A Paradoxical Success: Sarlo Replies

THANKS to all for the responses to the previous post. A few comments:

Frank said: “The Ranch story, like life itself, is an enigma. I am not sure that this is helped by attempts to interpret all aspects of it as if it had a one unified underlying truth.” And Vartan said: “To call Rajneeshpuram His Magnus Opus is a disservice. Was His work the books, the discourses, or the sannyasins? Clearly, none of them. His Magnus Opus was Himself.”

I accept that others have their own way of understanding the ranch (and Osho). “Magnum Opus” may be a grandiose or even silly term. It suited my needs in what i wrote since i was using it as an antithesis to “debacle,” a term some people use which needs to be debunked imo. Yes, it was a PR debacle, and alienated many, but it was a necessary processsing for those who were going to go further with Osho. More about that below.

There are three more comments to address, having to do with authority and the guru model:

Teertha said: “I think Osho tried to do away with guru-yoga after the Ranch, seeing as it was corrupted at that time, but it’s doubtful if many sannyasins truly let go of that model.” And similarly Young sannyasin said: “About the Holy Man trip, he encouraged this for a while, at the end he cancelled this, but it was also his doing at the beginning.”

Teertha and Young sannyasin are right that there was a progression, a flow from one mode to another. We can enjoy our explanations and understandings of that flow or its why’s and wherefore’s can just be a Mystery, but there certainly has been no one mode that persisted, that “defines” sannyas and Osho.

Lokesh said: “Sannyas was and as far as I know still is a religious cult. If you don’t agree I suggest that you read The Guru Papers for it contains the most concise and comprehensive definitions of what constitutes a cult as far as I know. The Guru Papers demonstrates with uncompromising clarity that authoritarian control, which once held societies together, is now at the core of personal, social and planetary problems, and thus a key factor in social disintegration. It illustrates how authoritarianism is embedded in the way people think, hiding in culture, values, daily life, and in the very morality people try to live by.”

This Guru Papers view needs some serious debunking imo. It goes like this: The GP authors are right to see Authoritarianism more or less everywhere, as a central issue infesting all our cultural, mental and emotional makeup but as Americans culturally ill-equipped to grok the guru model, they may be missing a few key things. Most important is that a truly liberated person can exist and may feel like helping nominal others who want to be liberated. How will we recognise such a person? And what to call hir if not a guru? Any name will do really but if we call hir a guru then the GP authors will complain. But a true guru will be helping people to deal with exactly what the authors see as this big deal central issue.

Osho spoke about authoritarianism too, from the very beginning to the very end. He told us to become aware of this tendency, and wanted us to be liberated from any and all “outside” authorities, even him. But just speaking about it was not sufficient. We needed a big existential lesson. So he sacrificed his commune, millions of dollars and much more so we could have that lesson. It was that important. Liberation could not happen without it.

And because we were who we were, we couldn’t just start at the top of the ladder. He met us where we were and talked about God, the biggest Daddy of all. He “experimented” with a new “loving” authority model, with women running things. There were a thousand and one things to be encountered and processed.

And he had us play the Master And Disciple (MAD) game, which the Indians at least sort of understood. This game, this model, is a hard sell in the West. And it’s okay. There’s no reason everyone should buy into this model. But there’s no reason that we should abandon it either. Nisargadatta Maharaj, who was discussed recently here at http://sannyasnews.org/now/archives/1938 — and i may have something to say about that in another screed — is often held up as an uncompromising advocate of the hard truth, not cluttered with the usual bhakti trappings of Indian guruhood. But he would still make his puja to his long-dead guru Siddharameshwar daily, with flowers in front of his picture. There is sufficient freedom in the guru model for even this.

Alexander Smit, one of Maharaj’s prominent Western disciples, has a nice way of looking at the paradox of needing a guru vs going it alone, quoted at http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ysmit.htm. He himself went through a deep process described in the interview that was linked to in that Nisargadatta discussion. And “authority” was a central issue in his process. Zen folks talk of killing the Buddha but that has to be done when one is ripe. It is clear that simplistic formulations are just inadequate.

Osho spoke of J Krishnamurti’s “failure,” in the sense of his people listening for fifty years about the non-necessity of a guru but not getting it existentially. The ranch was that existential lesson. We didn’t have to be among the power-grasping few at the top. We could see it happening from the sidelines or even after the dust settled. Because we all knew people who were involved, and/or could partake of it because we are all connected via Osho, he made it possible for us to deal with at least some of those inner authority issues. And this is the paradoxical success of the ranch.


This entry was posted in Discussion. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to A Paradoxical Success: Sarlo Replies

  1. Lokesh says:

    Good post Sarlo.
    If you believe that Osho consciously allowed the ranch to fall apart as some sort of lesson to us all I reckon you are perhaps a victim of wishful thinking. The whole scene turned into a mega mess and Osho tried to exit stage right on a jet that was apparently bound for a secret destination he had no idea about, which would require a level of trust on Osho’s part that does not tie in with your great schemer theory. If he were the great planner you presume it would have required tactics and mental gymnastics that are usually exclusive to the domain of world class chess masters and require you to include the poisoning of hundreds of innocent people by his right hand woman, Sheela. Not long before the shit hit the fan in the USA he was proclaiming that Sheela was not being provocative enough and then began to backpedal when he saw how far she was willing to go in terms of provocative action. In my view Osho played it by ear and often played the tune to suit the caller, the caller in question being the American government’s internal security department.
    Sarlo, you speak of quote: ‘a truly liberated person ‘, yet how can you honestly say Osho was that. Truth is you can’t, because as Osho so rightly said you can only understand another person to the depth you understand yourself. Terefore how will you recognize someone as being truly liberated unless you are truly liberated yourself? Going on externals, Osho displayed behaviour that suggests strongly he was not liberated from many mundane things, the need for fancy cars, million dollar watches, quick sex minus foreplay with sannyasin females etc. As for the deeper aspects like complete transcendence of limited ego self who is to say…we are all only guessing, we are in the dark, so to speak (unless you now announce that you are truly liberated). I find it a point of interest that so many sannyasins speak unquestionably about Osho’s enlightenment, which lies in direct opposition to Osho’s advice to question everything. So many speak about Osho as if they really knew the man, meanwhile never having had a one on one conversation with him. This seems to me at times like a cult of personality and the main problem with that is that Osho’s personality was such it was possible to project almost everything on him, ranging from super guru, surrender to me and I’ll do the rest, to spiritual charlatan, a flamboyant deceiver, who attracts customers with tricks or jokes (ring a bell?).
    I suggest that you read The Guru Papers, not only because it is a great book but also because I see that you don’t quite grasp a lot of what is to be learned from the book. I come to this conclussion due to comments you have written, such as, ‘we call hir a guru then the GP authors will complain’. This suggests that you are scraping the book’s surface and have not actually studied the book’s actual content.
    You go on to say, ‘Osho spoke about authoritarianism too’ etc and draw your conclussion. Point is, there is no denying that Osho was, amongst other things, a classic example of an authoritarian Indian guru. He often defused critiscism by speaking openly about such subjects, which does not mean to say he abandoned his authoratarian role. Remember, ‘this is not a democracy’? He was the big boss and if you didn’t go along with his rules or kicked up a fuss you were out the door on your ear. As any rebellious sannyasin, who got kicked off the ranch for refusing to go along with what was obviously pure nonsense and often as not destructive at heart, will tell you. It Poona One some people were kicked out after a thrashing by Sant and the lads
    Moving on to Nisargadatta Maharaj. There is basically no comparing Osho and Nisargadatta Maharaj. Osho did not come from a lineage of spiritual masters and worked from that foundation (something which I find quite refreshing), whereas Nisargadatta Maharaj got to where he got by strictly obeying what his master instructed him to do. The differences go right on down the line. Nisargadatta Maharaj was in a certain sense a traditionalist and therefore it is part and parcel of the story to honour his guru by performing puja. I don’t have a problem with that. Another thing that needs to be taken into account is that the direct path that Nisargadatta Maharaj unswervingly points out requires the presence of a master at close hand to help guide the initiate. His is a path for the few, one in a million as he put it and Osho’s was much more a path for the masses. You will not see a You Tube clip of Indian working class Indians cheering and dancing in the city streets due to a new publication of a Nisargadatta Maharaj book.
    I’m sure you will catch my drift.

    • sarlo says:

      Lokesh wrote: “Good post Sarlo. If you believe that Osho consciously allowed the ranch to fall apart as some sort of lesson to us all I reckon you are perhaps a victim of wishful thinking. The whole scene turned into a mega mess and Osho tried to exit stage right on a jet that was apparently bound for a secret destination he had no idea about, which would require a level of trust on Osho’s part that does not tie in with your great schemer theory. If he were the great planner you presume it would have required tactics and mental gymnastics that are usually exclusive to the domain of world class chess masters and require you to include the poisoning of hundreds of innocent people by his right hand woman, Sheela.”

      I don’t know what to believe, so my beliefs, such as they are, are provisional and working-hypothetical. They do not, however, include a belief in a “Great Planner.” Yes, I would say that Osho “consciously allowed the ranch to fall apart,” because he was conscious and he allowed everything, except what he didn’t allow, and regarding that, one could say he allowed existence to act through him to override what would happen otherwise. Classic sannyasin cult doublespeak/think, I’m sure you think, so we may not have much of a common ground for a useful conversation. My view has space for paradox, yours has less. My view has space for trust, yours has less. Perhaps you figure your view has space for reality where mine has less. Such are the life choices we are making, then we cherry-pick and spin supposed “facts” to fit the choices. I’m comfortable with mine and if you’re comfortable with yours, that’s great. But then why hang out with sannyasins? To teach them all how wrong they are/were?

      About Nisargadatta, the point was not to compare him with Osho but, among other things, to illustrate via his puja story and Alexander Smit’s story the variety of ways there are to relate to and process authority matters. (And probably the GP authors wouldn’t like him either.) He gave Smit quite a device, ostensibly driving him out in order to test him, and Smit rose to the occasion. I am only saying that the ranch was such a (mega)device for us.

      And if, as you say, Osho was a path for the masses, then “results” from that are necessarily going to be diffuse. We will be all over the place. We will not have one narrowly defined truth, path, method, metier, milieu or reality. I won’t try to foist mine on you if you don’t foist yours on me. Whose board is this here? Am I in the wrong place?

      • satyadeva says:

        Sarlo, you say:
        “Yes, I would say that Osho “consciously allowed the ranch to fall apart,” because he was conscious and he allowed everything, except what he didn’t allow, and regarding that, one could say he allowed existence to act through him to override what would happen otherwise. Classic sannyasin cult doublespeak/think, I’m sure you think, so we may not have much of a common ground for a useful conversation. My view has space for paradox, yours has less. My view has space for trust, yours has less. Perhaps you figure your view has space for reality where mine has less. Such are the life choices we are making, then we cherry-pick and spin supposed “facts” to fit the choices.”

        The best I can say for this is that at least you’re aware that what you’re choosing to believe is totally illogical and utterly lacking in common sense (‘too clever by half’ would be another way of putting it)!

        You claim to be allowing “space for paradox…space for trust” – it seems to me that you’re simply allowing space for self-delusion, for being taken in by what you’d like to think is that ineffably ‘mysterious’, ‘magical’, know-it-all eastern master effect, aka bullshine for the terminally gullible.

        Are you that much afraid to conceive that such a man could be fallible, could make mistakes, is not necessarily ‘omniscient’, despite being an enlightened consciousness?

        But having sampled your execrable, ‘Guru Ratings’, perhaps it’s not so surprising after all that you should promulgate such foolish, ignorant twaddle.

        • sarlo says:

          Ah well, can’t please ‘em all. Perhaps on this board i can’t please anyone. No matter.

          Okay, let’s be clear and say, “I don’t know.” I’m “comfortable” with not knowing. The kind of insecurity that comes with not knowing i can live with. Welcome, in fact. That means my beliefs, such as they are, are provisional. I am not wedded to them. But so far the beliefs i mentioned and you cited work for me. And i say that in this great wonder-filled world, there is room for more than one metaphysics, more than one “truth.” Isn’t that a joy?

          Meanwhile, what is so great about “common sense” and logic? I’d rather be totally lacking if the only alternative would be to be as cynical as people seem to be here, or is that just the men? Fortunately there is a third possibility, and that would be to go with common sense (= conventional wisdom = the beliefs of the herd) on occasion when it seems to merit it and leave it behind when that’s most appropriate.

          Do you think our master was always logical, always in “common sense”? Oops! “Our master”? Better not go there. Anyway, surely “common sense” is just another way of being comfortable. Talk to Lokesh about that.

          • satyadeva says:

            Sarlo, on the one hand you say you actually don’t know, which sounds honest enough, yet then you say that in fact you choose to go with a version of truth that you are “comfortable” with, ie that suits you. Sounds very suspect to me, although I guess that’s what the vast majority of people do and have always done. Which, of course, tends to place you fairly and squarely among the “common herd”!

            You go on to question the value of logic and common sense (too ‘ordinary’ for you, perhaps, not enough ‘glamour’ or eastern mystique?) – before allowing it its role, again if and when it happens to suit you…

            Common sense another way of feeling comfortable, eh? For you, evidently, that is the case!

            The thing is, these concepts of the Master as all-knowing and infallible are just a way of making the believer feel secure, of generating 100% trust in the otherwise doubting mind. One might even say that they’re more or less par for the course for a sizeable portion of ‘religious’ people, be they New Age, traditionalists or disciples of contemporary teachers.
            As such, they may be viewed as manifestations of another sort of “herd” mentality, despite or even because of an overwhelming desire to feel ‘special’ oneself’, which can, as we well know, easily degenerate into an almost fundamentalist-type attitude that’s always ready to question the right of others to call themselves ‘disciples’, as you, Sarlo, demonstrate in your “Oops! “Our master”? Better not go there.”

            You remind me somewhat of the early Christian priests who promulgated the ‘walking on water’ and ‘feeding the 5000 with a couple of loaves of bread’ myths; anything to maintain that sense of unfathomable mystery….

            I would even suggest, Sarlo, that your ‘Guru Ratings’ demonstrate a belief that you yourself are a bit ‘special’, deeming yourself adequately qualified to pronounce judgment on dozens of spiritual teachers, very few of whom you could have possibly had personal experience.

            • frank says:

              “paradoxical success”
              thats a good one.
              i see a scene where sarlo tries to chat up an attractive woman.
              coming out with heavily dated chat-up lines from the late 70s and early 80s, as he does,the woman rebuffs him,and then… the boyfriend shows up and slugs him,too…leaving him in a heap on the floor.
              his mate comes by and asks
              “how did it go?”
              sarlo looks up through his black eye and thick lip and comes out with:
              “it was a paradoxical success”

            • sarlo says:

              Hi Satyadeva, I’ll just address a couple of things. About “Oops! ‘Our master’? Better not go there,” the intention was not to make myself into a better disciple, just that Lokesh himself had indicated the master thing was kind of a passé thing for him and so it seemed with you and some of the rest here. I apologise if I got that wrong.

              And about Guru Ratings, it may be you haven’t gone there in the last ten years or so, or noticed the things I have posted regarding my specialness. Not that you should, but I will point them out now. First was my rating myself as bogus, then when that didn’t do enough to defuse complaints about my presumed view of myself as special, I put up a Disclaimer and then an About page. Since then, I have not received any complaints from visitors along those lines. I am not special and I am not serious. Plus I have allowed myself on many occasions to be influenced by feedback. (I guess you could find fault with that though, if you wanted to). Cheers!

          • Lokesh says:

            Common sense is in fact a very rare commodity on our planet at the moment and has nothing to do with the herd mentality. Common sense is defined by Merriam-Webster as, “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” Thus, “common sense” (in this view) equates to the knowledge and experience which most people already have, or which the person using the term believes that they do or should have. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as, “the basic level of practical knowledge and judgment that we all need to help us live in a reasonable and safe way”.
            Were there more common sense applied on the planet there would be less war, disease, poverty etc. Sarlo writes,’ I’d rather be totally lacking if the only alternative would be to be as cynical as people seem to be here.’ Well cynical to me means seeing the worst in people and when I listen to such dumbed down statements I can’t help but be a little cynical. Your master, Osho, was a great cynic. Something I could appreciate being a Scot, because Scots have an strong tendency towards being cynical, although not a quality that I want to develop any more than it is. A wee touch of cynicism can be useful in the world, is how I see it and also it can be fun.

  2. babasvetlana says:

    Wasn’t all of this supposed to be some kind of “great experiment”? That’s what was proclaimed from the very get go, say, since 1972. don’t scientists who conduct failed experiments often run away from them? Often related to their inflated ego(they can’t accept being wrong) and yes, osho had a whopper of an ego, whenever he felt like jumping into any “temporal” matter his ego was very present. But that still doesn’t take away any legitimate attempt to conduct some sort of social experiment, i believe that’s what the old man did, what the fuck, what did anyone have to lose, and if it proved successful it would have been one of the biggest successes in all of human existence. It failed, so what to do? pack up and move on, just like life does; next experiment. Yet, those who cling to those “good old days”, those who can’t let go, only do harm to anything osho may have contributed in a positive way. They haven’t learned from the experiment’s mistakes, nor their own, but cling to outdated and stupid notions of what osho “may have meant”, with regards to his lectures and actions. “Stupidstitions”, a nice word for stupid people and their superstitions which keep them on a primitive plane of mental existence. Here we are still after 26 years of the fall of the ranch, still debating what went on there and the meaning of its existence, 26 years of faded memories which are often inaccurate and distorted especially from those who never were there. Isn’t it about time to pack up and move on- finally? or are you just too scared to live your life in the present.

  3. Kartar says:

    Sometimes the hardest thing in life is to know which bridge to cross and which bridge to burn. The negative experiences are the ones you burn. Nonetheless, I am not a big fan of Osho’s “grand design” or the illusion that there is an “I”, a “this”, that causes a “that”. Or the fact that things are caused by causality. Although I do believe that those who experienced the Ranch in all its hoohah met their destiny on the road they took to avoid it.

  4. Preetam says:

    “We didn’t have to be among the power-grasping few at the top.” For sure not, but there we find the poison and the destruction. Sarlo shows that mostly people not interested in what the organization does. But if a few wrong people having the responsibility, the innocent will be misused.

    A Sannyas paradox of accepting, watching, working, otherwise all is Ego, do not complain about the structure. To me, a useful way of forcing intelligent people to give up responsibility, beneficial to the wrong minority. Because of this Ego saga at the same time it feeds “It”, by this “clever” accepting? Whatdo we do if those few at the top destroy our home, beautiful garden and ripping the Family? Nothing…as helpless as the Residents at the Mururoa Atoll when a few on top came for nuclear testing, they couldn’t do anything. Same is true for the commune and the world, we can not do anything…not until we realize that a third force is involved, with goals, which apparently is not freedom of Humanity. From that viewpoint History and many events make sense.

    Creating a parallel society still would be the only possibility for Humanity for a new start without the warmongering of the lower interest of a few, and their neo-colonial claims. Waiting at the sidelines or even after the dust settled…it can be after the dust has settled we are in chains and our Planet is really fucked.

    Lokesh, you are very selective, but I didn’t hear Osho say: “I do the rest.” As I remember, he always said: “Be a light unto yourself” and “I can show you the door, but you have to walk through alone.” Of what he should be liberated, being Human?

    If it makes any sense, “I leave you my dream”, it’s of creating a parallel Society, the Lotus Paradise.

  5. Lokesh says:

    Sarlo says, ‘I’m comfortable with mine and if you’re comfortable with yours, that’s great.’
    Reminds me of an old Scottish sanyassin friend who visited last year. ‘Comfortable’ was a key word he used in many conversations with me. I explained that being comfortable was never really an option for me, because I usually learned more when life was uncomfortable, which n turn reminds me of one of my all time favorute book titles,’The Wisdom of Insecurity’ by Alan Watts.
    On a similar vein, being round Osho was all manner of things to all manner of people, but it was never comfortable…too alive for that. I also don’t believe that Osho wanted people round him getting too comfortable, because that simply does not fit with his Gurdieffian ideas about awakening from the slumber of ignorance that keeps one comfortably asleep as to one’s true identity. Get too comfortable and you’ll end up as food for the moon. Aieeeeeeee!

    • Young sannyasin says:

      Wasn’t he the Lord of the Full Moon?

      • Lokesh says:

        Yeah…ehm, yeah…I think you are right, YS….he was the Lord of the Full Moon…..this is getting spooky….aieeeeeee!

        • Young sannyasin says:

          And what about these last words of his book “Meetings with Remarkable Men”?:

          “But if, for some reason or other, I fail to accomplish the task I have set myself, then I will be forced to recognize the illusory nature of all the ideas expounded in this narrative, as well as my own extravagant immagination;
          and, true to my principles, I will have to creep with my tail between my legs, as Mullah Nassr Eddin would say, ‘into the deepest old galoshes that have ever been worn on sweaty feet’.
          And if this should be the case, I would then categorically decide to do as follows:
          To give for publication only the manuscripts I have just revised in final form, that is, the first series of my writings and two chapters of the second; to cease writing for ever; and, on returning home, to light in the middle of the lawn before my windows a huge bonfire and throw on it all the rest of my writings.
          After which I will begin a new life, using the capacities I possess for the sole purpose of satisfing my personal egoism.
          A plan is already outlining itself in my madcap brain for my activities in such a life.
          I picture myself organizing a new ‘Institute’ with many branches, only this time not for the Harmonious Development of Man but for instruction in hiterto undiscovered means of self-satisfaction.
          And there is no doubt that a business like that would run as if on greased wheels.”

          Wasn’t it somehow a prophecy for the work later set up from the Lord of the Full Moon?
          “…a new ‘Institute’ with many branches, only this time not for the Harmonious Development of Man but for instruction in hiterto undiscovered means of self-satisfaction.”?
          “…And there is no doubt that a business like that would run as if on greased wheels.”?!?!?
          Some similarities???

          • frank says:

            Yes, he should have gone for it, instead of unneccesarily sacrificing himself…

            He could have had gourmet dinners with endless top-class booze and fags every night
            No-strings sex with his disciples
            A personal manservant
            A top-of-the-range motor to go speeding in…
            All the Turkish coffee he could drink…
            A chateau not far from Paris…
            A large captive audience to listen to his endless stories about himself…

            That would have been something!

            Er…just a minute….

    • sarlo says:

      Now this is just a semantic shuffling. It must be clear in the context that “comfortable” just means “not threatened by.” So why jump to some other meaning just to create your ad hominem? Why not just do it straightforwardly like Satyadeva?

      • Lokesh says:

        Because I enjoy the right to express myself as I wish. Don’t you know anything, Sarlo? This is very basic to the sannyas credo.

        • sarlo says:

          I guess you’re not disputing the “semantic shuffle” characterization but as far as rights go, sure, you have every right to express yourself as you wish, no problem, the twisting my obvious meaning to make your ad hominem point just looks a little lame. But carry on. Oh, and “credo” fwiw is Latin for “I believe.” <== my version of semantic shuffle.

          About “A wee touch of cynicism can be useful in the world”: I couldn’t agree more. We just may not agree about how much is “wee”. But a little bit is like salt for the meal, and is not antithetical to trust in small proportion.

  6. Preetam says:

    Many Seeker are bewildered by New Age and those confusing Ideas about Master and Enlightenment… This projection of Seekers on Enlightenment and Master is putting him into chains. Since when in History the Word and Idea Enlightenment occurs first and on what terms came it into conversation? Isn’t Enlightenment just what Apotheosis is in its origin? Modified and idealized into an Idea for the “new seeker”, the danger it forces a Master into a mystified position and Enlightenment slides back into impossible reaching. Same for what seeker projects into the word Master. It has its roots not in spirituality, the roots of the Disciple – Master relation are the old master builder and there Disciples, its of learning. The problem is not a Master, more a disciple with his hope of heaven, his expectations how perfect his Master should be, is making out of him a commodity.

    • Preetam says:

      Osho became Enlightened – had an Apotheosis; the idea creating a commune perhaps is part of his Apotheosis and his will for bringing it into Form. Certainly, there are two more forces which are incalculable. One the Disciple, the other is a Third Force hiding in the shade. However one has to start somewhere, although Osho, and maybe he left us this dream of creating a golden society. He thought us being able… intelligent, rebellious and loving enough.

      • Lokesh says:

        I’m curious, Preetam. Would you be kind enough to give a concise description of what a golden society might look like?

        • Preetam says:

          Just golden, humanity has realized “his” golden truth.

          • Preetam says:

            “Humanity’s Apotheosis” Osho made the kick-off; who plays the ball, the lower interests or inspiration?

          • Lokesh says:

            Oh, I see. Thanks for shedding some light on the matter.
            Quite fascinating, Doctor Watson, wouldn’t you agree?
            Yes, Holmes, the plot thickens.

            • Preetam says:

              What I see at the moment in progress is almost the Babylonian Empire, the same people who abducted the Jews before 3000 years. They are able to bring it into presence through years and times by their Order and Symbolic. Possible through Secret Societies as Freemason, Rosicrucian and The Fraternity of Thelema.
              But with violence we do not eliminate the problem of war-mongering and abuse of people in order to maintain power. Freemasons and members of other Secret Societies should be removed in a respectful, loving way from all public offices (Politics, Military, Information Media, Medicine, Education, Banking), worldwide. A fresh start without guile and intrigue, in the sense of humanity without racism and elitist claims of ownership can only be successful.
              Those people live off lies, schemes (Crucifixion) and off Humanity’s creativity. It gives them such a painful inferiority complex, it’s not easy for them being heaven’s agent on earth if it is a lie. They have to hide their pain before Humanity. For it, they use the Wars, the Pressure and the Destruction as all along history, for keeping Humanity away from truth and self. They have to keep Humanity at the peripheries with all means. Those people have a conflict of interest, doesn’t mater in which position, because they despise Humanity, they are the Dark Designer and Destroyer hiding in the shade.
              But first we have to realize, that it is not our Unwillingness that gives the impression of being unable to understand, we have to notice which force keeps Humanity down, not allowing us the golden truth of self.

              • Preetam says:

                The most beloved tools of my “Friends” are Deportation, Walls, Borders, Intrigues, Confusion and Murder for making Humanity willing to follow their Order of Human Destruction. You have to keep them down, as much as possible. If Humanity realizes himself as divine being, the big business is finished and a new beginning perhaps possible. But one has to start somewhere. Osho trusted us, same as many of us trusted Him. What will we do if those people are around with their mean interests? I am sure it was a force involved we couldn’t do much about, we were just innocent. To me, the same scheme took his Commune, Osho’s life, his heart and his dying process.

                • satyadeva says:

                  “To me, the same scheme took his Commune, Osho’s life, his heart and his dying process.”

                  I suggest you look again at the facts, Preetam, rather than letting your rather paranoid imagination run wild.
                  For a start, read Lokesh’s dictionary definitions of ‘common sense’, he posted yesterday.

                  Btw, I’m not denying the often frightening force of ‘the world’, but it’s a waste of time and energy continually contemplating how dreadful it all this out there, if only because as far as we know, it has always and possibly will always be the case.

                  Anyway, no need at all to look outside our selves for ‘the enemy’, we are that world, it’s inside us and we shared in its creation: greed, anger, hatred, jealousy, fear, violence, double-dealing, self-serving etc. etc. etc. That’s more than enough to be dealing with for one human being, isn’t it?

  7. shantam prem says:

    Most of the sannyasins writing about success or failure of Ranch are like those widowers, who want to advise the young generation, whether to get married or simply have a live-in relation.
    Few wise guys go so far to say, “Why have a cow, when you can get the bottled milk?”
    Is Sarlo that guy who has the famous guru rating website?
    Yardstick of that website seems to be Osho’s beard. Naturally, everyone is few stars less than the shortman’s long beard!
    (Hallo From Kalkatta)

  8. Preetam says:

    You see Lokesh, what happens if I go into details that I just wanted to avoid.

    No, Satyadeva…not enough…there we bent within an Idea of becoming something else; it’s of realizing the true self! Not of what New Age idealizes and confuse the Seeker, becoming a good human, more loving and companionable, very accepting, egoless, but till sannyas nothing has changed in the World, it became worth. Those ideas of becoming a better man are just another trick. If Humanity is allowed to live his natural freedom, things would be reclaiming, because it is our nature. This outer world is our inner realization and overflowing creative favour of this Self that is our Truth, and less is not enough.

    • satyadeva says:

      You’ve completely misunderstood me, Preetam. Where did I advocate “becoming a better person”, in what you call ‘New Age’ terms?

      The point I made was simply to see that the world’s problems ‘out there’ are a reflection of the ‘state of humanity’, ie of the sum of each individual’s inner state, and therefore it’s pointless to pay the attention you seem to give to the outer world’s ‘Dark Forces of Evil’ – ‘secret societies’, power alignments and so on – as if these can be confronted and defeated directly.

      The real ‘battle’ is within, isn’t it? No need to try to add anything to what we are, it’s first to recognise, then renounce, the ‘evil’ that’s inside us, that’s preventing us, in your terms, from ‘realising our Self’, isn’t it?

      • Preetam says:

        Satyadeva, what is the actual state of humanity? I was not asking how was all possible on Ranch and now in Pune. You can blame Humanity as unconsciousness, but I see it absolutely different. The Innocence of Humanity is misused. Same true for the commune, just destroyed by lower interests, which by the way know much more of Truth than we think (people like Gurdjieff and Crowley made it possible), and there it becomes mean. Your Idea is a bit like stock market, making all an abettor.

        • satyadeva says:

          Preetam, why not just take a look around you, esp if you live in an urban area, and see “the state of humanity”? Or, read the newspapers, watch current affairs or news programmes on tv. Better still, look inside your own self…

          Re the destruction of the Commune, how come you’re blind to its appalling mismanagement, all the crimes committed – with Osho himself having appointed the chief criminal?! It was self-destruction, asking for trouble, right from the start.

          You must be extremely naive, or deliberately ignoring the facts, to imagine that it was simply a case of a great spiritual master and his band of ‘poor innocents’ (‘Good’) being persecuted by the ‘Dark Powers of Evil’, represented by the US government.

          • Preetam says:

            Satyadeva, I am very interested in what you found inside your “own” self? If you want to share, tell me the colour.

            • satyadeva says:

              Plenty to be getting on with, thanks, Preetam – enough to keep me ‘busy’ for quite a while, I imagine….

            • satyadeva says:

              And, Preetam, I wouldn’t know, but perhaps your often expressed concern, bordering, it seems, on obsession, with the ‘Dark Forces’, Secret Societies etc. carving up the World could be due to projecting your very own unacknowledged, therefore hidden, ‘stuff’ – greed, selfishness, fear etc. etc. – on to the outside…

              I bet you’re going to deny this, but have you ever really looked into it?

              • Preetam says:

                Satyadeva, I don’t speak of Dark Forces, Sumerian invaders or any fiction. Just in context of questions or themes of the board, as my result of view for the moment. Maybe you look yourself at the goals of groups like Freemason, Rosicrucians and The Fraternity of Thelema, for example, how much they are enmeshed into human History. Before you urge me into the conspiracy corner.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Look, Preetam, it’s no secret that the vested political/economic interests have run and are running the world since God knows when. Why make such a ‘song and dance’ about it, when it’s a ‘given’ for living here?

                  There’s absolutely nothing you, I or anyone can do to alter this state of affairs, certainly not by constantly ruminating on it and complaining about it as you do on here.

                  For me, it’s a ‘red herring’, not worth expending time and energy on, a sort of ‘sideshow’, which I don’t much concern myself with, except perhaps on the level of signing a few petitions or now and then supporting certain ‘good causes’.

                  Sure, some improvements can be made, by individual and collective action, and I’m not completely naive about how the wretched world works, I realise what an utter mess it’s in, and getting worse, but the only conceivable way out is for the individual to liberate him/herself, which is usually the result of the very hard work of a whole lifetime. Why allow oneself to be sidetracked by anything else?

                • Preetam says:

                  Satyadeva, you don’t need too disabuse me, please…Pity, you didn’t understand me, that I have said how our Soul is involved and why see it so. You only hear the stuff of conspiracy that triggers perhaps negativity and your helplessness. Heaven and Earth are enmeshed into each other, it is the same space, even within our hearts, but New Age, maybe even Sannyas, loves the pink carousel.

                • satyadeva says:

                  “Heaven and Earth are enmeshed into each other, it is the same space, even within our hearts, but New Age, maybe even Sannyas, loves the pink carousel.”

                  Well, this sounds a bit ‘New Agey’, Preetam! Could you explain what you mean here, please? What do you mean by “Heaven and Earth” and “the pink carousel”?

                • frank says:

                  you say “our souls” are involved.
                  Very true.
                  Our souls are always around, you can count on it.
                  As a meditation master myself, I would like to give you and Satya Deva an appropriate meditation to try out:

                  Repeat the words, “our souls, our souls, our souls, our souls” continuously, like a mantra.
                  As you do, make the intonation louder and louder with every “our souls” until you are shouting it at the top of your voice.
                  Don’t forget to open the window so your neighbourhood can benefit from this powerful meditation, too…
                  After 108 rounds, or maybe sooner, you will get a satori…
                  That is my promise….

                • satyadeva says:

                  But that’s an old one, frank – you can’t teach an old Gooner new tricks (not sure who Preetam supports though)…

                  Arsenal, Arsenal, Arsenal, Arsena-ul, Arsenal!

                  PS: You forgot to mention the obligatory club towel in the bathroom and red-and-white scarf hanging out the window. Call yourself a “meditation master”? Pull the other one!

                  Right, almost time for my bi-weekly dose of Cazorla…

                  Red ARmy!

      • Young sannyasin says:

        The real battle is within, but now this is too old. In 2012 the real battle is within and also in the outer, the inside and the outside are getting near and near every day, until there will be no barrier any more. I mean the inside is reflected in the outside almost immediately.

  9. Teertha says:

    Lokesh – in reply to your earlier question about Osho as ‘master of masters’, I had written it in quotation marks, indicating I meant it rhetorically. It was how Osho was marketed. The idea of a ‘master of masters’ is more a legacy of Great White Brotherhood/Theosophy/Bavarian Illuminati stuff.

    As for Sarlo, I’ve always taken his site more as a source of comedy. And I like to think that he intended much of it as comedy, though obviously he’s serious about his various ratings. I’m not sure how anyone who is a devotee of one particular guru can objectively present such a site, however. But he can’t be faulted for the sheer effort he put in, and the entertainment value his site offers.

    • Lokesh says:

      Funny enough, the theme ‘master of masters’ came up over dinner with sannyasin friends the other night, What master of masters actually means is up for debate. One friend, whose views I respect, thought Osho was the master of masters, in the respect that he was a good man to teach one how to become a master in one’s own right. I have to agree.
      As for Sarlo’s guru ratings, I did not tie the name with the site at first. I’ve visited it a few times and find it good for a laugh and helpful if some new kid on the block shows up giving satsangs etc. Someone asked me the other day about who I thought would be a good spiritual teacher to visit. I suggested Mooji, although I don’t really know much about him. He seems to have plenty of chuckles, has all the right answers and looks like a very sweet and gentle man. No idea what his guru rating is according to Sarlo’s measuring stick. Just checked and not so much said. I followed a link to The Advaita Disease, which I found curious. Makes me think of something Poonjaji once said when asked why he declared such and such enlightened, he replied, ‘I had to get the leeches off my back.’ I enjoyed and learned much from my time with the man and Sarlo is right in saying that a lot of preparatory work was done by Osho. As for the idea that Poonja gave seekers a final nudge, well, as I see it, he was indeed a good nudger but as to the nudges being final is up for debate. I think that the idea of a final nudge is a misconception. It’s a neverending story. I believe that dropping the whole idea that enlightenment is something to be got and it can be got by a final nudge is a better idea.

      • Teertha says:

        Mooji is not bad. He seems to have an interesting background, apparently was something of a ‘street dude’ prior to having a big awakening. I like this talk of his here — very informal, where he opens up about his views on ‘negative forces’, etc. He comes across more as a shaman, than a typical satsang guy:

        The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

  10. frank says:

    “Guru Ratings” is more of an unwitting comedy site…
    It could have done with being more deliberate…
    I had suggested to Sarlo to put in a section for “sex gurus”, rating them on their reported performance in the sack with their disciples.
    On the one hand, gurus give their followers a “final nudge” by staring at them unblinkingly, but behind the scenes it’s often more “nudge nudge, wink wink” with a bit of the old “hide the salami”….
    “New kids on the block” could probably do with that kind of info.

    As for declaring people enlightened “to get them off your back”, what about the poor sods whose back those leeches land on then..?
    Sounds a bit irresponsible to me.
    Throwing shit out of the window keeps your house clean,but what about the guy walking past whose head it lands on?
    Is that what he means by “the advaita disease”?

    • Lokesh says:

      My biggest complaint about Guru Ratings is that I don’t get a mention…and I am sure that I rank 5 pink condoms, coz I’m a real fucker and my satsangs are free (nobody comes). Sorry, I just had to share that.

  11. frank says:

    “Nobody Comes” -
    that would be a good catchphrase for an advaitist sex-guru.

    Meanwhile, back to the football…
    SD, don’t you think there should be a play-off between all the three star gurus in Sarlo’s guru ratings to decide the greatest of all time?
    Stanley Maharshi, the original legend in his oversized shorts…
    Georgie G.
    Nisargatta Maradona,
    Eckhart Beckenbauer,
    We all know who it is really.
    Bobby Bhagwan and his legendary Red Devils…
    We are the champions!

Leave a Reply