Swami Anand Arun’s new book, called “In Wonder with Osho” which is just received in the SN office, (we will get someone to review the book later) has the word “Boddhisattva” as a prefix on the cover and on a number of inside pages. The term “Boddhisattva” is a Buddhist one. I have kept up with Arun’s work since Osho died. He has as far as I know only begun to use this term recently. How it comes up within a sannyas context sort of mystifies me.
Some bloggers here will know the full Buddhist meaning of the word. As far as I remember it means someone who delays his enlightenment in order to “work” towards getting others to a pre-enlightenment state. But I expect it has a range of different meanings for scholars, and many Buddhists are sadly just scholars!
I have no idea why Arun now calls himself a Boddhisattva? Did Osho say he was? I somehow doubt it. Or is it a form of grandiose self statement…. or what? There were 21 disciples declared enlightened by Osho in 1984, but Arun was not amongst them. To my great amusement a few months later Osho said it was all a joke. One of them was an Indian, who has my greatest respect because he immediately said “Osho is a rascal”, and ignored the accolade. But others did not, I remember a guy called Santosh (Tibetan Healing?) going around the Ranch with a flock of human sheep paving his path, and seeming to greatly enjoy the false status!
I am also reminded of Sheela and co. At the time she was publishing Osho books much self aggrandisement was going on. I have just dug one out a book from that Ranch period, on the fly cover she is labelled an Acharya, as are Krishna Prem and Satya Vedant. Pratima is labelled an “Arihanta”. What a load of rubbish!
I have nothing in particular against (or for) Arun. He seems a”harmless old duffer” as one of my friends called him. But I dont think calling himself a Boddhisattva, unless there is something I dont know about this, does him any favours.
I await the views of SN bloggers with interest.