But too much power in the hands of managers has downgraded the magic of His work.

And i sincerely hope that the people who fought tooth and nail about the easy availability of Osho discourses will not stop the course till the Ashram is also not freed from the clutches of attachment free fanatics.

Pune, the dream place of Osho should be run as a jungle and not as a flowerist´s shop. So simple is the voice of protest.

A slippery slope has the quality of taking a person from one domain to a separate domain – by definition. An indiscretion is a temptation and yes that is Osho’s unique contribution. Buddhism (and Islam and Christianity) says do not be tempted; Osho (and Tantra and Sufism) says be tempted. Buddhism attempts to help a person by providing a mechanism for restraint, while Osho tries to help a person by providing a mechanism for tasting. The goal is the same, but the directions to reach the goal are opposing.

Look at all the Osho sannyasins that indulged in all kinds of things: sex, drugs, and rock’n roll. How many people went too far? This is the downside of Osho’s approach – over-indulgence in Zorba like hedonism. The downside of Buddhism is the effect of pushing an individual into a narrow, confined, lifeless repression. Such a person will see all acts of creatively exploring one’s nature as hedonistic. This is why there exists Islamic terrorism. At one extreme one cannot see the difference between boundaries at the other end of the spectrum.

Yes an indiscretion is by nature conscious. However when the mind uses this quality, there is the possibility of making decisions that are considered a deception, though the decision is still conscious. An example is that a person who comes to Osho might develop and act on the idea that they can be married, yet not tell their spouse that they are having other partners. They might call this an indiscretion, but their spouse might think otherwise, and divorce them when they find out (or commit a crime of passion!). Of course any style of open relationship that is honest and truthful cannot be called a deception.

There is also the possibility, once going down this road, of opening up powerful emotions that trigger us to commit an unconscious act, one which we are compelled to carry out even though it goes against our deepest inclinations. What this means is that a person going down such a road needs support and guidance and a stable social environment. Without this, crimes get committed (in the name of Osho).

The point at which an indiscretion becomes a deception is the essence of Osho’s approach, and to know the point within ourselves is what he was guiding all his people towards.

As far as the Inner-Circle and its secret operations go, it requires little investigation to come up with the following. A deep rift occurred between the Hollywood Mystics and some other members of the Inner-Circle. Talk to any old-timer and it is common knowledge. Even more public was the rift between the Delhi Devotees and the remaining Inner-Circle members. Clearly, in both cases, consensus was not able to be attained, and the organisation as a whole was unable to move forward. Admittedly consensus is a difficult attainment, and if nothing moves (for examples some people leave and do their own thing), the result could easily be stagnation. The question here is was anyone working outside of Osho’s guidelines. If it can be shown that they were being entirely unreasonable, and that the other parties were working (or wanting to work) within Osho’s guidelines and were being reasonable, then the former party is in the wrong and the latter party (or parties) are justified in their complaint and subsequent action (leaving the Inner-Circle).

It happened to be that one faction included the Chairmen and vice-Chair of the Inner-Circle. Hence, it naturally happened that the opposing factions (and possibly other individuals), were the ones that left. If Kaveesha or Keerti were chair of the circle, Jayesh and Amrito would have been the ones turfed out – unless they decided to stay and battle on.

The real issue is the nature of the differences that created the seemingly irreconcilable differences.

From my take on JA & Gang, they have in recent times been operating outside the scope of Osho’s guidelines for the Inner-Circle. Also, they have in recent times taken practical decisions that are both negligent and criminal in nature. If either or both of these elements was part of a pre-existing pattern, and was the cause of the other parties or individuals leaving, then JA & Gang have, since the outset till today, been illegitimately and wrongfully controlling the Inner-Circle group, and the other parties or individuals are justified in their actions. In other words these other parties are justified in not trying to work towards a consensus – if that consensus would have included having contravened Osho’s guidelines for operation and/or contravened basic ethical standards and the law.

With respect to these other parties or individuals, if it is demonstrated that they have not acted in a manner that contravenes Osho’s guidelines for functioning within the Inner-Circle, they therefore to this day have grounds for (collectively) re-forming the Osho Inner-Circle. Of course I have no idea what these people have been up to, so this conclusion is a postulation not a stipulation.

Shantam, what I am saying here is that you do not have the right to slam the Hollwood Mystics nor the Delhi Devotees (nor any other individuals that left in quiet protest), if they were trying to do the right thing, and a bunch of criminals was hell-bent on doing the wrong thing.

Yahoo
Abhay

An indiscretion is a consciously made faux paux (i most likely mangled the spelling there on that French phrase, consciously, therefore it is definitely an indiscretion, at at least from the French perspective (but who cares about that !).

Osho made a living out of a non-stop juggernaut of indiscretions, from calling the Pope the Polack Pope to all his racist and sexist jokes, to his going outside the bounds of every social, religious, sexual, and political perimiter of accepted norms and conventions.
But deception is a different thing altogether. A more common word is “lying”. Everyone knows what it is, and most everyone does it.

In journalism, students are taught, correctly too, that there are two form of deception, or lying (or ‘sins’) — the “sin of deception”, and the “sin of omission”. They are both just basically lying.

You can write or say something you know is false (deception), or you can leave out the parts of the story that you don’t want to be heard (omission). Most lying is done through omission, as this is considered less bad.

In a court of law in the US, they ask you to swear an oath promising to “tell the truth, the whole truth (the omission part), and nothing but the truth (the deception part), so help you God!” If you lie outright, and are caught, that’s a big no-no, but filling in the whole story is done more with the prodding of a skillful cross-examining attorney.

Osho was one of the few people who lied even to his own disciples, and admitted to it publicly. A master has that right, and that compassion for his disciples, according to him. Maybe so. Is there any rulebook for the Master/disciple game?

I would say most lies in everyday life are omitting the part of the truth you don’t want your audience to hear — maybe 99%. It’s can be easily justified, because how can anyone tell the whole story about anything, it can be shown to be nearly impossible to do.

But deceiving someone by telling a outright and blatant untruth is less common, and much harder to do also. If you are caught, your credibility is basically shot, and will take a long time to mend, even if you want it to be repaired.

Look at this Inner Circle story. It is more holes than substance. Noone speaks. I have never heard a documentary desciription from anyone involved, of an actual Inner Circle meeting. Never. I mean, what happened … did Jayesh slam the gavel, and then say, “Ok, Sodexo is now going to take over the cafeteria operations and bed-making in the hotel. Everyone for, say “Yeah”, …everyone against say “Nay”.
Has to be a consensus. If Ma Mukta holds out, then what happens, do they reconvene the next day after some arm-twisting, and try the vote again?

No one knows. No one talks. Maybe the whole Inner Cicle thing was just bogus from the get-go. There never were any meetings. That’s why people left, there was nothing to do. I think most sannaysins don’t know the full story of Pune 1, the Ranch, Pune 2, Osho’s death, Pune 1990-2000, or Pune 2000-2010. And that’s the way Osho wanted it, it looks like.

But if you leave the “t” out of Fred Flintstone’s name, that’s probably neither an indiscretion or a deception — just a typo.

I was thinking though, that “Yahba” could be the third stage of Osho Mystic Rose — the witnessing stage. Yahoo(1st stage), Yaboo (2nd stage), and YahBuddha (3rd stage), shortened by deleting some letters to ‘Yahba’.

Possible.

Firstly, it may be a combination of the first three and last two letters of Yahba-Dabba-Doo. Interesting to note here that the remaining letters baDabbaD form the word bad both forward and in reverse.

The other possibility is that it is a subtle variation of the phrase Yehaa. Yehaa comes from when a cowboy is galloping along at break-neck speed after having just stolen a bank’s reserves.

Interesting to note is that neither of these alternatives has anything to do with Osho.

The form option is an earth element sign while the latter is an air element sign.

There are only a few days to go.

Yahoo
Abhay

Yehaa
Fred Flin’stone
Yahba-Dabba-Doo

Don’t be thrown off by this cute deception of Abhay’s.

It is actually Fred “Flint-stone” — the ‘fire’ element !

When I was working on the “Angels and Demons” case in Rome, the Vatican’s Carmelengo created false leads like this, trying to blame it on the Illuminati.

No such luck here, Abhay. No way!

We have ‘fire’ and ‘water’, now we just need the ‘earth’ and ‘air’ elements, then connect the dots between the resorts and pubs — USA, Australia, Russia, and the fourth may be Pune, and the Holy Grail will be revealed!

– Robert “oshobob” Linglay
Osho symbologist

Actually Abhay in reverse is Yahba. Yahba is short for Yahba-dabba-doo.

Yes it is true, I am actually Fred Flinstone.