And he – not ‘God’, or ‘Existence’ – appointed Sheela. To suggest otherwise is stretching the limits of credibility – and gullibility, frankly. Perhaps you haven’t come across anecdotes from people who lived close to him and were subject to his ‘peccadilloes’ and personal preferences? If you had, then I doubt you’d be so keen to identify all he ever was and did with the ‘will of God’, with ‘Life Itself’!

The thing is, you can’t have it both ways, either he was ALWAYS, IN EVERY ACT AND SITUATION, a ‘channel’ for ‘Life Itself’, or he was that and also a human person, with personal wishes, personal preferences, who made decisions that might or might not turn out for the best. An “ordinary man”, as he so often said, but with an extraordinary self-knowledge, who lived in “Vastness”, yes, but who also had a human brain and a human personality. Just like other masters in fact.

What about his use of Nitrous Oxide, for example? ‘Existence’/'Life Itself’ getting high, ‘ordinary reality’ somehow not good enough? Or just a man taking time out to relieve boredom and/or get some physical pain relief, along the way demonstrating that he was not a ‘Saviour’ or conventionally ‘respectable’, or anything other than fallibly ‘ordinary’ (or whatever other motive one might come up with)?

I think it is a crime to simply wash out people’s interactions and the way of life around Osho.
Somehwhere there is a vicious attempt to turn moonlit starry night into a sunny day.
Osho like a sun in the sky and nobody else.

For such people, God is dead, Osho is the new God!

MOD: AS YESTERDAY, LET’S MOVE ON INTO THE TOPIC.

What to say, it’s not what you think, that I want to hold on to some pure image of Osho, to be honest I don’t consider Osho as my master any more, but I’ll always be grateful that in his Presence there were the first openings.

So in your opinion he should have acted differently, should have stopped Sheela doing more damage, in other words he should have controlled her. Well, control was not his way, was it? Somebody who wants to control in my vieuw is not enlightened, he might have had an awakening experirence, but the ego then grabs it and uses it to its advantage. And I don’t consider Osho belonged to that category; as far as I understand He went with the flow of Existence, whatever the cost.

I had to laugh a bit when you wrote, “Life through Osho made an extremely odd decision”….Yes, and I still believe he could only surrender to that, whatever the consequenses. Didn’t he give a perfect example to use for us when life confronts us with odd decisions?

My point though essentially concerns a certain view (even a ‘concept’) of the master that seems fairly common, where people will apparently believe anything, however unlikely or unprovable in order that he might emerge, in their minds, from any situation where he might be deemed, shall we say, less than competent, ‘untainted’ by suggestions of ‘failure’, of ‘inadequacy’.

I’m afraid I’d also include in this category, which we might term ‘neo-spiritual rationalisation’, your citing of “ultimate compassion” as a prime reason for his actions and inaction in Oregon. Appointing and keeping on Sheela as “ultimate compassion”? That’s really very hard to swallow.

I maintain that this is due to a purely person-al, self-ish (ie self-created, self-serving) need to hold a certain image of the master, one that serves the person-al interests and self-perceived emotional well-being of the people concerned. I wonder if you can see this in yourself, Karima? Some, like Arpana, appear to feel so threatened by this notion that they can barely contain their rage – which to me indicates I might be on the right lines.

I’m also saying that this concept is flawed because it fails to differentiate between the pure consciousness of the master, his inner ‘perfection’, and his capacity for dealing with aspects of ‘outer reality’, particularly worldly situations of which he might well have had little or no experience, a prime example of which is glaringly obvious: Osho in America and all that entailed, all he came up against.

I see no problem here, no undermining of the master’s mastery WHERE IT REALLY COUNTS, which is in his capacity to lead us within. Although, the vulnerable child in us might wish it weren’t so, if we’re looking to him for total perfection, total mastery of both inner and outer worlds, then we’re in for an extremely long wait…

In that sense, I suggest it’s time to grow up and discard improbable, convoluted theories and explanations in favour of simply seeing things as they are, however ‘disturbing’ that might possibly be to one’s inner ‘comfort zone’. We have a choice: ‘comfortable’, comforting illusion or possibly ‘uncomfortable’, challenging truth?

(See you in Church, 11am Sunday, ok?)