(There is a lot of material over at Sannyaswiki on this, maybe gone overboard with detail.) When Osho changed his name previously from Acharya Rajneesh to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (circa 1970), he actually asked his then Joint Secretary, Swami Yoga Chinmaya for a suggestion. “Bhagwan” was Chinmaya’s suggestion. Chinmaya was eager to make Osho into a “world” teacher, and I guess Bhagwan , (meaning God) was thought to be big enough!
An SN insider who was in PR and in Pune at the time of the later name change, 1988/89 says that he recommended to the Ashram authorities a complete change of name as the old name, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, was killing business due to its associations with Oregon and all the fishy business that went down there. A total split from the past would help re create the whole book/tapes/trade. As the main proponent of this advice was a guy with long experience working for Satchi and Satchi, it was listened to. Shortly after this Osho began playing with various changes which are well documented over at Sannyaswiki.
At sannyaswiki the preoccupation seems to be around Trademark issues. Central to this is how Osho himself saw the name, and how he adopted it. Basically once Osho had adopted it as a name, how could it become a successful candidate for a Trademark. The “creation” of the name and its meaning in Osho’s no-mind, to them seems crucial.
Here is the Trademark argument, taken from Sannyaswiki: SN welcomes comment.
“The authorities in Pune wanted to establish the word / name “Osho” as a trademark, so they could have some control over who used the name and how. This control became a matter of some contention among different groups of sannyasins, in whom Osho had inspired a deep love of freedom.
Such a trademark would have difficulty getting legal status if it were a traditional term of respect, honour and love in a significant culture like Japan’s, especially as the Pune Resort wanted to promote Osho’s Zen side rather than his Bhakti side, and Osho spoke only on Zen in his last year of talks. So, better to have another story, William James’ “Oceanic”. In that story, “Osho” is Osho’s entirely original creation, and only “Later, He came to find out that ‘Osho’ has also been used historically in the Far East”.
Otherwise, how do you trademark something like that? Osho even supplies an example which might illustrate how difficult that might be: Twice among the examples of his commenting on “Osho”, he compares the term to “Reverend”, which is sometimes used as a translation of the Japanese “Osho”. Imagine a teacher changing his name to “Reverend” and then trying to trademark that name. Trademark authorities will not easily grant such a trademark.
And in fact, “Reverend” is a more apt translation of “Osho” than you might gather just from Osho’s words. “Osho” is used far more widely in Japan even today as a term of address or title for various kinds and levels of Zen monks, priests and teachers, which would make it even harder to trademark. Wikipedia’s article on its usage in Japan turns up some fascinating information on the subject, not least of which is tracing its etymology back through China to India, where one of its hypothesized ancestors was, astoundingly, Acharya! Trademark that! ”
Resurrection of Jesus, family renunciation of Buddha, naked travelling of Mahavira, Guru Nanak´s story of True Business and now why Bhagwan Shree became Osho…
Still it is a blessing to discuss life and times of such people. Once one gets entangled with such people, news about Narendra Modi or Queen´s husband, sons, grandchildren etc. etc. look boring, non inspiring, another kind of trash!
On the latter controversy which seems to be going on over at Sannyaswiki, a couple of points:
Shunyo’s respected book, ‘My Diamond Days with Osho’, and the first biography from an insider, was published in 1992. She makes no mention of any connection with William James and the meaning ‘Oceanic’, as Osho’s choice of name.
She says, “On Jan 7th, 1989, the name Bhagwan dropped and he became simply Shree Rajneesh. It was later in that year in September that he dropped the name Rajneesh. He was now without a name. We asked that we might call him Osho. Osho is not a name, it is a common form of address used in Japan for a Zen Master.”
Of course, it is possible she was ‘outside the loop’ on all this. Certainly some stickers on books from that time have the following rather different text:
“Osho has explained that his name is derived from William James’s word ‘oceanic’, which means ‘dissolving into the ocean’. Oceanic describes the experience, Osho says, but what about the experiencer? For that we use the word ‘Osho’.
Later he came to find out that ‘Osho’ has also been used historically in the far East, meaning ‘The blessed one, on whom the sky showers flowers’.”
Some obviously think that the latter is some kind of convenient fiction to protect Trademark. However, to me, this might also easily be a sign of a sort of paranoid thinking that conspiracy theorists often display.
““Osho has explained that his name is derived from William James’s word ‘oceanic’, which means ‘dissolving into the ocean’.”
Indeed, in ten different discourses, from 1972 to 1989, Osho comments that James is “one of America’s greatest psychologists, and praises James in each of the ten discourses for using the word “oceanic.”
Curiously, there are not ten counter-quotes to be found. Osho cannot be made to contradict himself on his assessment of James as a great psychologist due to his use of the word “oceanic.”
Osho says ten times in ten different discourses that James is “one of America’s greatest psychologists” but nowhere does he say “exactly the opposite” … as I would expect if I believed the fiction promoted by some on SN that Osho can be made to deliberately “contradict himself.”
Osho has nothing but praise for James’ use of the word “oceanic.” Osho’s positive assessment of James was consistent from 1972 right up to the last quote I found in 1989. Osho had 17 years to say “exactly the opposite” about James’ use of the word “oceanic,” but Osho remained consistent in his appraisal of James as a great psychologist, precisely because of James’ use of the word “oceanic.”
I will only provide one small kryptonite Osho quote, to illustrate:
“America has not produced any great mystic, it has not produced any great psychoanalyst. But one psychologist, William James — everything else about him was ordinary, but one thing he brought, a phrase, “oceanic experience.” The religious experience is an oceanic experience. Just for this small phrase, this small statement, I consider him to be one of the greatest psychologists that we have produced anywhere around the globe. He has touched exactly the right point. Religious experience is an oceanic experience, a dewdrop slipping from the lotus leaf into the ocean — in one way, disappearing into the ocean, in another way, the ocean disappearing into the dewdrop, both becoming one.”
Osho, ‘Christianity: The Deadliest Poison and Zen: The Antidote to All Poisons’ (1989, ch.1)
It is no wonder that the name ‘Osho’ resonated with Osho. Osho had been consistently praising James’s use of the word “oceanic” for 17 years, with no bevy of counter-quotes against James’s “oceanic” in sight.
Apparently, according to the timeline on the Oshoworld website of events in the months leading up to Osho`s leaving the body in January 1990, an announcement was made in Buddha Hall that “Osho” could be used as a mantra.
Wondering if any sannyasins have been chanting “Osho, Osho, Osho” and been using this as a mantra.
Do they do this in Delhi?
Shanti,
Was early in ’89. I particularly recall this because I started to use “Osho” as a mantra to short-circuit being in my head, getting analytical, which was very effective, and I changed address sometime after that happened, to the place I was living when he died early in 1990.
Thanks for sharing, Arpana.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
After reading this concept of trademark, it makes me wonder that it arose out of some kind of self-defence for securing financial/business security for sustaining life of the concerned party, in this case the administrative heads of OIF.
The only time I came across the word ‘osho’ was in the Japanese strategy book, ‘A Book of Five Rings’. I am sure Osho had read this book long before he decided to use the name, because it is in many ways an important book. Although Osho is alleged to have read several books a day I doubt he read every word, but rather skimmed over them in search of new material for his discourses. Therefore, one can speculate that he simply missed it.
In that particular book, if I remember correctly, osho means priest. Recently, someone copied and pasted an Osho quote about how he never knew what he was going to say next in his talks. Perhaps true up to a point, but I reckon Osho’s talks were not entirely spontaneous. He referred to notes on a clip board and in one press interview, during the Ranch debacle, I noticed him reading from something in the palm of his hand. He was obviously trying, quite unsuccessfully, to conceal this. All part of the myth-building that Osho was a very active participant in. Personally, I prefer Osho the man rather than the myth.
I never really liked the name Osho, sounded too much like washing powder that washes whiter than ever before. Over the years I came to accept it.
To me, OSHO means circle/circus of silent mystery:
O = circle
SH = silence
O = mystery!
Cute
or
CuteO!
Thank you.
From my facebook (10 June at 08:16):
Google voice search -
I said, “Osho”
Miss Robot answers, “Here is some information about Rajneesh.”
Bhagwan to Osho is master´s own choice. The way creating Rajneeshism was his choice and dumping it in the burning pyre too.
Commune to Resort is a creation born out of chief disciple’s mind. I hope quotation masters of snews can find out a single quotation justifying this vasectomy of Osho´s work.
“as the old name, Shree Bhagwan Rajneesh, was killing business.”
Interested to hear about the guy from S&S, if the report is indeed true, as I have for a long time suspected the above was the driving force behind the name change. I don’t, by the way, think you need to be Einstein to work it out, do you?
When people have no first-hand experience but only through stolen books, all kind of wise nonsense enters the brain.
This nonsense is the grease in the wheels of Sansara!
The person who has written this article has relied upon Shunyo´s book and some resource material from the net. Even a simple common sense is not used: “Why not watch those videos of 1988/89, the transaction period from Bhagwan Shree to Osho?” Most of these discourses are recorded by two camera persons. One can see the gathering of people too.
As the destiny worked, i was in Pune during all these months. The atmosphere, the background is stored in my brain.
The writer has only touched the very periphery of name change and foolishly with wrong logic.
One does not need to an Einstein but not arrogant fool either to say, name change was a compulsion due to business compulsions.
Hopefully, I try to paint through the words the scenes and atmosphere of that time in one of the next posts.
I think even the most ardent Osho-hater/basher will find it difficult to argue that marketing was an important priority for Osho. On the contrary, for most of his life he was constantly provoking authorities, both political and religious, and obviously basing decisions on everything else than rational and cynical speculations.
Knowing well that spirituality is a taboo-word on SN, there do however seem to be some spiritual reasons for dropping ‘Bhagwan’ as chronicled in ‘No-Mind: The Flowers Of Eternity’. All starting with the Japanese seeress confirming Govind Siddharth’s previous vision (see ‘The Osho Upanishad’) that Buddha had chosen Osho as the vehicle for his return as Maitreya.
It’s of course all too easy for anti-spiritual people to dismiss and make fun of this and for the similarly many changes of name of another ‘crazy Master’, Franklin Jones (who ended up calling himself Adi Da Samraj after a series of different names). But these people (or no-people) may be influenced by forces beyond normal comprehension!
But for those who actually consider Osho an Enlightened mystic it seems equally absurd to believe that it was a purely business-based ‘decision’.
Isn’t the fairly simple truth that these people change their name(s) to correspond with their ever-changing, ie ever-expanding consciousness?
Frankly, I also find it hard to believe that Osho, always so uncompromising, would change his name purely for ‘commercial’, ‘marketing’ or ‘public relations’ reasons.
Yet, on the other hand, I wouldn’t necessarily put it past him either.
Perhaps this instance might be a case of the two possible factors coming together?
Adi da samraj…
aka Bubba Free John, Da Free John, Da Love-Ananda, Da Kalki, Da Avadhoota, Da Avabhasa, Adi Da Love-Ananda Samraj.
Didn`t he have some kind of breakdown when he realised that he wouldn`t be recognised as `the World Teacher`, like he had prophesised?
Didn`t he have some delusion that he was the `Kalki`, the horse and the tenth incarnation of Vishnu?
Or is that just dust and moonshine?
Osho Powder brainwashes better than ever before.
“Knowing well that spirituality is a taboo-word on SN.”…Bollocks!
“But for those who actually consider Osho an Enlightened mystic it seems equally absurd to believe that it was a purely business-based ‘decision’…More bollocks…Enlightened mystics pay bills just like everyone else…especially petrol-head enlightened mystics like Osho.
If changing his name brought in more money why not do it?…What is so bad about making money if you are an enlightened mystic who needs luxury watches, luxury cars, luxury homes and luxury babes?
Spirituality
Spirituality
Spirituality
Spirituality
Spirituality…
Poor Bozoheeren…missed again.
“I try to paint through the words the scenes and atmosphere of that time in one of the next posts.”
The world awaits with bated breath for what will be a revelation of positively biblical proportions.
This made me laugh…
Spirituality with sense of humour makes Osho’s presence felt.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am not an Osho hater, in fact I feel rather grateful to him for providing the means with which I managed to take a look at myself and to begin understand some of the madness that was going on in my life! Please believe me when I say there is a lot more fun and joy happening for me now, post-Osho experience/process.
In addition, similar to Lokesh, I really don’t mind if the name change was made for business reasons only. We all have to eat, don’t we? Is it cynical to recognise this fact?
Above all, what interests me is realism (see Satyadeva’s comments above re possibilities), instead of naïve, airy-fairy nonsense, or to put it another way in this case: Holy Master-bation.
People changing names for business reasons, what a bullshit idea. At the most, people adjust spellings as per their astrologer’s advice.
In India, in one family, one sirname is written in two or three differnt forms. For example, Kapur, Kapoor, Kapour.
But sannyasins, being smarter than others, can restore to any idea. From Osho Commune International to Osho Meditation Resort is purely for commercial and legal reasons.
Last year, one high profile manager disciple changed his name, because against the old name some women complained about his sexual adventures.
Banta to his old friend: “Santa Singh, when you are going to return my money? I borrowed you in good faith. It is more than a year now.”
Santa: “Have you not read the new name shield at my door. Santa Singh has died. I am Swami Santa Santosh.”
Alas, life is not that simple. Shit follows!
Baba Freelunch
Adidas Scamraj
Blubber Freeload
`Avabash
`Avahoot
Super-sized Ramana
is in Da house!
Wicked!
Bodhiheeren says:
“It`s easy to make fun of these name changes.”
Is it?
Come on then, Bodhi, let’s see you making a bit of fun then.
You have been commenting on and off at SN for years and not one iota of fun has emanated from your writings so far, mostly moral outrage and righteous indignation
Come on man,you sound like a guy who`s got a prickly pear stick permanently up his ass!
Good to see some post from Frank. I was looking at Oshonews from time to time, just to see is there some obituary for uncle Frank!
“A prickly pear stuck permanently up his ass.”
I always knew Bozo Heeren was kinky. Not quite Austin Powers…shagadelic babe? More Doctor Doom and Gloom.
Frank.
The matter of the name change came about through laborious (and glorious) research in the Akashic records in a Seventh realm of Heaven. Masters of old, esteemed lamas etc. advanced many possibilities until a decision was finally made.
At no point was Steve Jobs, or any of the Rockefeller family or Saatchi and Saatchi consulted.
I would hope you feel suitably embarrassed!
Simond
Absolutely mortified!
Shantam,
You won`t get rid of me that easily!
The doctor says I`ve got another 40 years in me,
so get your chuddies on
Seconds away…
Round 844892…
Ding….
Frank, if you have still 40 years left in you, in such case, don’t forget to write some nasty piece for my obitury…
At 52, I am thinking only to get married again and spend 15, 20 years as a middle-class husband who once dreamed to be a branded guru in his own right!
“Frank, if you have still 40 years left in you, in such case, don’t forget to write some nasty piece for my obituary.”
Consider it done, bhai…
And don’t forget to tell your future wife to invite me to the funeral…
I assume it will be a traditional affair with everyone doing bhangra dancing, munching samosas, drinking ‘Old Monk’ rum etc. whilst they dispatch you to your next incarnation by setting fire to your chuddies and chanting:
“waheguru
wacky guru
wacky guru”
etc….
Simond, I have read your profile which says Year of Sannyas: 10; does this mean you were 10 when you took sannyas or 10 years since you took sannyas or 2010?
You seem to have a lot of research about Osho, but since you do not want/need to reveal any information about yourself, to give such references, for example regarding Akashik records etc., how can one trust your inferences which have no basis whatsoever except your name, which could also be fake?
No one here happens to know you either, or are you an alien visiting planet Earth? I am sorry for causing you any kind of inconvenience.
(MOD: Kavita, Simond is in fact known to a few people here and has also provided some personal details since he’s been writing at SN).
Ok, MOD, ok it means I have not been attentive to all his sharings here so in that case, would like to know an answer to my query, “Year of Sannyas: 10; does this mean you were 10 when you took sannyas or 10 years since you took sannyas or 2010?”
Maybe, MOD, you can help me to know that, since now it’s clear that ‘almighty God’ does not want intimacy of any kind with the womenfolk.
(Somehow I sense something fishy in here. I hope I am not right about that).
Kavita
You may ask me any questions you like. There is (possibly )some private information that I would not wish to share on a public web site, so ask away!
As to when I took Sannyas etc. I took it in the early 1980′s if I remember correctly. As to how long I was a sannyasin, not so easy to say? When do you start and when do you stop?
Finally as to not wanting any intimacy with womenfolk. I can assure you I have for a long while had beautiful intimacy with women and currently am in relationship with a beautiful woman who loves what I say and writes here in this forum. Her support is deeply important to me. It is with and through her intelligence that I explore and discover everything.
Perhaps you might explain why you should think I don’t wish intimacy with women?
Kavita,
I think it is Lokesh messing around because he is bored. Lokesh and Simond are the same. What do you reckon?
Tan, no. I don’t think so, surely some guy living in the UK. Anyway, nothing to lose!
Lokesh is a real person. Simond is his creation.
Frank and Anand also are the same.
Who are you, Tan?
Parmartha, Shantam, Kavita, Lokesh are the people with some kind of facial values. Rest are masked men and women. They hide their identity as if Sannyasnews is a site dedicted to some criminal or unethical activites.
With such kind of disciples around, master may himself say, RIP Sannyas!
“Lokesh is a real person. Simond is his creation.”
And you’re another whom I wouldn’t employ as a private detective.
Lokesh and Simond are two names one person is not my idea. Tam, another faceless person, has put forward this thought.
My point is simple: why people hide their self? I feel it should be a matter of pride that you are writing on a sannyas portal. Oshonews writers too have their faces and basic biodata.
Almost all the religious schools of the past have this glorious tradtion to discuss hotly and coldly.
This is a meditation that leads to the tiredness of the mind and subsequently, silence!
Could Tan be Fresch?
With Madhu & Tan, atleast I am not the only woman, thank whoever!
That makes me think no women with facial value except me currently. Seems there are more men than women, not only in India but rest of the world! Anyway, that’s how it is!
No, Kavita, I am Tan, nothing to do with anybody. Maybe Simond is PM ? Could well be…
I rarely experience boredom. After a hard day digging and mixing compost and reshaping a garden up here in the north of Scotland, checking into SN is a wee treat. Never met Simond, but he sounds like a good guy to me…not like that Bozo Heeren…ah, theenk heez the divel.
McLoke, I didn’t mean bored with life, I meant bored with the strings in SN.
If that’s not a joke then you’d never make a detective, Tan!
And you are the second in my list!
Ah, the tantrum of the humiliated…
Seems dat’s de price you gotta pay for de truth, lady!
Humiliated? No way, it is fun, and I am quite relieved that this horrible Simond is just a Swami playing around.
“Just a Swami playing around”?
You mean the obvious intensity and sincerity (not to mention bravery) of Simond’s inner search wouldn’t really be expected from a sannyasin?
Your comment is raising eyebrows this morning, Tan….
Simond, in your recent responses you have not responded directly to my responses to you, which indicates that you are some kind of a real & virtual celibate. Thank you for finally responding directly.
I respect your need to be private.
When I first came to SN I didn’t think that I would/could reveal so much about my personal life on a public forum. Guess some things just happen sometimes.
I am glad you shared a little bit about yourself, I guess it’s always a little human to share few basic details.
I can relate to the intrusion you mentioned but also realise the paradox of it all. Thank you.
Hi Kavita,
Thank you for your post. I’m sorry if I’ve not previously answered any of your questions, this was an oversight and not intentional on my part.
It’s very human, as you say, to wish to have some personal details about the correspondents on this forum.
As to the issue of the intimacy and intrusion, I will gladly clear it up.
As I see it, in order to be intimate, and by intimate I just mean to correspond, to communicate, to be real and honest, to explore, to be vulnerable and open: to go beyond the simple pleasantries of relating, we need to ask questions of ourselves and each other.
Whilst we are protected and defensive, we may see such questions as intrusive, ie unwelcome.
To grow and to develop beyond the facade of simple personality, and to be truly intimate and loving with someone, we sometimes border on ‘invading’ their space.
My experience is that such intrusiveness can be deeply helpful. People who have loved me, truly taken the time and attention to wish to know me, warts and all, have sometimes had to intrude. They have had do invade my personal space and reveal my shortcomings. Those few people, lovers or friends, have by doing so shown me real love and real care. They have been truly honest about me and about themselves.
Such has been my path: I’ve learned and gained by having had real feedback, by being questioned deeply and without reservation. And I’ve learned to give that same energy too.
You, by questioning and doubting me, have been in a sense “intrusive”.
I have no problem with this. I have learned to accept and welcome real feedback and so-called intrusion.
Of course, such intrusion may require a level of intimate and direct contact, empathy and inclusion. We may need to practise this in a smaller circle of friends to be assured of the value of it.
But if I may I’ll give you a life-changing personal example of this for you. I was friends with a couple, closer to the husband than his wife. I wanted to get closer to her, but there was a tension and underlying fear in me. One day, by intruding on my sensibilities she revealed that she didn’t like me. She was forceful and clear about my neediness to be liked and offended by my shallowness.
Her intrusion hurt me and I cried and was very traumatised in the moment.
Yet as a result, I saw very clearly she was right, and I felt a pain in me about my whole personality and my neediness to be liked and loved.
The response in me was immediate and profound. I saw a hidden aspect of myself that I’d kept hidden from myself. I was changed by her intrusion. Deeply affected.
This is why I used the phrase that to be initimate we may be intrusive. And the converse is true for me too. That real intrusion can feel to be truly intimate.
Thank you for sharing yourself with me. And allowing me to share something of myself with you.
Kavita,
I’d add another aspect to this intrusion debate.
To love someone I have to give myself and to take care of that person as much as I can, I look after them.
As much as I can, I listen to them, I wish them to feel free of problems and insecurity, as I do. We share our ideas, our thoughts and our feelings. We penetrate and intrude in mind and body. We give ourselves to each other as fully as possible, not letting fear and past pain govern us.
This is my understanding of love and intimacy and intrusion.
Frankly, Simond, while reading your direct sharings with me I realised how others may have felt left out and I realise my neediness for personal attention on SN!
Btw, I dreamt early this morning of Dharmen, Frank with his Diogenes, Yogi & you having a cuppa & sandwiches, probably in a cafe .
Anyway, hope your beloved loves you even more after your clarity on intrusion & it’s relation to intimacy.
Yes, SD , this I agree about Simond’s obvious intensity, sincerity & bravery. This morning, after I had already written my 16 June, 2015 at 7:33 am response, I researched his early post of 3 November, 2014 at 8:41 pm , where he says he is Swami Rakkas.
Hi Kavita,
It’s my pleasure to fulfil your neediness, as you put it. Your need led you to ask me a real question, and it’s my need to answer.
Thanks for your kind sentiments in return. I checked with my partner and she loves me more today than ever!
Looks like the discussion here on this topic has petered out around June 16. And given how it was going, that was a merciful resolution.
It is possible that no one here has actually gone to Sannyas Wiki to read what is there except Parmartha, who mysteriously has not supplied a link there. I’m sure most resourceful folks here could find their way to the wiki but then what to look for? It’s not a newsy-type place oriented with latest stuff most prominent. So here you are if interested (i know, a longshot): The main article is at http://www.sannyas.org/index.php?title=What%27s_in_a_Name%3F, with supporting info at places linked from there. That supporting info consists of a few pages, undoubtedly of varying interest, but to at least point to them with short description:
1. The tables page has data from the Rajneesh Times of the time and publications, the “official” messages about the meaning and origin of Osho’s name.
2. “From Bhagwan to Osho” has Osho’s words, taken from his books, all about the Japanese Zen usage of “Osho”. This material preceded his actual name change.
3. “Website survey” has a fairly long and (unnecessarily?) detailed presentation of lots of sites’ versions of the derivation of Osho’s name.
The central issue of the linked page above is not trademark but the change of explanation about Osho’s name. Trademark is speculated upon as the most likely reason for the change of explanation which DID happen. The reason why Osho changed his name from Bhagwan is not addressed there, so the discussion here about public relations and Saatchi is not of much interest there. And in fact, Osho was not averse to PR moves and marketing, see http://www.sannyas.org/index.php?title=Another_box_of_cornflakes for example, though of course the point has been made that many of his moves were also made with complete disregard to how they might be received.
Again and again he talked in Jan – Feb 1989 about “Osho”, as if hinting. Sannyasins took the hint and in some way or another asked to call him Osho. This was all reported and explanations printed in his new books etc, all the Japanese master version (JMV). No mention of William James or “oceanic” during any of this time. Then, in Feb 1990, the story suddenly changed to the William James / oceanic version (WJV). And somehow this became the dominant version.
The wiki has nothing against William James, nor does it hide the fact that Osho cited James’ usage very favourably and consistently eleven times (not ten). The point is that, contrary to the CLAIM of the WJV, Osho never once made a connection between “Osho” and “oceanic”. They say “Osho has explained” but he hasn’t.
So this change happened very soon after he left his body, it happened in a low profile way, eg never in Osho Times, and has grown mysteriously more and more into a mainstream sannyas belief, without ANY supporting evidence.
This is the point of the article and its ancillary supporting material. Trademark is mentioned, as Parmartha has quoted above, as the most likely reason for this change, but the change DID happen and the WJV is clearly something that has been subtly and insistently foisted on an unwary sannyasin public.
The powers that be obviously realised in Feb 1990 that “Osho” sounded too much like a soap powder…which gave the unconscious metaphorical impression that there was some whiter-than-white laundering going on… removing a few unpleasant stains from the fabric of the story.
(Saatchi and Saatchi? Not sure about that-it wasn`t not rocket surgery to come up with the idea of a name change,was it? Sounds a bit more Trotter and Trotter to me.)
William James` “oceanic” was wheeled out to give a more poetic onomatopoeic feel which also chimed with Bhagwan`s earlier riffs on `I will be dissolved in my people… everywhere…taste of the ocean etc…
It worked.
No surprise
Who wouldn`t rather go down thee beach and dissolve into the ocean rather than go down to some over-priced laundrette in an attempt to launder their soul?
I have done a little bit of background research and have spoken to some people who were in the know re. the name change saga.
I managed to get hold of a transcript of a conversation that provides convincing evidence about the truth around Osho`s name change:
Delboy and Rodney “Saatchi” were having a chinwag over a couple of pints.
“Well, there`s this Indian geezer wot was flogging` enlightenment..” said Del
“Whassat then ? asked Rodders
“Dunno,some sort of mumbojumbo selling fresh air to spiritual suckers or summink” replied Delboy
“Sounds like a nice little earner” replied Rodders
“Yeah well it was `till the geezer got nicked a few times by the old bill . That`s when he realised that `is name meant “cunt” in the local lingo -so it turned out that everyone `ad been callin` `im a cunt all along,even his mates!”
“That don`t sound too clever”replied Rodders
“Naa,it wasn`t. Well,his people gave me a call and said we`ve got a geezer here who`s fallen in the shit an` needs to come up smellin` o` roses,what do you suggest?
So yours truly, Derek Saatchi `ere sorted it for `im in two shakes”
“`Ow didja do that?”
“Well,i thought to meself: what cleans whiter than white an` gets rid of all them nasty stains ,I mean it don`t pay to be an `olyman with a load of dirty washing lying around in the closet do it? So I says: call the geezer “Osho”.
“How does that work?”,the geezer asks me,so I says: “Osho,geddit? “Omo” mixed with “washo” and its also redolent of William James`oceanic`,to boot.
Sounds better than “cunt” don’t it?
The geezer thought it was a great idea,so he done it an now everthing`s cushti-he`s even flogging his stuff in China,Russia,Latvia,Mexico,you name it, and no one`s any the wiser”"
“Del your a genius!”
“Don`t mention it my son,and the Indian geezer was so chuffed with the idea he assured me that by this time next year we`ll all be enlightened”
“Luvverly jubberly”
Frank,
this one (25 June, 2015 at 9:28 am)
of your various responses is not that funny or witty as you may have felt it, before pushing the send off button.
feed – /it/-back to you
In your ´profile, you chose: ” nothing is better than nothing”-
I looked again, I am looking again sometimes, as that profile I feel witty and inspiring.
Why you chose a ´dog´by the way recently for counterfeit ? Could you share ?
Or tell a miraculous dog´s story ?
Do you have a dog as company ?
Are dog ´s men´s best friends ?
So many questions and one request also. Hope , that will not be too much for you.
Madhu
Madhu,you say:
“this one (25 June, 2015 at 9:28 am)
of your various responses is not that funny or witty as you may have felt it, before pushing the send off button”
Must be a technical fault.
Have you tried unplugging your computer for 10 seconds then plugging it back in?
To answer your questions:
I chose a picture of a dog because I wanted to express that life is ruff.
I don`t really have a dog.The story about me having a mongrel called Diogenes who attacks people in spiritual uniforms was just a flight of fancy.
My mate Dave says that dogs are definitely man`s best friend and he has devised an experiment to prove it….
“Tie up your wife and your dog in the trunk of your car and one hour later,open up the trunk and … guess who is gonna be happy to see you!?!
Here`s the story:
Osho is conducting a meditation camp at Matheran hill station. Near about five hundred people are participating in the camp. He is staying at Rugby Hotel which has a big open ground in the middle where the camp is arranged.
One dog comes regularly and sits silently near the podium while Osho is speaking. I watch him. He comes a little early and has reserved his seat near the podium on the floor. He sits at the same place every day like a great meditator and looks very attentive with his ears raised while Osho is speaking.
When Osho comes and namastes everyone, he raises his neck and looks at Osho and Osho greets him with a great smile. It is the fourth morning today and Osho is standing at arrived at the station to see Him off. I am surprised to see this dog standing near Osho. Osho looks at the dog with such love that he starts wagging his tail.
After a few minutes, this mini train running between Matheran and Neral station is about to leave. Osho namastes everyone and enters the train. The train starts slowly, everyone has left except the dog who is walking with the train. The train picks up speed and the dog starts running with the train. Osho is watching him running and with the gesture of his hand blesses him and tells him to stop running.
The dog stops and looks up at Osho. I can’t resist waving my hand towards him saying good-bye. Osho remarks, “He is a very evolved soul.”
(Story from Tales by Ma Dhyan Jyoti)
Thanks, Frank -
I have heard about a dog who was very much against barking. Now, asking other dogs not to bark he became a very famous master amongst the dogs.
http://en.textsave.org/1O5b
Aaaah, I remember that one, Arpana.
Very well……..
Thank you for bringing it up again, can not be told often enough.
Thanks
Madhu
Nice story from Joyti, Frank. Thanks. But one feels it is a “story”!
Read this today, and became aware, in a sense I haven’t before, what a bloody marvellous project the ranch was, and how much it meant to so many people, that it was everything he said, but then of course juxtaposed with that is the fascistic, murderous rubbish, and I realised what an effort it can be to step back and see that both took place concurrently; and then the question arises, is the light, all that was marvellous about the project, completely devalued by all that was crap. Are the efforts of all those people who gave being at the ranch their best shot, completely devalued by what Sheela and her gang did. Are good people bad because of the fascists they did not know were in their midst.
The commune was creating great trouble in the minds of fanatic Christians, the fundamentalists,
because the commune was a clear-cut alternative to a sad society, miserable, in deep anguish.
And the commune was just a laughter, a joy, a dance.
This became impossible for the Christians to
tolerate, and for Ronald Reagan who is a fundamentalist Christian. They forgot all democracy, all
their own constitution and they did everything to destroy the commune. But the first thing was to
deport me.
Osho
Nansen: The Point of Departure.
Chapter 10. MY DANCE IS COMPLETE
Or to make the point pictorially
“Are good people bad because of the fascists they did not know were in their midst.” / Arpana
My own experience throughout these decades by now, Arpana , is, that if you shared and are sharing anything about your feelings, that something is going utterly wrong against the ´main stream, you lived and live a not only dangerous life but are systematically isolated if not harassed by those or expelled…at any time , by the way.
And yes, a fabulous Tarot card reading can shed some light on ´human conditioning. Dreams as nightmares we live collectively. In deep unconsciousness. Mostly.
However, consciousness has its costs, ever. At any time.
You seem to be content after all, are you ?
Are you greek origin , Arpana ?
Madhu
”However, consciousness has its costs, ever. At any time.”
Thats a fact. I recall Osho saying to be asleep, or fully awake is easy. To be waking up is hard.
”You seem to be content after all, are you ?”
Yes.Mostly.
”Are you greek origin , Arpana ?”
Brit.
A Gentleman, by the way.
The USA did everything to end the commune. Agreed Arps.
But it would have been a damn sight harder for them if, for whatever reason, the temporal power at the Ranch had not been so damn stupid, and living in a fantasy, and criminal sub culture, hidden from us ordinary commune members.
Mind you, if we had survived, and maybe even continued to survive, we would have become boring, that’s for sure!