jaagay sheikh sada mein
      You keep awake at night and consider yourself pious

      Tey raati jagan teh thee uttay
      But (Bulleya) even dogs stay awake the whole night

      Dar malik da mool na chadhtay, tau sau sau pawnday juttay
      These dogs would not abandon the posts at their master’s abode even if battered with shoes

      Chal way miyan Bulleya, chal yaar mana lay
      Come on Bulleya, let’s go and pacify Him

      Nahin tay baazi lay gaye kuttay, tain thee uttay
      Otherwise the dogs steal the game

      Sanu ishq laga hai pyaar da
      I am smitten by the Beloved

      Maula maula … pyaar da
      Maula, maula, ali, ali
      Yaari yaari, yaari, yaari
      God…Divine

      Sufi singer Abida Parveen ,Coke Studio Pakistan ‘Nigah-e-Darwaishaan’ with lyrics :

      https://youtu.be/mbOOgSv_sfo

  7. Lokesh says:

    Satchit says, “Emotions can also exist without thoughts, without any reason.” Which, if one considers it, might well be true. Then again, it might not be. We are complex beings.

    Then Satchit concludes, “Mind makes it possible.” Which, if one considers it, is contrary to what he just said. The mind is primarily composed of thoughts.

    It is an interesting point. There are various systems that address the issue. My system of choice comes from Mr G’s work. There it is explained that our emotional and psychological centres have pieces of each other in them. Often not conducive to our well-being, because this phenomenon can be the cause of much confusion. One could say that they converge in places. This provides an explanation for much of our behaviour. Hence feeling a certain way will bring certain thoughts and vice versa. The same goes for our moving centre. We sit in a certain way and start thinking or feeling in such and such way.

    This is, for instance, why mudra speaks so much of inner states. Commonly found mudras or representations of Buddha are hands folded in the lap which signifies meditation, a palm held up facing outward signifies the act of teaching or reassurance or an open palm pointed downward signifies generosity.

    Stop everything right now and observe how your current mudra reflects your inner state. It is a fascinating subject.

    • Nityaprem says:

      You mean the one of various mudras which involve holding a smartphone? My mudras do seem to be shaped by various devices, holding a mouse, poised in typing pose… But all joking aside you may have something there, hand positions are pregnant with meaning.

      I think Mr G may well be right, there is a lot of overlap between thought and emotion in my experience. It comes down to mindfulness, how carefully one can observe one’s thoughts and see what emotions they trigger.

    • satchit says:

      Yes, that’s true, Lokesh, “we are complex beings”.

      Emotions are created in an older part of the mind. Science calls it the limbic system.
      For example, If you suddenly meet a bear in the forest, the system will activate you for fight or for flight in this emergency case.

      Thoughts will come later and also being conscious of fear comes later. So then the mind will check if it is a dangerous bear or not. Same happens in other social situations.

  8. Lokesh says:

    The thing about the smartphone mudra is that if often succeeds in making the mudraite look stupid.

Leave a Reply