Osho’s Work: Is this a Meaningful Phrase?

Lots of people use this phrase “Osho’s work” without really thinking what they mean…..
By way of ordinary language some disciples woke up just from a look, a glance, and being receptive to it.  The receptivity was arrived at by what Osho made through the communes, ashrams, etc and the Gurdijieffian way they were created, which started with the meditations and groups, but only full blossomed within the surrender required to work egolessly around him.  That might be seen as the real core of what Osho was about.

Shantam seems to have another view, below:

What is Osho´s work?  Shantam’s view

To me, it is so obvious, Osho´s main work is compiled in his books, audios and videos.

Other than talking, he developed a few meditation techniques. His intention is that spiritual seekers use his products for the fast and safest journey to the innermost core.

Millions of people around the world use Osho’s voice and practise His meditation techniques.

So I repeat again, Osho´s main work is to inspire people to go inside faster and safely. To promote the inner search he spoke about his whole life. These words, compiled in his books, audios and videos became the pillar stones of his main work.


This entry was posted in Discussion. Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to Osho’s Work: Is this a Meaningful Phrase?

  1. Lokesh says:

    Shantam declares, “These words compiled in his books, audios and videos became the pillar stones of his main work.”

    Osho declared, “I speak to help you to be silent. I say something so that you can go beyond words. I use words to help you to go into wordlessness. It is just like having a thorn in the foot: with another thorn you pull it out. Your mind is full of words, so many, and so much chattering – yakkety-yak, yakkety-yak – it goes on and on. But then people became intoxicated with my words. That was not my purpose. I continuously insisted, “Don’t be concerned with my words. Be concerned with my silences, the gaps between the words, the gaps between the lines.”

  2. satchit says:

    I doubt that Osho would call his teaching “Work”.
    Work is more a Gurdjieff thing and has a goal.
    Maybe he would call it Play.
    One can be part of the Play or leave it.

  3. simond says:

    How are we to summarise Osho’s work?

    Doesn’t it depend largely on the legacy he left – in his words and videos? That is, unless you met the man, and were intimate with your questions, were close to him, saw him regularly and responded with him.

    For most people that’s not the case. His work, his legacy is in his words, in his books and in his videos. You might have been at Poona 1 or 2, you may have been at the Ranch, and therefore have a memory of the man, and this will no doubt affect your judgment of him and his work. For some on this website those intimate memories resonate still.

    I primarily listened to and read him, studied his words and was affected by his presence. Indeed his presence was most affecting! Misleading too, as I could never follow or copy or be like him, as I once hoped. I had to learn to be myself first and foremost. And, remember, I was young and naive, as many of us were.

    His vast works contain much of what I needed – through his discussions of other teachings, he provided simple, real techniques that helped me begin the process of self-evaluation. His meditation techniques such as dynamic and kundalini etc. were never as effective for me, but I practised them as much as I could. Others swore by their power.

    Perhaps the great beauty of his work is how differently people view it. For some he remains a father figure, an authority, a god. For others it seems his work is an opportunity to laugh, play and be non-serious and have a good time; all of which had its place but isn’t surely at the heart of his work?

    All I know is that for a while Osho’s work attracted the brightest people I’d ever met, introduced the very best therapists to help me, and created an environment that attracted many thousands. He was the talk of the media and tv and he introduced spiritual ideas into the mainstream and deeply affected the lives of many people.

    The work largely affected me in the 1980s, now a long time ago. As I consider his work since then and his influence today, I don’t see him in the same light and surely his influence has waned. Today when I speak to people they have heard of Eckhart Tolle, but rarely Osho. I might well point him out as a useful contributor but his ‘easternness’ doesn’t appeal to many.

    Perhaps as time goes by he will be rediscovered. And serious seekers always discover the teachers that they need. Look at Gurdjieff or other past teachers – they are on the reading list of some seekers, but for many he’s ‘history’.

    As I repeatedly, even repetitively suggest here, the needs and wants of people move on, new teachers appear and disappear, and even the notion of a master is now largely forgotten, except in the East. Ideas of commune or sangha are superceded, and rightly so.

    How his work is to be judged is by how successful any one of us has learned to see beyond hopes and dreams, how we deal with emotion, with pain or with anger, how we have learned by his example to see beyond our selves and into the mystery. If we have learned to do this, then his work has been successful

    • Lokesh says:

      Good response, Simond, although I do not completely agree with everything you say.

      I rarely read anything by Osho, or watch his videos. I suppose partly because I spent several years when it was all live. I think most important for me was my personal contact with Osho, because it makes it easy to conjure up his spirit today. I can still hear him say my name, see those sparkling, still eyes as he looked into mine, smell that peculiar balm he always used and many other things, some of which cannot be captured by words, except perhaps if you are a great poet, which I most certainly am not.

      My strongest bond with Osho must surely have something to do with the spirit of rebellion, for we were both born rebels. When I hear all this talk of Osho’s work, Osho’s legacy, Osho’s heritage it stirs something in me that says the people talking about such things never really communed with Osho. I say this because Osho was a living presence that can never be captured by words or videos. He was like a bright, burning flame and if you got close he lit your flame from his. That kind of happening stays with you forever. All else is superfluous.

      Yes, that is the truth. You will not find that in Osho books or videos. What you might find is the idea that there exists something you are missing and if you feel that strongly enough you will search for a living master. I am almost certain that if you feel that need strongly enough someone will come into your life that will light your candle. At least, that is how it has been for me.

      When I was in the ashram and things felt like work, I usually packed a small rucksack and headed off to Goa for a wee holiday. Osho talked more in terms of play, prayer, meditation and love. If he could read Shantam’s wee essay about ‘Osho’s main work’ I imagine he would just smile about it, you know one of those smiles that says none of this matters much, this will all pass very soon. Do not waste your time. Life is short. Taste the wild strawberry. It is delicious.

      • simond says:

        Yes, Lokesh, your personal interaction with Osho deeply influenced you. Your writing of it has a beauty and provides a real taste of the man. His charm, his beautiful mischievousness, his playfulness, and his deathly quality as well.

        I was never so close to him, but was touched by a similar sense, but never so intimately and directly as you.
        Perhaps for you and the others in those early days, this was what you needed and what was required in order for Osho to build and attract a greater following and interest in his teaching, work, play (or whatever you may wish to call it).

        I knew of people who flew across the world on a whim to be with Osho in those early days, just after only viewing his photo.. He had that way, didn’t he, of sending out a message?

        I always felt his words were just a part of his attraction for me and for others. His photo and his presence were all part of the attraction towards this giant of a man.

        But what was his work? What was the purpose of this great attractive quality he had? What was the ultimate message? And were and are people getting it?

        From where I stand now, these are the questions. This is where we judge the work and the man.

        You clearly got the message, as your writings eloquently display.
        But as with other teachers, it matters not always how close you have been with them, the message doesn’t necessarily get through.

        One of the reasons why I stopped being a sannyasin was because I felt it wasn’t working for me any more. The man had done his bit to me, but I needed new experience elsewhere. At the same time I began to see some sannyasins were fixated on the superficial aspects of Osho’s teaching: the need to belong, the tribalism, etc. I think he too got stuck in the politics, and in the mystique and glamour of the game, as many, many gurus have.

        One of the least mentioned aspects of the guru game is that gurus or teachers reflect their students. Each is bound by the (relative) ignorance of the other. The guru can’t provide any higher knowledge than his students can handle.

        Osho had chosen to introduce to the widest number of people, and in doing so, he was bound by them. As Ramana once observed (and I paraphrase): “I give more than one answer to the same question, because some people can’t handle the truth.”

        What seems beyond doubt is that Osho’s appeal is now part of tbe mainstream, his books are read by people who have no real idea of the man, no knowledge of his life. And as he himself said tirelessly, it matters not what his legacy is. He just lived and died a deeply fulfilled life.

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        “…many other things, some of which cannot be captured by words, except perhaps if you are a great poet, which I most certainly am not.”

        Yes, Lokesh, you sum yourself up in a very concise manner. Most honest thing you have ever said on SN. Bravo, Loflash.



  4. kusum says:

    Osho is amplifying the essence of individuals.

    • kusum says:

      Bhagwan (Osho)’s main work is or was to encourage people to be meditative & He tried to provide atmosphere of Meditation & he enjoyed his life too. Very simple really.

  5. Kavita says:

    When I came to Osho/Poona in 1992 I thought being/working in the commune was synonymous with play. I was very overwhelmed by this as this was a novel experience for me.

    But much later, after being detached from the commune, I realised that to give others this experience there was a lot of hard work involved. Anyway, I am grateful to all who put in all their effortless effort, for letting me experience this.

    To me now, ‘Osho’s work’ means using up all the energy one has and relaxing into the now. Of course it is a relative term and each one of us has our own definitions.

  6. Prem says:

    I hate it when sannyasins (especially therapists) claim to do “Osho’s work”, when the only person in the world who can do “Osho’s work” is Osho.

    They do their work.

    I also dislike when therapists do a certain therapy, and then add Osho’s name to it, such as Osho Reiki, Osho Vipassana, Osho Breathing etc. just to drag’s Osho’s name into it to make it sound more respectable. But in reality, Osho the person has nothing to do with what they are doing.

    Vipassana is vipassana.
    How is it Osho vipassana?

    Can it be called Osho’s work?

    Osho played and had fun.
    It is we who have to do the “work”.

    • bodhi heeren says:

      This might be somewhat simplistic. If Osho was all play and fun how come he let himself get into all kinds of trouble? Being condemned, deported, poisoned. He might not have been affected by it the way others would, and he might even have enjoyed some of it. But it could also point to another view where Osho actually took an interest in waking people up and even ‘saving’ the planet. This will ofc sound ridiculously serious to the SN crowd, but that this side of him existed too could be well documented by his own words.

      • satyadeva says:

        “Osho took an interest in waking people up” – No, really?!!

        • anand yogi says:

          Perfectly correct, Bodhiheeren! Osho`s work is certainly a serious business!

          The ridiculous baboons of SN seem to think that it is about sitting about doing nothing for long periods and then laughing at off-colour jokes, going home with a hottie then later falling asleep, and we all know that Osho never encouraged or countenanced such behaviour!

          The good news is that now that we have you, Prem and Shantam on board in the chosen few, we are only 197 short of the full quota needed to save humanity and the planet!


  7. shantam prem says:

    You are a pandit, Lokesh. Read Satyadeva´s post. He is the one who has the eyes to see behind words.

    • Lokesh says:

      1. A Brahmin scholar or learned man.
      2. Used as a title of respect for a learned man in India.


      • shantam prem says:

        Indian Pandit Association will sooner or later give lifetime achievement award to Osho posthumously for leaving behind treasure trove of ammunition for the Preacher´s community.

        Giving and listening to religious talks is biggest time pass of Indians. Around a million preachers of various orders deliver live talks on daily basis though most of them are not recorded.

        Osho is a great inspiration for them. Basically, all the preachers treat Osho, aka Acharya Rajneesh, as one of their own.

        • kusum says:

          Shantam, obviously you have never seen HIS (Osho)’s eyes & experienced gaps between his words.

          • shantam prem says:

            Swami/Ma Kusom,
            Since when you are sannyasin or video lover?

            Quite often I have observed those who think they have understood Osho rarely understand the intentions of others.

            So much greedy to understand the gap they simply misinterpret the words.

            • kusum says:

              Shantam, I did not mean his eyes in video. What is said & what is understood are two different views in most cases. Gaps cannot be explained in words…which is beyond words. Never mind….

    • Lokesh says:

      What’s this whole world coming to,
      Things just ain’t the same,
      Anytime the hunter gets captured by the game.

      Who said that?

  8. frank says:

    I`ve been meditating for years but I`m still a bit of a jerk
    But luckily for me, I`m doing Osho`s` work.
    Never done a proper day’s work in my life
    Couldn`t hold down a regular job or a wife.
    Around the ashram for years I lurked
    It`s a good thing I was doing Osho`s work.
    Doing meditation gets you nowhere
    Just sitting on your ass with a smirk
    But I spent my time chasing good skirt
    Now, that’s what I call Osho`s work.
    Being in a sex cult certainly has its perks
    Even if most of the disciples are berks.
    A lot of heavy breathing and going berserk
    All in the name of Osho`s work.
    I trained to be a barrister but ended up as a barista
    But it`s not so bad being a soda jerk.
    You can cover the shame by giving it a good name
    And say you`re doing Osho`s work.
    Osho had a Rolls Royce and therapists can afford a Merc
    But riding my bike without any lights is the closest I`ll get to Osho`s work.

    When I leave my body and the eulogy is read
    People will get up and say:
    He was totally unalert, a complete shirk, a shameless flirt and an absolute jerk
    But one consolation: he was doing Osho`s work!

    • shantam prem says:

      Faceless Frank,
      Here is one quote from old scriptures copied just for you as an appreciation of your poetry:

      “Disciples feeling proud on their master´s words and its effect is almost like the husbands adoring big boobs of their wives.
      Life and its relations are much more than words and boobs.”

    • Prem says:

      Spot on, Frank.

    • Parmartha says:

      I like it, Frank!

      • frank says:

        Jus` doin` Osho`s work!!!!

        • kusum says:

          Frank, most people work at what they enjoy anyway.That’s why they choose particular field of work in normal society.

          • satyadeva says:

            I absolutely disagree, Kusum. Very many people feel they have little or no genuine choice of work, which is one of the reasons why tension and stress is so prevalent in “normal society”.

            Your remark seems rather naive, perhaps from relative inexperience or too narrow an experience of the world?

            • kusum says:

              Satyadeva, you may be partially right as most people work for money. People I know enjoy their work too.

              • satyadeva says:

                Kusum, you said, “Most people work at what they enjoy anyway.” What happens for most is more along the lines of finding a way to enjoy what they do, if possible, or at least make it bearable, when ideally they wouldn’t necessarily choose that line of work because they don’t find it intrinsically enjoyable.

                Perhaps you should alter your statement to “Most people I know work at what they enjoy anyway because they’re fortunate enough to be able to choose to be paid for doing what they enjoy.”

    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      “I`ve been meditating for years but I`m still a bit of a jerk.”

      I can`t disagree with you there, Frank.

      Ciao ciao,


  9. shantam prem says:

    To give the final touch to this thread let me try to write what I mean by Osho´s work. Please don´t try to be over-smart by saying “Osho was a lazy person, he never worked. Such people do nothing, Existence works through them.” (Surely Existence is not lazy, it goes on creating non-stop, so much so, if someone asks Cosmos-called-God, “Have you ever sent any Prophet?”, most probably answer will be, “My God, who told you I send prophets representing me?”). No doubt, human race produces extraordinary genius in every field, including religion and spirituality.

    So what I mean by Osho´s work:
    Let me share one incident, few weeks ago, at the instance of an Osho lover acquaintance who I meet quite often during summer at naturist lake; I went three times to Calvary Chapel.

    The very first day, I was so impressed by the young people, including priests in casual clothes, it was like as fresh an air as entering Osho Ashram. The music band was playing so melodious devotional songs I could fully relate as if it is Ashram music. Naturally, Ashram musicians, being from Christian backgrounds, have copied the style. Instead of “Jesus”, you simply say “Osho” and home is where the heart is!

    One thing which impressed me deeply was the vision behind Calvary Chapel. Its creator has the understanding based on Bible that Jesus has not created church but community!

    So for me, one of the deepest wishes of Osho´s effortless effort is to create COMMUNITY totally fitting with the present times. Because every community has their own vision about money, power, sex, prayer, meditation, God, salvation, Nirvana, Hell, Heaven and enlightenment; Osho gave his own guidelines for his community.

    He did not speak only, HE CREATED TIME AND AGAIN HIS COMMUNITY. EVERY FAILURE REFINED HIS WORK. He lived and died while creating and giving final touch to His community.

  10. Parmartha says:

    The use of the word ‘work’ in relation to spiritual matters arose, as far as I know, with Gurdjieff, but he was not talking about ‘his’ work, but the work that disciples had to surrender to, to go beyond the ego.

    The account by De Hartmann of his two dangerous walking expeditions across the Caucasus with Gurdjieff during the Russian civil war in 1917/19 are excellent examples of that, and I recommend his book, ‘Our life with Mr Gurdjieff’. This ‘work’ was invaluable for those particular disciples, as they seemed to eventually transcend themselves through it, even against the backdrop of a revolution, with land changing hands between the red and white armies around them.

    Whenever they were stopped by the military, Gurdjieff had two sets of documents to accompany them. He would twirl his moustache on the right side if his disciples were to produce the white army documents, and the left if the red army. He was unfailingly correct, and hence they survived!
    Certainly a great ‘play’ here rather than ‘work’!

    Vocabulary should never dominate discussion. Such words are chosen amongst other words that also might have been chosen.

  11. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    In sociology ‘work’ is a service done to society out of compensation, not just monetary, while in physics, ‘work’ is “the energy exchanged between two systems through the action of a force when the object undergoes a displacement and force has a non-zero component in the direction of displacement.”

    It seems to me that these two meanings of “work” describe the two dominant trends in the debate about “Osho’s work”, not just here (SN):

    There is His social work, that is addressed to the life of relationship or life in a commune, which may not reproduce the traditional dysfunctional models.

    And there is an energetic work, beyond the social component, to investigate at the individual level the nature (without adjectives) of reality through meditation.

    There is time for the Social Rebel and the time for the Zen monk, the important thing is to understand the context. Here, for example, makes me smile the claim of those who continue to profess the Hermit attitude, being part of this commune online.



    • satyadeva says:

      What about living an ordinary life in the world, which, by the way, has always been the experience of the vast majority of sannyasins most of the time? Or, compared to “Social Rebel” and “Zen monk”, is that just too prosaic to be thus dramatised, too ‘unglamorous’ to be categorised?!

      • shantam prem says:

        Is it a prerogative of sannyasins to glamourize living an ordinary life in the world? Are not most of the Muslims, Christians or others living like this?

        The other groups or individuals may not have that flowery language and ‘Stories Salad’ gathered from various religions, yet one cannot doubt their sincerity.

        Matter of the fact is most of the sannyasins are living an ordinary life in the world because not only they stopped participating in the world but showed contempt.

        It is really hilarious all those who left their families and countries to be in some Osho Commune went back to their families and countries. It is really generosity of the Christian & family values that they took them back without any taunt.

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        Yes, Satyadeva, you have my permission for that. But also in that case, if there is an “Osho’s work” it will affect the field of our relationships, we will not be ordinary as whitewashed sepulchres, but possibly glamorous as an orange coffin.

        In fact, the word ‘ordinary’ also means homologation-conformism, exactly opposite of rebellion: that does not come out of order, that is by norm or normality, and therefore usual, common, regular.

        But if yours is a controversial intent to say that Osho has not planted any seed of rebellion in his lovers it means that you use the same categories but from different positions, then you decide whether it is glamorous or not.



        • satyadeva says:

          Yes, Veet, I’d say people that were drawn to Osho were very often already rebellious types and/or already involved in personal growth efforts, attempts to free themselves of socially conditioned (or karmic) burdens. But there was a synchronicity going on, whereby they and Osho ‘fed’ off, were inspired by each other (a point Simond makes most interestingly).

          The point I’m making about the tendency to self-glamourise, to want to make out how ‘special’ one is, extending that to a group to which one belongs or identifies with, is that it’s just another way of ‘dressing up’ the ‘little self’, of expressing a certain self-importance, just another ‘ego-prop’ – particularly if you don’t see through it and laugh at its absurdity while indulging in the delusion.

          • sw. veet (francesco) says:

            I do not see much difference between the ego that speaks of its own victories and the ego that speaks of its own defeats. As I see no difference between the ego that speaks of his people and the ego that speaks of his solitude.

            The love makes the difference, the force of the Master applied to the rebel and the monk, with or without ego. If it were not this way how could all those rebels surrender to him? They were turned into assertive rebels: yes, I’m also my ego, so what?

            If this perspective (which dissolves all the others) is still with us, and if we are grateful for it, we can not say that His influence is waned.

            Perhaps what is waned is just the border between the one who influenced and who was affected.

            But I agree with you that glamour is one of the outcomes of this interiorisation – even though I see here more people appear worried about not being too naïve.



            • satyadeva says:

              “I do not see much difference between the ego that speaks of its own victories and the ego that speaks of its own defeats.”

              Perhaps “ego” isn’t exactly the right word to use for whoever it is that’s aware of ‘seeing through’ one’s absurdity, Veet.

              As for “I’m also my ego, so what?” Ah, now that’s a good question….

              • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                Satyadeva, whether it was (someone’s ego) aware of such absurdity, yes.

                I’m considering all the spectrum of possibilities about the effects of Osho’s work on the existence of sannyasins, all included in zero to one hundred.

                Zero consciousness: fully identified, exposed to all the risks of the triggers of the mind.
                One hundred: Fully centred around his/her own emptiness, which absorbs the mind with all its triggers.
                Eventually observing how the oscillation between the two polarities in the years tends to shrink.

                The ‘risk’ (for someone you mentioned) to be identified with sangha in glamour mode can be opposed to the ‘risk’ of not wanting to be part of it for a much more glamorous reason: to look naïve, being surrounded by fanatically-identified people; and for me this, here (SN), seems dominant.

                But maybe there are other reasons. Then, what are the possible conclusions if the ‘monk’ choice is related to registry reasons*?

                These are mine:

                1) that the ‘rebel’ phase (social-commune) requires more energy and therefore tends to occur before the ‘monk’ phase (individual-solitary-hermit).

                2) that the ‘rebel’ generation who has lived the Rajneeshpuram social experiment with its dramatic epilogue has not yet elaborated that mourning, preferring to dedicate today the energies that remain in ‘monk’ mode.

                Even though I’m not part, for registry reasons*, of that generation, these are (also?) my Osho’s homework: how to leave a better world, starting with how to find and use energy in creating trust, despite around the forces of destruction at work.



                * “registry reasons”: With reference to the office where children born in a certain country are enrolled: civil registration (Ufficio Anagrafico). The Italian expression ‘ragioni anagrafiche’ that I tried to translate with “registry reasons” alludes to age, in a polite way. Hug.

          • Arpana says:

            @ Veet Francesco.

            You raise interesting issues, VF.

            “I do not see much difference between the ego that speaks of its own victories and the ego that speaks of its own defeats.”

            Some people have negative egos. Some positive.

            “As I see no difference between the ego that speaks of his people and the ego that speaks of his solitude.”

            Extroversion and introversion.
            Lot of us start out as extroverts and meditation moves us towards introversion.

  12. Lokesh says:

    Shantam says, “To give the final touch to this thread let me try to write what I mean by Osho´s work.” He then delivers a wee speech that both smacks of conceit and a need to feel that he is somehow in control of the situation.

    He then delivers a load of mumbo-jumbo the conclusion of which is the following: “It is really hilarious all those who left their families and countries to be in some Osho Commune went back to their families and countries. It is really generosity of the Christian & family values that they took them back without any taunt.”

    This has nothing to do with hilarity and everything to do with trying to deliver a complete fabrication and deliver it as if it is a fact, which it most definitely is not. It is utter bullshit.

    He speaks of “all”, meaning everyone who went to Osho’s communes. This is a lie. Of all the subcultures that I am familiar with, Sannyas, more than most, attracted a lot of people from the West who never returned to their families and countries on anything resembling a permanent basis.

    Now Shantam is beginning so sound like a born-again Christian. Many people can be generous on this level and it has fuck all to do with going to church on Sundays, singing uninspiring hymns and listening to priests delivering sermons based on a book they only understand to the extent that they understand themselves, which is usually not very much; there are exceptions, if I go by my priestly encounters.

    • shantam prem says:

      Lokesh, my sincere respect for your mother who went to convent in the end, as I know from the previous posts.

    • shantam prem says:

      Is it utter bullshit that Osho created infrastructure and atmosphere where some Germans, some Scottish and others could come and live for years and years?

      Maybe I am mistaking. It was Ramana Maharshi and tradition continued.

  13. Lokesh says:

    Shantam enquires, “Is it utter bullshit that Osho created infrastructure and atmosphere where some Germans, some Scottish and others could come and live for years and years?”

    I have to answer, no, this is not utter bullshit. Although I would not put it like that myself, because there were many more factors involved.

    Shantam said earlier, “It is really hilarious all those who left their families and countries to be in some Osho Commune went back to their families and countries.”

    This is a good example of utter bullshit. Even if it were true I do not find it in the least bit hilarious. Perhaps, Shantam, you might be kind enough to explain why it is that you find such an imaginary scenario to be extremely funny.

  14. shantam prem says:

    I don’t see something wrong with rage.

    Priests fucking girls in name of Osho is cool, whereas asking for transparency and accountability is condemned as rage.

    • satyadeva says:

      You miss the point, Shantam, you said nothing about accountability and transparency, while masking your rage by pretending the nonsense you did write is “hilarious”.

      First, check the facts before spewing garbage; second, be honest. Unless you don’t care about your credibility….

  15. shantam prem says:

    Going from Scotland to Ibiza or even to Byron Bay is moving in the same country, same culture.

    Can we dare to write our experience, how we managed our lives, post-commune debacles?

    I am writing this in the train after doing my three hours tax-free job as food transporter for seniors.

  16. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    You say: “Can we dare to write our experience, how we managed our lives, post-commune debacles?” ( Shantam Prem).

    Yes, we can, we sometimes – well, let us say mostly – even do.
    The question is: ´Who is it who listens?´
    And is there a Listening before, during and after the writing?

    Although not everybody here might speak here of a “post-commune-debacle”?

    Your turn – Shantam Prem…


  17. shantam prem says:

    Not speaking about “post commune debacle” is almost similar like Muslims denying violence in their religion. Matter of the fact is, many disciples could not find their way back in the society. It always happens when cult or sect fails and participants are back in the real world.

    Who supported sannyasins in their time of crisis?
    Hard working, sleeping masses and the organisations built by those who adore a sad-looking man hanging on the cross?

    I always wonder, how come people built one of the best civilisations based on a very boring book?

    Surely Osho books are not boring, they are as juicy as publication from Soho!

    • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

      You are, Shantam Prem, never really speaking about y o u r “post-commune-debacle”, you are just trying to look for others for an agenda in fighting.

      And exactly this way (“is almost similar like Muslims denying violence”), your obscure comparison then with Muslim terrorists is quite fitting, as it is well known that also those buddhies don´t want to communicate, to say the least; those lost their minds completely and their souls as well, I´d say!

      And what we are talking here about ´losing the mind´ is NOT the same, how you, Shantam Prem, are using it.

      Mind is a tool, when we speak or address somebody else with words, and no Master worth his salt does deny inviting or using His tool, when working in construction, so to say.

      Mind as a servant, a tool then.

      And it’s quite worthwhile to look again and again if that tool is working well. For connection. And for everybody. Or not.

      Same as I am going to do here-now at afternoon´s break-time with an appointment to Being in Nature – leaving the UK/SN chat.


    • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

      For Shantam – but not only him!

      To be shamed (or to shame in reverse) is one of the most fatal and poisonous weapons, onto an ongoing life-exchange, so to say.

      It is lethal weapon, one can say, and most of the times not even diagnosed by someone with seeing eyes AND compassion.

      And I don´t mean that kind of ´compassion´ (a fake of it) some are calling their passive – or open to be viewed – aggressiveness or destructive will – to execute power over other sentient beings – as psychopaths.

      It’s worthwhile also to look at what terms we are using, isn´t it?

  18. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    Dear Arpana, the last time I chatted with you maybe you did not notice the “x” after “Reverend”, what I was addressing you was the gang’s slang of that youtuber character, a playful and joyful intent, all except offensive, I would not have had any reason.

    Thanks for your listening and integration on what I’ve shared recently.

    I’m reflecting whether at the beginning, before meeting Osho, there was a positive correlation between the two dyads, eg extroverted and positive egos and introverted and negative egos.

    If it is true that meditation tends to introvert, then I am part of the minority, and having a negative ego by default. So the result today is, in my case, that negativity that was confined to introversion is visible not only to friends, not really a worldly victory…but I head to Nirvana (and I prefer to sing that to think about victories and defeats).

    Perhaps in the ‘normal world’ there is this correlation instead in ours, done by catharsis and therapy, a small bag of shit we are always ready to pull it out, so, among friends, between a cigarette and a coffee.

    Big hug,


    About negative-positive egos, when a big nose can not hide a big heart (and pen), a song for You:

    Cyrano (by Francesco Guccini).

    Come on up, you with a short nose,
    rouged gentlemen, I can’t stand you anymore.
    I’ll stick my pen deep into your pride
    because with this sword I’ll kill you whenever I want.

    Come on up, scruffy poets,
    useless singers of wretched days,
    clowns who live by strengthless verses,
    you may have money and glory
    but you aren’t thick skinned;
    enjoy the success, enjoy it while it lasts
    since the audience is trained and you don’t fear them,
    and you go God knows where to not pay taxes
    with the sneer and the ignorance of the first in the class.
    I’m just a poor cadet of Gascony,
    but I cannot stand people who don’t dream.
    Tinsels? Social climbing? I don’t take the bait
    and at the end of my license
    I don’t forgive and I strike!

    Let’s get it over with, come on, all of you,
    new protagonists, rampant politicians,
    come on political footmen, toadies and wimps,
    fierce conductors of false broadcasts,
    you who’ve often made an art of opportunism,
    come on, liberalists, show your cards,
    anyway there will always be those who will pay for it
    in this damned, absurd ‘Bel Paese’.
    I don’t give a damn if I’m wrong,
    displeasing is my pleasure, I love being hated;
    with sly people and bullies I’ve always toyed
    and at the end of my license
    I don’t forgive and I strike!

    But when I’m alone, chained to my nose
    which always arrives at least half an hour before me,
    my rage subsides and I’m painfully reminded
    that for me, the dream of love is almost forbidden.
    I don’t know how many women I’ve loved,
    I don’t know how many of them I’ve had,
    whether I or destiny are to blame, I’ve lost them all.
    And when I feel the weight of always being alone
    I lock myself at home and write,
    and by writing I console myself;
    but inside of me I feel that a great love exists,
    I love without sinning, I love but I’m sad
    because Roxane is beautiful, we are so different,
    I can’t talk to her, I’ll talk to her by verses,
    I’ll talk to her by verses…

    Came on, vacuous people, get it over with,
    you priests who sell everyone another life;
    if, as you say, there is a God of infinity,
    look inside your own heart, you’ve already betrayed him.
    And you materialists, with your idée fixe
    that God is dead and that man is alone in this abyss,
    you look for the truths on the ground, like pigs,
    keep your acorns, leave me my wings.
    Go home dwarfs, get out of the front,
    for my huge anger I need giants!
    From dogmas and prejudices I don’t take the bait
    and at the end of my licence
    I don’t forgive and I strike!

    I strike my enemies with my nose and with my sword
    but in this life today I can no longer find my way.
    I don’t want to resign myself to be evil,
    only you can save me, only you, and I write it to you:
    There must be, I feel it, on Earth or in Heaven, a place
    in which we won’t suffer and everything will be fair.
    Don’t laugh, please, at these words of mine,
    I’m just a shadow and you, Roxane, the sun.
    But I know you don’t laugh, sweetest lady,
    and I don’t hide myself under your house
    because by now I feel I haven’t suffered in vain
    if you love me just as I am,
    forever yours, forever yours,
    forever your… Cyrano


    • Arpana says:

      That point you made about mourning the end of Oregon, the way it ended. Very perceptive.

      I think we may as human beings have a very limited view of what we can mourn for, and we don’t recognize our sense of loss, grief because of that. (I discussed with a friend recently ‘breaking up with friends’ and how she had to make a mental jump to accept that is what had happened, she had broken up with her friend and was grieving).

      When I took Sannyas a part of my life ended, a phase, a time in my life ended. Took me years to realise I was dealing with an unresolved sense of loss, grief for that time, the people; and I wanted to move on, was time to go; and I have in truth never entirely got past my sense of loss.

      (Great concert).

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        I would say that the view on what we can mourn for is limited by the fear of feeling that sense of loss, mainly for loved ones.

        On this point, when there is a loss, and I’m far from my best existential condition inherited by Osho (joy-celebration-playfulness-trust etc), instead of smoking a joint as in the past, I’m open to the perspective suggested by Him: “Pain is fire, only burns what is not essential”.

        But I believe that there is also a limit to the pain we can bear, beyond which we lose all interest in wanting to elaborate, losing the vision of the after, when pain borders on horror, such a shock we “would like to tear our teeth”*. Then we need to be lucky and find support, or at least a good dentist.

        It seems to me that rationalising horror is the most widespread form of succumbing to it; luckily Oregon was not Vietnam.

        * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-mgdUdOjhs

        • Arpana says:

          I felt loss and shock when Osho died. Adrift for a time. Certainly not celebratory, but I am a thousand times more able to handle endings now than I was then, so that was part of the process of understanding and dealing with endings with less pain.

    • Arpana says:



  19. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    “Wow! Veet you are really going deeper and deeper. So much compassion, love, awareness. I feel blessed to have your attention.”

    Do you know a better way of Machiavelli to achieve peace with somebody wants to fight you?

    • Lokesh says:

      Fight you? Veet, for a start I have no desire to fight anyone. Had I such a need I would choose a more worthy opponent. I simply see you as someone who is a bit ‘up himself’, as no doubt some perceive me. So what? It is a common enough human trait.

      Perhaps you have a need to fight; whatever the case might be, I do not care one way or another, because that is your business, not mine.

      It might appear to you, for example, that I am in a fight with Shantam. That is not how it is, and I bet Shantam feels the same way. I have met Shantam and we are just having fun with each other. He is a sweet and gentle man, at least in my eyes. Nothing is as it seems.

      I know nothing about you, except for your comments on SN, some of which I do not bother to read, the case with a few commentators on SN.

      I suspect you never actually met Osho, as in sitting down to have a friendly chat with the man. Am I mistaken in my observation?

      • shantam prem says:

        100% Agree!
        In India we say, 101%.
        If I book journey to Ibiza again, it will be to spend some time with Lokesh again!

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        You never miss an opportunity to prove your arrogance, for me it’s ok.
        You like to be sarcastic and point your finger, for me it’s ok.
        When you point it to me I just point to where you could put it, I guess that also for you it’s ok.

        But you see that you are not as bad as you are trying to look, it took a while but in the end you gave a caress to your most faithful friend, who responded by licking your hand – I meant that he immediately nodded.

        Thanks for the invitation to share my love for the Master, such a strong connection that I did not need to meet him personally and after look for other masters, living and not. But right now I’m a bit busy, I have to comb the dolls and after I have to remove Jaguar’s stains.

        As you can see it is very simple, it’s not about compassion, you will not be able to have me among your claque* and I do not seek applause.

        *claque: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claque

        • shantam prem says:

          Sw. Veet, what stops you to look for some alive master?
          From Jesus to Osho, both no more, but surely latter has more books and voice recordings under his name!

          • sw. veet (francesco) says:

            Maybe the fact that in the front row I could meet Lokesh and in the last one you.

        • Lokesh says:

          Oh dear, do I detect a slight ruffling of the feathers? Or is it a wee bit of preening taking place?

          Veet, let me assure you that I am the antithesis of a person who needs to define their self by being part of a clique. That said, I would hardly describe myself as a lone wolf either. More along Kahil Gibran lines as in, “Stand together, yet not too near together: For the pillars of the temple stand apart, And the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.”

          So, my suspicion was confirmed that you never actually met Osho. It was not difficult to figure out. It shows.

          You say you have, “such a strong connection that I did not need to meet him personally.” Not the first time that I have heard someone say that platitude. I am quite sure you believe it to be true. Whatever gets you through the night. It is good to remember, though, that the ways of the mind are as infinite as the grains of sand on a beach. I go to the beach most mornings and occasionally think about that wise saying. Conclusion: that’s a hell of a lot of ways.

          • sw. veet (francesco) says:

            Your paternalism is pathetic.

            You know things about me that I can not confirm or deny. While in this ‘I do not know’ I rest, with nothing to say. Sometimes something to sing, but never sure about the others’ desire to listen to it.

            If you are free to stay away from what I share, then I’m free to not take a step towards you.

          • satchit says:

            And what, Lokesh?
            Your friend Shantam also never met Osho. Must be the reason he is so mentally confused.

            • frank says:

              Killer parrots on the attack!
              Holy guano, Batman, I`m glad I packed my super-strength incontinence pants!

              Btw, where`s Mahamatron Mutti Madhu when you need her?
              The alpha male parrots and baboons are in a vicious turf war over the legless legacy but she`s just sitting quietly having a zen cup of tea?

              Come on. old girl, give these would-be mindless oafs a taste of your zen stick where it hurts!

              • Arpana says:

                You’ve said things like this before, Frankie. Isn’t that what parrots do? Keep repeating themselves?

              • Lokesh says:

                Mahamatron Mutti Madhu.
                Thats a good one. It might stick. Like Shantam’s chuddies and skinhead Lokesh. I love a bit of bovva on SN. Whatever happened to Devarage?

            • shantam prem says:

              Let Shantam put questions for Not confused Satchits (true beings):

              Osho died at:
              a. Woodlands
              b. Rajeeshpuram
              c. Osho Commune
              d. OSHO Resort

              Second Question:
              Successor of Osho is called
              a. Laxmi
              b. Sheela
              c. Jayesh
              d. Neelam

              What Osho teaches is a subject of:
              a. Physics & Chemistry
              b. Economics & Finance
              c. Theology & Ethics
              d. Religion and Spirituality

              These questions are created by a confused disciple who was present during Osho´s arrival in Pune 2 and has seen His body being taken to Burning Ghat!

            • Lokesh says:

              Satchit, Shantam is special. Anyway, I was just pulling Veet’s leg. He has Tibetan bells on it. Now he has gone off in a huff.

              • satchit says:

                Who is not special?

                Would be an interesting question if there is a difference in meeting Osho personally many times like you did or maybe not meeting him at all physical.

                If there is a difference then the gate of Sannyas should have been closed on the day of his death, is it not?

                • shantam prem says:

                  Ma Satchit,
                  Go to the official website http://www.Osho.com and try to find a single time mention of Sannyas. If you find, I will deposit 8.50 Euros in your account as minimum wage for an hour.

                • Lokesh says:

                  Satchit, it is difficult to explain, but when I met Shantam I felt like my spiritual journey was over, that I had finally come home.

                  Satchit, I really have no idea about meeting Osho or not and becoming a sannyasin. I used to wonder about people taking sannyas by post. Today, I don’t give a shit.

                  Taking sannyas, even when Osho was alive, seemed to me like a bit of hokum, but I went along with it and can honestly say it was a good process for me to pass through and a lot of fun. I was never a particularly serious sannyasin and after Osho died never once went to a White Robe Brotherhood and also never speak about Osho as if he were alive.

                  Certain aspects of being a sannyasin will without doubt remain with me for the rest of my life.

                  When I was a young hippy, back in 1970, I missed an opportunity to meet Neem Karoli Baba. There are different ways to look at that. I reckon I did not meet the baba because I simply was not ready for it. Another person might think I did not need to meet the baba.

                  When I meet someone who claims to be connected with Osho, having never met him, the ones who are easiest to spot are the ones who are serious about their deep spiritual connection with Osho.

                  Osho was non-serious to the max. Apart maybe from his cars, Osho did not take anything or anyone seriously. To him it was all a cosmic joke, a leela. He did not hide this fact about himself at all. Osho loved his jokes more than his discourses. He liked to make people happy and had no time at all for anyone who took themselves seriously. He might have played serious at times, but, behind the scenes, he would have been having a laugh about it.

                  Osho, became serious and angry when he was arrested in America; that was understandable, even a wise guy like Osho could have a bad day. Bottom line is, if you take yourself seriously you missed one of sannyas greatest messages.

  20. Arpana says:

    @ Lokesh
    who preached
    ‘Bottom line is, if you take yourself seriously you missed one of sannyas greatest messages.”

    Ye gods. From you. Nobody takes themselves more seriously here than you, apart from Shantam.


    • Lokesh says:

      Arps, it’s all just a reflection, swami. Everyone we meet is reflecting something back to us. Each person that comes into our life is placed there for reasons beyond our knowing. Sometimes it takes a little while for us to recognize what exactly it is that they are reflecting to us, but in time and as long as were paying attention to it, we can begin to recognize the reflections that we need to see. His blessings….

      • Arpana says:

        Yep. Lokesh, takes himself very seriously.
        That’s why you’re on the defensive and trying to have the last word.

      • satchit says:

        Thanks for your honest post, Lokesh.

        “Satchit, it is difficult to explain, but when I met Shantam I felt like my spiritual journey was over, that I had finally come home.”

        What I don’t understand: Have you not come before meeting Ma Prem Shantam?

        And now when she has left your island, are you still home or are you dependent? Hope the old hippy did not find a new guru.


        • Lokesh says:

          Satchit, when Shantam left Ibiza he presented me with a photograph of himself, wearing chuddies…clean and fresh, as it so happens. I just need to meditate on Shantam’s photo to feel his eternal presence. His blessings….

          • anand yogi says:

            The spiritual love affair between the Scottish skinhead and VIP Shantam (Village Idiot Punjab) is an affair of the heart on a par with a Shams and a Rumi, a Marpa and a Milarepa, a Jesus and a Mary, a Rajneesh and a Dhyanraj…

            Hang around these great souls for a while and you will imbibe some of the fragrance of the truly liberated!

            When you arrived at SN you were a tense, traumatised parrot suffering for malignant advaitaisis and advanced advaita shuffle only able to utter the odd statement like: “landing and circling are both part of duality.” And waffling about “the mind”.

            But now with “Thanks for your honest post, Lokesh”, you are beginning to sound like a crazywisdom master of the highest order in your own right!

            Swami Bhorat tells me it will not be long before you are dancing in the street like a mad Baul, with wine bottle in one hand, ektara in the other, dressed only in chuddies with one ball hanging loose from one chuddie leg singing, “I am what I am”!

            Life is indeed a mystery to be lived!

            Hari Om !

    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      Although rare, one can be fundamentalist by applying non-seriousness.

      I think about a Taliban with frustrated aspirations in the cabaret: “Do not you laugh at my jokes? Are not you happy as the prophet wants you? Then you are as hostile as a Tibetan bell.
      But before I cut your head you have to know that if you’ve met me there is a reason, which I do not give a shit to tell you…Zac!”

      Having learned, without straining too much, that one can live without God, few smart sannyasins have created their world, with its belief system, where they are sure that no one can challenge the authority or rationality in it, eventually ready to decree new laws to appear consistent.

      Teleology is the soft retreat of lazy sannyasins, priests without studying Theology.

  21. Arpana says:

    Seems to me Osho is working on, and with, and through individuals en masse.

    Every complete passage is aimed at an individual, individuals; in the moment, and the phrase, the passage, in a different discourse, which contradicts the former is aimed at another individual, a number of other individuals, in the moment, with overlap, I am sure.

    These discourses aren’t gospels, an ideological gospel, ten commandments, rules; they are for the individual en masse, aimed at the evolving, meditating individual, in the moment, en masse.

    • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

      You say, Arpana:
      “Seems to me Osho is working on, and with, and through individuals en masse.”
      That´s what He sometimes pointed out to us in Buddha Hall-Auditorium, remember ? “…en masse”? However, I don´t know.

      What He also said, one or another time, was that He had invented questions and then attached them to this and that disciple, who then had to cope with that (whole – augmented – energy of the Sangha Field) and He was exquisitely inventive in such procedures.

      No security ever, not to be hooked and stripped naked in all vulnerability; and – as you rightly say: then “no gospel…no ideological gospel…no ten commendments” ever.

      Whosoever is available for such a strong approach.

      What mattered and matters for me though, has been – and still is – if such is happening in a field where a loving atmosphere in the field is still recognisable.

      Precarious times….


      • Arpana says:

        Not personally convinced Sannyas is about love. Wonder if that’s not just a carrot as it were, to keep drawing us on, along with the idea that everything will be wonderful if we become enlightened.

        Sannyas is, I suggest, a forum where people work out their issues about power. Superior and inferior. Status; the primary barriers to having loving relationships.

        Poona 1 was a particular place and time, and was very much as it was because of the massive influx of young people, with all that young energy, more coming in than going out, on the honeymoon period of their Sannyas, their time in Poona, their time in India.

        That was the honeymoon period of Sannyas, and Oregon was the shit hits the fan time, just as happens in relationships.

        People involved with Sannyas then, are getting older, and young people are not getting involved in the same way, so the atmosphere just couldn’t possibly be the same. (Heraclitus said, “You can’t stand in the same river twice.”).

    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      I hope his work still concerns the schoolmates of the 70s. The claim of some of them, in the name of that proximity, in patronising the newcomers, transforms what might be a resource in a limit and brake on the sharing of the new man’s vision.

      While new generations float in the post-modern pond of parallel ontologies, if they finally cling to one of them, without any grounding memories, they are willing to do everything for it, but not return to the apathy of the indistinguishable.

      • Arpana says:

        Veet Francesco.

        In my view, if you are as open to Osho as you seem to me to be, then there is no difference between you and those of us who were there in the early days. If you had been born then, you would have been there with us.

        You have leapfrogged many who were there long before you.


        • sw. veet (francesco) says:

          From parrot flying to frog jumping no bad as progress, thank you.

  22. shantam prem says:

    It is easier for Arpana, having orthodox Christian blood in veins, to replace ever-present Jesus and install ever-present Osho.

    The clever trick is such people won´t accept the possibility: who knows, Osho is pouring His pain out through Shantam´s fingers tipping every day non-stop single agenda, Bring Osho spirit back in His own creation!

    Though I take full burden of responsibility of my words, as they are true eye-witness account of being in and out of ashram for 20 short years!

    I don´t think Osho has ever encouraged such kind of old mind belief, dead masters are taking care. Neither in the past someone has done this nor now.

    Why to expect unnatural gratifications from intelligent beings, no one knows they are reborn or lost for ever or sitting like Russians interfering in American elections?!

    • Arpana says:

      It is easier for Shantam, having orthodox Sikh blood in veins, to replace ever-present Nanak and install ever-present Osho.

      I don´t think Osho has ever encouraged such kind of old mind belief, dead masters are taking care. Neither in the past someone has done this nor now.

      Why to expect unnatural gratifications from intelligent beings, no one knows they are reborn or lost for ever or sitting like Russians interfering in American elections!