Love of a Master: a One-Way Street

Though Osho did not say it to everyone, so it may not have universal validity,  in the 1970′s Darshans I can remember him saying a number of times that “All love affairs are disasters” when addressing the endless sannyasins who seemed to have an overwhelming preoccupation with their affairs.

But the real “affair” was,  at that time, whether acknowledged or not, that with the Master – otherwise why be living there alongside him in his Buddhafield and having the rich opportunity to sit with him virtually everyday ?

Osho’s view of this “relationship” was a shock to many disciples.  He said a number of times that the relationship was solely one way.  For those who looked for some personal involvement from him, and some indicators from his side – that was a no go area.

As Chetana (who became Shunyo) reminds us Osho said he was an absence. He had spoken a few days before saying that from his side there was no relationship. It was one way traffic from disciple to the Master, but nothing the other way round.  Chetana did not like that, and wrote to him.

Osho retold a little of her letter’s words. Chetana’s letter had said “You told it very nicely, but it was a sugar coated pill, and it has stuck in my throat”.

Osho replied “It hurts to feel the relationship is only from your side and not from the Master’s side. You would like it that the Master also needs you. You would like me to say “I need you, I love you very much”.

And one could add, yes I love you specially over and above the other disciples!

Osho then went on to say that relationships anyway are not where it is at.  If one really imbibes him then a communion surfaces that transcends the mutual needs implied by a relationship, and the mutual love cover ups thereof.

When one communes with an authentic Master, then that communion is all and relationships disappear, both the semblance of such with him, and those with each other,  that preoccupy most of humanity.

Parmartha

This entry was posted in Discussion, Osho. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Love of a Master: a One-Way Street

  1. Arpana says:

    I’ve felt grateful for years that he doesn’t need me.
    Not a co-dependent relationship, thank God!!

  2. Kavita says:

    Wondering if one way is the best way leading to no way!?

  3. anand yogi says:

    Perfectly correct, Parmartha!
    Real Love is certainly a one-way street!
    And relationship is nothing but a two-horse-race in one-horse town!
    A disaster of baboonish proportions played out by the unconscious masses and failed disciples!

    My love is also a one-way street!
    I speak the wisdom of the masters of mighty Bharat
    and the unenlightened have to listen as they grovel around with the unconscious humanity pursuing their laughably sad, pointless and egoistical so-called “relationships”!

    There can be no compromise or meeting ground between a relationship-obsessed baboon and the freedom of the enlightened one!
    Many beautiful women have hurled themselves at my feet in the misguided notion that there is something to be got from my side!
    Their disappointment has been a zenstick reminding them of how unworthy they are to imbibe the wisdom of enlightenment!

    It is absolutely true that from the point of view of those of us who have imbibed deeply of ultimate wisdom and become one with the enlightened masters, that there is no relationship whatsoever with unenlightened baboons who are hopelessly attached to their bananas!
    It is pure projection on the part of these hysterical fools!

    The truth is that every time I have met these fools looking for a relationship I have whipped out my zenstick, hit them, and then moved on and let these deluded co-dependent egoists fall into the mud of their own relationship fantasies as I, the lotus, grow ever upwards in total freedom, love and compassion.

    Yahoo!

    • lokesh says:

      Yogi has hit his nail right on the head…painful, but true.

      • satyadeva says:

        Osho didn’t seem ‘keen’ on relationships, although in one darshan I was at he told a young American couple who asked him to ‘bless’ their marriage (and perhaps even to marry them, if I remember rightly) that “For me, marriage is to help each other grow”, going on to elucidate in some detail what that meant.

        I suppose the point is that he didn’t want people stuck in believing that intimate relationships were the be-all-and-end-all, that so-called ‘normal love’ was the ultimate ‘real deal’, although the fact that he seems never to have had ‘normal’ relationship experience himself (ok, ‘in this lifetime’) may perhaps be viewed as tending to undermine his authority in such matters. Especially vis-à-vis the relationship predicaments of westerners.

        How much of his public teachings went directly into such matters, the sort of everyday issues that preoccupy and perplex almost everyone, in extensive detail? Not much, I think. Which is not to denigrate Osho, but to see what kind of teacher he mostly was and mostly was not.

        Now, where’s my tin helmet…?

  4. Parmartha says:

    Communing here looks easy here, and plenty of people, despite what the Shantams here say!

    Don’t let the detractors say there are no Festivals at the Osho Resort!

    http://www.osho.com/Events/Monsoon-Festival/SlideShow/

  5. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    No, you won´t need a “tin helmet”, Satyadeva. Not only because you are not a tin soldier but also because the ´Love´ mentioned here is a state of consciousness and not a temporary or not so temporary agreement with more or less conditions; being aware of the latter, or not.

    And I agree that Osho has not been a ´teacher´ of putting up (love) conditions in whatsoever sophisticated ways. That’s what is filling the briefcases of coaches nowadays to a great extent (as coaches) – no big harm in that – most of the time.

    So, good to come to know what is what.
    About “one-way tickets”, one speaks when there is more or less defined space and when agreement is needed.

    Spaciousness happens on quite another level and by that I mean a state of Being
    we sometimes call ´oneness´ and may feel it as ecstasy or ´Love´and yet it has no name.
    When I had glimpses in that or on that, I had more the inner call, not to try to get hold of that and accept that also these peak moments will pass with no guarantee to ´have´ another one. (Yet it happened – rarely – but every now and then).

    In that context (although the word falls short), I experienced the Master when I was able to meet His place in His lifetime.

    In that context (although the word again falls short), these precious moments didn´t go away as a possibility with the Master not being present in the Body any more.

    The last decade or so, I have to deal with missing a Sangha as a buddhafield around and available. The way to post here is confronting me with other challenges of insecurity and missing guidance quite so often.

    So, it’s a long way short – a short way long – I feel to grow into that ´Love´ or state of consciousness as a human Being, what I remember the Master called as a state that is our Birthright…and that is what I love when ´Samasati´ is spelt, but sure, other words may also do, but I don´t know a more beautiful one.

    And I am grateful to have taught-NO-taught this word, which comes out of another culture as I was (bodily ) born into.

    A Beautiful DAY for everybody!

    Madhu

  6. frank says:

    Who do you love?
    When do you love?
    Where do you love?
    How do you love?
    Which do you love?

    —–Quicksilver Messenger Service

    Who loves ya, baby?
    ———–Kojak

  7. shantam prem says:

    Love is the state of our being, it does not affect us to leave behind trail of broken relations!
    (Notes of Pune 1 disciple)

  8. lokesh says:

    I was under the impression that Osho was in a relationship wth Vivek. Well, that is what she told me when I asked her for a date. Mind you, it could have been a one-sided affair and she did not realize it.

    Does the fact that Osho threw a shoe at her, because she disturbed him while watching ‘Patton’, mean that the relationship was really two-sided, or was he just being Zen, or something like that?

    Or did Osho make the whole one-sided relationship thing up because it made him look more enlightened? Was it in fact a 3-sided relationship because neutralizing force must be included in any two-sided elatonship? Answers, please!

    • satyadeva says:

      From several kilometres away on the outside, I’ve always had the impression that Vivek was more of a sort of ‘care-taker’ (or, all right, ‘carer’) than what is normally considered a ‘partner’. Just an impression, of course, only an ‘insider’ would know…

      Any ‘insiders’ around here?

      If so, please show your credentials at Reception, you’ll be called for an interview in due course. Tea and tin helmets available on the trolley….

  9. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    Hi , Frank,

    Which one, please?

    Titles: Einsatz in Manhattan, Der Mordfall Marcus-Nelson, Before the Devil Knows, Conspiracy of Fear, Cop in a Cage, Dark Sunday, Dead on His Feet, Death Is Not a Passing Grade, Deliver Us Some Evil, Die Before They Wake, Down a Long and Lonely River, Eighteen Hours of Fear, Girl in the River, Knockover, Last Rites for a Dead Priest, Marker to a Dead Bookie, Mojo, One for the Morgue, Requiem for a Cop, Siege of Terror, The Corrupter, The Only Way Out, The Trade-Off, Therapy in Dynamite, Web of Death

    Einsatz in Manhattan (1973)

    Or did you enjoy any of those?

    Madhu

  10. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    “Does the fact that Osho threw a shoe at her, because she disturbed him while watching ‘Patton’, mean that the relationship was really two-sided, or was he just being Zen, or something like that?”

    Have you been present, Lokesh? I bet, NO – rumours and gossips are numerous.

    And all of it showing just one thing, I guess, that we all are more or little bit less true ´experts´, having been throwing tantrums, shoes or other stuff when we didn´t get what we wanted, or when we have been jealous because we imagined that others got what we were up to.

    A whole encyclopedia of stories and so on about the literature or the movies or series of after-work television, the whole lot. Already coming into the thread.

    Because, maybe, we have nothing better to do or to let come through?

    Madhu

  11. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    And PS…Lokesh, the fate of Vivek (Nirvano) has still irritated me and also makes me really sad – just this, and knowing, ever knew, it´s none of my concern, has never been – and yet….

  12. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    Thank you for your latest contribution, Frank.
    You are truly true to yourself as far as I can see (and hear) it.

    Madhu

Leave a Reply