Original Osho Will claimed to have been destroyed by Vivek

Alisha Alexander, (deceased) (sannyas name: Vivek, later known as Nirvano)   the main caretaker of Osho, destroyed the purported Osho’s original will, the Bombay high court was told on Wednesday,  in the latest development in this case.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Osho disciple Yogesh Thakkar complaining about lack of police action on his allegation  that much money were being siphoned off by the current Osho Foundation,  on the basis of a forged will.

Mukesh Sarda, one of the accused,  booked by Koregaon Park police on the basis of Thakkar’s complaint, has filed an affidavit claiming Alisha Alexander, who was also known as ‘Ma Nirvano’, actually destroyed Osho’s last will.
Sarda has filed the affidavit through his lawyer, advocate Sudeep Nargolkar, pursuant to earlier direction of the division bench of justice Ranjit More and justice Sadhana Jadhav,  asking him to disclose the name of the caretaker, who according to him destroyed Osho’s last will.

Thakkar’s lawyer, advocate Pradip Havnur, however questioned the truthfulness of the disclosure saying the caretaker expired before Osho breathed his last. He alleged that the accused persons were now trying to pass the buck on to a deceased person. According to Thakkar, Alexander died 40 days before Osho’s death. Whilst this is true, it does not undermine the story, as many who knew Vivek knew her as fiery.

Thakkar, a Pune resident, complained that though the Koregaon Park police station has registered an offence four years back,  on the basis of his complaint regarding forgery of the will and diversion of funds of Osho Foundation, no steps had been taken by the police to probe the allegations.

In the complaint, Thakkar had alleged that the will, which surfaced 23 years after Osho’s death, was fake.
He claimed that those close to the guru did not let a doctor present there examine him but asked him to issue a death certificate. In support of his claim, the petitioner has annexed an affidavit by Dr Gokul Gokani, who was present in Osho ashram on the day of his death.

It is not immediately obvious why the question of the destroyed will has been brought up by Mukesh. If the story is true, how does this help, or not help,  to explain the emergence of the disputed will on which both parties are quarreling.

The next hearing in the case is slated for October 10 when the HC will hear submissions from the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI) with regards to taking up investigations into the disputed will  case.


This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Original Osho Will claimed to have been destroyed by Vivek

  1. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    A few years ago I talked to one of Pune’s former Indian accountants about Mukesh. Well, en passant, I was asking about the trial and the role of Yajesh, trying to follow the money.

    I do not know in India but here (Italy) if someone is suspected of having illegally enriched then a property investigation is something more than one option.

    It is not easy, with globalization you can move a lot of money with a click, more difficult to hide luxurious homes or narcissism to travel with Ferrari or drink fine wines (hundreds of euros). Investigation that may possibly concern family members, lovers, friends, business partners etc.

    Anti-mafia laws are very evolved, every move of money taken by the bank (legal) system over 5000 euros must be justified.

    The paradox is to discover in the years more and more bosses (‘Ndrangheta, Mafia, Camorra, Sacra Corona Unita) that, in order not to create suspicions, for years they live in bunkers a hermit life…

    The information I received was that Mukesh, unlike Yajesh, lives a dignified life but very simple, not being rich as a businessman can be rich before meeting Osho.



  2. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    Dear Members of British sannyasnews, providing us with latest news-bits of the latest pretty much outrageous, corrupt and shameful charades, Indian (Pune)-style about the goings-on of a decade or so of legal and bureaucracy fight,

    From what I’ve already come to know (mostly re your SN/UK researches) about this Dyonysian satyr´s play as a tragedy:

    I´ve always thought the story of corruption playing couldn´t become worse; but seeing your article here-now, I see the disgrace, dishonesty and corruption, covering the fact of a forged ´last-will´ paper with making up a story about late Nirvano did really top the amount of distaste, disgrace and corruption of the huge amount of the other reported stuff that´s already happened.

    Too odd indeed – even for a more than third-rate Bollywood screenplay.

    This man, Mukesh Sarda, Indian lawyer, and the contracting authorities he represents, belong behind the bars and not before them. But it´s India and the latter will probably not be happening.

    What a shame, all in all!

    Those, you might know more of the Inner Circle ( and the fights – judicial and otherwise), those who have been or are members of it, don’t write here (and don´t read here either, I guess).

    So – what is our concern?
    Being longtime misinformed and/or manipulated a la longue about a thoroughly intransparent topic range, obviously unending..?
    Reading yesterday´s topic, I´ve been in pain about that special HC issue.

    To lighten up a little bit, I´ve been happy to find a contribution of Frank (of November 2nd, 2013), a juicy satire which deals with a pilot’s announcement on a flight from here-to-here-and-here-to-now…and fasten your seat-belts while re-reading it – which I recommend!

    However, what about you? Today?


    • swami anand anubodh says:

      Good post, Madhu.

      And the saddest part is, that this is exactly what Osho said would happen once he was dead.

      • frank says:

        The “Nirvano destroyed the will” excuse is a classic.
        Reminds me of Chetwynd-Beest minor`s excuse in the 4th form Divinity class at Koreagon House prep school:
        “Where`s your homework, lad?”
        “Er…the dog eat it, sir.”
        “Well, fetch the dog, boy.”
        “Er…he`s died, sir.”

  3. Arpana says:

    Poem by Jeff Foster

    Life is here to break your heart over and over again
    until you realise that heartbreak is life too.

    And then your heart can no longer be broken.
    Or fixed.

    And you stand naked in front of life, moment by moment,
    knowing that whatever happens is totally okay
    even in the midst of perfect devastation,
    which, of course, is devastating perfection.

    This is freedom beyond the speaking of it.


    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      Fortunately, sometimes the destruction does not happen, thanks to a different approach than that of Arpuna…I meant Arjuna.

      “Goodness suffers from a basic weakness: it wants to keep away from conflicts and wars. Arjuna of the Mahabharat is a good man. The word ‘arjuna’ in Sanskrit means the simple, the straightforward, clean. Arjuna means that which is not crooked. Arjuna is a simple and good man, a man with a clean mind and a kind heart. He does not want to get involved in any conflict and strife; he wants to withdraw.

      Krishna is still more simple and good; his simplicity, his goodness knows no limits. But his simplicity, his goodness does not admit to any weakness and escape from reality. His feet are set firmly on the ground; he is a realist, and he is not going to allow Arjuna to run away from the battlefield.”

      Osho, ‘Krishna, The Man and his Philosophy’, Chapter 1

  4. shantam prem says:

    Parmartha, please double check the legal name of Ma Nirvano.
    In sannyas wiki it is different and also in the book, ‘Who Killed Osho’.


  5. Parmartha says:

    This seems to be a mystery within a mystery to me.

    As far as I know, Vivek’s legal name was Sally Woolf, or something like that? This name mentioned here of Alisha Alexander may be another caretaker? Or I suppose Vivek had several aliases.

    Someone like Arpana may be able to research? Worth getting to the bottom of.

    • shantam prem says:

      It is really one of the mysteries how a British woman famous in her own right dies under mysterious circumstances at only 43 and till now British media has not taken notice.

      • satyadeva says:

        You exaggerate again, Shantam. Vivek was not “famous in her own right” at all, any ‘public significance’ she might (or might not) have had was solely due to being Osho’s “caretaker”.

        • shantam prem says:

          So let me modify at the insistence of my editor and social media psychoanalyst :
          It is really one of the mysteries how a British woman famous to be in the closest circle of controversial Indian guru dies in his community in India under mysterious circumstances at only 43 and till now British media has not taken notice.

          • satyadeva says:

            Not good enough, Shantam. Vivek wasn’t “famous” at all. Well known in the world of sannyasins, of course – but that’s hardly being “famous”, is it? Why should the media bother about her?

            I suspect that beyond idle curiosity you’re only bringing this up now to imply that there might be something worth ‘investigating’ beyond what’s already come to light, ie that your ‘enemies’ might somehow be responsible for her death, rather than her personal instability (possibly intensified by Osho clearly being on the way out) and a consequent drug overdose.

            Still, at least you’re not suggesting that ‘hermeticism’ was behind it all, so that’s something, I suppose.

            • shantam prem says:

              Famous or no famous, royal or labour class, it is Dharma of western journalism to go all the way to dig out the centuries-old graves in pursuit of truth.

              It is simply a surprise, Sannyas authorities have succeeded to hide the murky truth of a death in their premises from the eyes of the world media.

              POST EDITED.

              • satyadeva says:

                “Sannyas authorities have succeeded to hide the murky truth of a death in their premises from the eyes of the world media.”

                Ever considered that they might have simply told the (for you, disappointing, unacceptable) truth, Shantam, ie that there was no ‘scandalous cover-up’, ie no murder, nothing for you to gleefully seize upon to feed your obsession?

                • shantam prem says:

                  Who has talked about murder? Please drop your obsession with my posts, SD.

                  On the other side, I can take it as compliment that my posts have the capacity to provoke thoughts.

                  POST EDITED.

                • satyadeva says:

                  So in considering the Press’s silence you’ve never entertained yourself by dreaming of how convenient it would be for you if they’d got involved and dragged up more anti-Jayesh & co. dirt? After all, implied or ‘proven’ murder would be hitting the jackpot for you, wouldn’t it?

                  You yourself tend to move along such lines in declaring, “Sannyas authorities have succeeded to hide the murky truth of a death in their premises”, do you not?

                  So there’s another “compliment” for your scrapbook.

                  Btw, don’t post here if you don’t want any responses!

                • Tan says:

                  You are right, Satyadeva. Not forgetting that any Indian coup would be a chance for Shantam to get a ‘job’ in the Resort. Kind of a thank you for the services rendered.

                  Forget it, Shantam!

            • frank says:

              It was amazing that the UK press didn`t pick up on such a shocking story, given the general attitude to cults then as now.

              And what about Sheela, convicted serial poisoner and attempted murderess (poison) who ended up running two old people`s homes and giving the wrinklies their meds?
              I can`t get my head around that one, either.

              It`s amazing how many drugs seem to crop up in all these stories.

              Maybe not so strange when you consider how many famous and influential people in the last 150 years or so have been completely off their trolleys.

              If you take a quick cross-section of Osho`s personal favourites:
              Turns out that Freddie Nietzsche`s “unspecified Javanese brew ” was an.
              unusual concoction of Javanese cocaine and opium that he mixed in to his gargantuan intake of chloral hydrate. No wonder he sat staring into space for the last 10 years of his life!
              Gurdjieff`s drinking was legendary.
              Khalil Gibran was a complete drunk.
              Ouspenski was into nitrous, psychedelics and eventually vodka, and `New model of the Universe` is seminal spiritual stoner lit.
              William James, the coiner of “oceanic”, had his oceanic experiences on nitrous,ether and a few others.

              It would be interesting to have the detailed drug use biographies of the main players in the whole Sannyas saga.

  6. Parmartha says:

    Vivek’s legal name was Christine Wolf Smith according to sannyas wiki.
    So a long way from Alisha Alexander…

    One wonders what to believe…but one assumes that Mukesh has the best legal advice, so it could be that Indian journalists, from which this SN report is taken, have made a mistake.

    The mistake might be that he is talking of another caretaker as Vivek was not Osho’s caretaker in the last years of his life. Or that Vivek took another legal name…

    Anyway, this is back on string, and one hopes someone will have the time to get to the bottom of it.

    • shantam prem says:

      If the truth needs protection of best legal advice money can buy that truth is worth a dustbin.

      Parmartha, tell me honestly, would you be able to recognise Mukesh in the group of ten people?

      I wonder what is the cause of this sympathy for this, The Most Crooked Indian in the Sannyas.

      • Parmartha says:

        I have no sympathy or otherwise for Mukesh. I don’t know him.

        I do know OI, and know they employ the best lawyers. They even employed one against Paritosh and me some 20 years ago.

        It is good, Shantam, to be dispassionate sometimes and think rationally and with cool.

        I am just exploring the alleged name. Vivek was not Osho’s caretaker in the past three years of his life, so it may be someone else.

        • shantam prem says:

          Let me share with you one incident.

          It was maybe one of my last visits to Pune because of Osho Ashram. Change from commune to resort was already visible and I was making many one liners among my friends about this plastic and synthetic surgery which will prove disastrous to the idea of creating successful place around Osho.

          One friend, my best friend of that time and a resident of the place, even warned me that because of my association, he may be dropped from the workforce. I must hold my sharp tongue. Though he knows I am stating facts but reality is I am living in Germany, he has to live there.

          It was during this time, in the internet cafe of the place, I fetched Times of India for daily reading. They have a tradition to put some quote on the editorial page. There was one quote, “Trust those who are searching. Doubt those who have found it.”

          Years later, this sentence echoes in me. My years long association with sannyasnews is for the reason I believe majority of participants and editor have the passion for exploring truth more than the cult considerations. Our truth and our lies follow us, redeem us or whirl us and there is not some QC to defend us.

          What is true for individuals is also true for institutions; lies and counterfeit claims don´t stand tall for long time.

          Let me take just one sentence of your post: “Vivek was not Osho’s caretaker in the past three years of his life, so it may be someone else.”
          What is the base of your belief? Do you think it is a factual truth?
          I will try to phone someone who was part of inner circle to check the authenticity.

          Let us say, even if Vivek was not Osho´s caretaker during whole of Pune 2, still she was not just one of the participants. She is the one and the only one who has a prime building in her name with photo and dedication to her untimely death.

          Without being “caretaker” too, she must be somebody that 30 years later, a shrewd hunchman of Jayesh has used her name as alibi to prove Osho´s will was destroyed by deceased Vivek.

          I am sure lawyer of the opposing side will ask, even if the two papers of original will were destroyed, the present photocopies must be the true copies of that true will.

          Think about this rationally and coolly!

          a shrewd hunchman – LOL, MOST AMUSING, Shantam!!

          • Arpana says:

            You believe in your ideas in a way that most individuals don’t believe the words of their own bibles

            • shantam prem says:

              Editor, do you mean these two quotes: “your Osho jain” and “my Osho”?
              They are sarcastic as well as ironic.

              POST EDITED.


            • shantam prem says:

              Arpana, read your foolish statement.
              I have no ideas. Your master has many and most individuals now, even disciples, don´t believe his ideas.

              • Arpana says:

                You have turned the rubbish in your head Shantam, into a bible, and you are as intent on forcing everyone you come across to live by your nonsense as any Christian Bible thumper I have ever come across.

          • satyadeva says:

            ” “Trust those who are searching. Doubt those who have found it.”

            Years later, this sentence echoes in me. My years long association with sannyasnews is for the reason I believe majority of participants and editor have the passion for exploring truth more than the cult considerations.”

            But Shantam, all your posts indicate you’re not “searching” at all, not even in terms of your anti-regime agenda. Regarding the latter, your mind was made up many years ago and your beliefs are set in stone, utterly calcified, as shown by 99% of what you write at SN (and, I expect, 100% of your outpourings at facebook).

            As for any inward search, whatever that was for you seems to have evaporated when you became a ‘victim’-cum-’politician’. Thus, you’ve missed the entire point of what you supposedly became a sannyasin for. Which is why you yourself are not to be trusted here.

            • satyadeva says:

              “I believe majority of participants and editor have the passion for exploring truth more than the cult considerations.”

              Quite so, Shantam.

              I wonder why the vast majority of participants here don’t agree with what amounts to your one and only ‘idea’. Any idea?

            • shantam prem says:

              Sorry, my unknown friend, have I ever said I am an authority of inner truth or that invisible commodity called Meditation?

              It is very much possible pious and truthful ones like you may get godsend limo on pearly gates, I will simply buy the ticket for metro!

              POST EDITED.

              • satyadeva says:

                Ah, the humble persona again, innocent (yet so very hard done by) -
                another of your phoney guises when you’re in a corner.

                The point is you’re not even interested, Shantam. And yet you set yourself up as an arbiter of what should and should not be happening at ‘Sannyas HQ’, while coming across here as a fanatically driven, bumbling fool.

          • Parmartha says:

            After 1986, Vivek was not in the best of mental health. For example, an English friend of mine was asked to put her up in his rather palatial house in Primrose Hill in London for a while. She was not well, and had some conventional medical treatment for it.

            As I understand it, Anando did a lot of what Vivek used to do after 1986.

            Please note the ashram plaque for Vivek mentions her “untimely” death. They are not trying to hide anything.

            I do think you are over-obsessed with this.
            I don’t know what the defence’s strategy would be in disclosing the “will” was destroyed by Vivek, but you obviously jump to conclusions as you always do.

    • Arpana says:

      What’s the story behind Vivek’s name change, Big P? I never thought to ask until now.

      • Parmartha says:

        Vivek’s name was changed to Nirvano in 1986, as far as I remember. The same time as Devaraj became Amrito. As I understand it, this was because Osho’s disciples, particularly those close to Osho, were being rejected at airports from entry into India. But really, I don’t know very much about this.

        I will, though, try and find out. And also will try and find out who Ailesha Alexander is. It may be that Vivek changed her legal name at some point in her sannyas career, and maybe also in 1986. As I recall Amrito has at least two legal names.

        • Arpana says:

          Amrito does have two legal names, which I noticed this morning in something I read.

        • satchit says:

          “I will, though, try and find out. And also will try and find out who Ailesha Alexander is. It may be that Vivek changed her legal name at some point in her sannyas career, and maybe also in 1986. As I recall Amrito has at least two legal names.”

          Maybe one has to think a bit darker. Could be she possessed a false passport.

          (Sherlock Holmes)

          • frank says:

            It still only costs £15 to change your name by deed poll in the UK (completely legal).

            Reminds me of a guy I knew who was called Arthur Penis.
            He hated it.
            So he paid his 15 quid and now he`s called Art Penis.

        • preetam says:

          Just an Option…

          Freemasons, give membernames and normally very secret.

          The following would fit with the ruling interests because it’s possible that the world religions (Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism and even Hinduism) created by Hermetism and implemented through the ‘Freemasons’.

          Osho’s inspiration would give a lot of information for a future religion. Information that those people need to steal because they do not know truth. It’s seemingly needed for their greed to keep future power. Chaos is good to install lies and suppress truth.


    • Arpana says:

      “Alcohol can disturb before enlightenment, because it can make you more unconscious — that’s its whole purpose. Your consciousness is burdened so much with anxieties, worries, anguish, that you take a drink and feel good because your consciousness goes to sleep.

      Hence, before enlightenment, any kind of intoxicant is absolutely to be dropped. It affects your consciousness and drags it downwards towards darker realms of unconsciousness. And the whole effort of the seeker is to pull the darker parts out into the light, so this is just the reverse process.

      But after enlightenment you are free. There is no problem; now no intoxicant can make your consciousness drop from the height it has reached. You can enjoy intoxicants if you like, there is no danger. But ordinarily, all the enlightened people in the past have not used intoxicants after their enlightenment.

      Gautam Buddha was asked once, “Do you think taking something alcoholic would be a disturbance to your achievement?”
      He said, “No, but if I start drinking, the problem is for my followers who are not enlightened. Seeing me drink, they will say, “Aha! Isn’t it groovy to be a follower of Gautam Buddha?”

      But I don’t want you to remain in darkness about anything. Gautam Buddha was trying to keep his followers in ignorance, howsoever compassionate his act. But keeping anybody in ignorance I cannot accept as compassion.

      So I want to tell you that after enlightenment one can drink any alcoholic beverage. But there is no need, because the enlightened one has no tensions, no anxiety. He has nothing to drown in alcohol, so there is no need for him. But just to be a good companion to you, he can drink a little bit once in a while. That will keep him more human, and that will give you more hope! It will destroy the distance between the enlightened and the unenlightened. And that is my greatest effort — to destroy any distance between the enlightened and the unenlightened.

      Of course, there is some existential difference which I cannot destroy. But this is not the existential difference — that you smoke and I don’t smoke, that you drink and I don’t drink. This is not existential. The existential difference is very small, and that is: I am awake and you are asleep. It is not much, because I am just sitting on the same bed where you are asleep. Just a little effort will make you awake.”


      From Death to Deathlessness
      Chapter 5
      Chapter title: If you really love me, then wake up

      • Simond says:

        This cracked me up, a great read from Osho.

        If I understand him, he’s saying before enlightenment drinking is a way escaping and reducing one’s anxieties.

        After enlightenment, there’s no need, but one does it to keep oneself more human and to reduce the gap between those who aren’t enlightened and those who are.
        Having said that, he implies he doesn’t partake himself.

        Oh, he’s such a rascal is Osho. Playing games with our minds. I do laugh. He ‘forgets’ to talk about his intoxication with the laughing gas!

        My experience (before enlightenment) is that I liked to drink to free up my mind and to reduce the odd inhibition.
        My experience (after enlightenment) is that I like to free up my mind and reduce the odd inhibition.

        Seriously, the list of so-called teachers with a drinking habit doesn’t surprise me at all. Dealing with non-enlightened seekers of truth with their crazy minds and stupid questions definitely drives me to drink more.

        After enlightenment, the sheer idiocy of students becomes even more apparent and when you have discovered a large dose of meaningless and emptiness, a drink or a bit of laughing gas is certainly a nice way of spending the evening, and we all need to cope somehow.

        As to Osho saying he has no tension and anxiety after enlightenment, he’s such a rascal; if you believe that, you’ll believe anything….

        • frank says:

          As the famous old Zen proverb goes:
          “Before enlightenment, chop wood, fetch water.
          After enlightenment, skin up, get cans of super strength lager in, order gas and pills from doc, call dealer, crash car, veg out on couch, watch old vids.”

      • Prem says:

        This is why most enlightened masters in history only had one or two disciples.

        Because most seekers are idiots who want to enhance their self image and their ego.

        There is a great difference between today’s seekers and the seekers of the past.

        Today’s seekers are very arrogant and expect you to buttress their egos, otherwise they will turn on you.

        The very lucrative guru scene in the West serves only one purpose.

        Buttressing the egos of the people who are not true seekers and have more money than intelligence.

        They want to “feel like they are enlightened” by being next to a so-called enlightened person.

        It is called – “enlightenment by association” – and it is the cheapest type of enlightenment anyone can find.

        • Arpana says:

          What kind of seeker are you, Prem?

          • sw. veet (francesco) says:

            Could he be part of a group of agoraphobic hieratics* with little money, claiming to be intelligent?

            *hieratics = priests

        • swami anand anubodh says:

          Prem says:

          “most enlightened masters in history only had one or two disciples”.

          That’s interesting, as it implies that the more ‘enlightened’ you are – the less followers you will attract.

          Perhaps something for the ‘wannabes’ out there to meditate over.

          • Simond says:

            If that’s what he’s saying it doesn’t say much for Osho does it?

            • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

              That´s right, Simond,
              “It” doesn´t say much – if anything – about Osho, but said quite some about a moment yesterday evening about your state of mind, when you gave this sentence a send-off, having your unique and particular way to ´follow´ Swami Anand Anubodh with a ´thumb pointing I don´t know where to.


            • swami anand anubodh says:


              I am sure if you were to give Osho a Rolex watch he would gladly receive it. He would enjoy wearing it, taking delight in slowly moving his wrist to view it from different angles.

              Then after some time watching him indulge himself you say: “Actually, Bhagwan, it’s a fake!”

              Perhaps all that matters is that you believe something is real.

              • Arpana says:

                ”Then after some time watching him indulge himself you say: “Actually, Bhagwan, it’s a fake!”

                Which wouldn’t bother him one bit.

          • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

            “Perhaps something for the ‘wannabes’ out there to meditate over.”

            Yes, Swami Anand Anubodh, truly something about the ´wannebes´ IN-HERE, to meditate over, including me, you, everybody posting or reading here …including any indifferent mobocray too.

            So, thank you for your recommendation.


        • shantam prem says:

          I don’t know who this “Prem” is but he has written intelligently. Frogs in the pond shiver with the ripples of pebbles.

          • satyadeva says:

            Perhaps you should see whether those comments you’ve seized upon, if they apply to anyone, apply to you, Shantam?

            Wrap up well and take a blanket with you, you might well get rather cold….

  7. Parmartha says:

    One report I have just read from the Indian press says:
    “Alisha Alexander, one of the caretakers of Osho Rajneesh, has destroyed the purported original will of the spiritual guru, the Bombay high court was told on Wednesday.”

    So as she has been described here as ONE of the caretakers of Osho, it does not mean that the person who destroyed the will was Vivek.

  8. Prem says:

    So, Alisha Alexander destroyed Osho’s will, so they had to replace it with a fake one. Makes sense.

    Well, if the will is destroyed, then they have no claim to Osho’s legacy. No will, no claim.

    The Resort Management have created a soap opera. First a fake will, then blaming a dead woman, then the will is destroyed.

    I don’t know who this Alisha Alexander is, because Vivek/Nirvano’s name was Christine Wolf Smith.

    Sounds like the “dog ate my homework” excuse. I can just go and claim I am the owner of a large estate, and that the previous owner left it to me in a will. When they ask me to produce this will, I will say “the dog ate it”, or “my girlfriend destroyed it”. The lawyers will laugh in my face.

  9. shantam prem says:

    Whether Osho made the will or the closest male disciples fabricated it, one thing is clear, it has dented the mystique of the master. Osho is reduced to one successful man in his field, like others hyper-successful in their fields.

    Hugh Hefner too has left a will!

    • satyadeva says:

      Rubbish, Shantam, unadulterated garbage.

      • shantam prem says:

        Because of His books, audios and videos Osho will still go on enchanting the paths of evolved seekers for generations. Not a mean contribution when one compares with various Meeras and Papajis. These people’s work dies with them, just like GPs in suburbs or in countryside.

        • satyadeva says:

          Pontificating like this about the relative worth and significance of such people is missing the point, Shantam. The question is whether YOU are being transformed, not how many others may or may not be by associating themselves with this or that teacher, before and/or after his/her death.

          Who are you anyway to even dare to make such a comment?

          Perhaps you need to re-read Prem’s post that has apparently impressed you so much and see what sort of ‘seeker’ you are (or even whether, in fact, you are really a ‘seeker’ at all?!).

          • preetam says:

            What means ‘being transformed’?

            • satyadeva says:

              How long have you been in this game, Preetam?

              A hint, relevant to your recent posts:
              Amongst other things, it would probably indicate one sees through any theory or explanation that, while purporting to explain ‘everything’, in fact explains nothing.

              Also, that one has at least some in-sight as to how and why one has chosen to take on board such a belief.

          • Arpana says:


            You told Lokesh you had taken Sanyass in 1975, yet apart from that remark I have no memory of you mentioning Osho, Bhagwan, any of the places that matter to us, meditation, other sannyasins, any experiences you’ve had as a sannyasin; and everybody does, to a greater or lesser degree, but you never do.

            Tell me your story about how you came to Sannyas.

          • satchit says:


            You told Lokesh you had taken sannyas in 1975, yet apart from that remark I have no memory of you mentioning Osho, Bhagwan, any of the places that matter to us, meditation, other sannyasins, any experiences you’ve had as a sannyasin; and everybody does, to a greater or lesser degree, but you never do.”

            Arpana, I do what comes to me. What does not come to me, I don’t do.

            I did take sannyas 1978 in Pune. When and where did you take sannyas?

            “matters to us” – Is the “us” the community of your 47 egos?

            I said already that I have never been on the Ranch. And I have also never been a fan of Dynamic Meditation like you. Cleaning the toilets like you I have also never done in my sannyas life. In my whole sannyas life I did only worship for one day.

            Are you the better sannyasin now?

          • Arpana says:


            Talking about painting, as in art, when you have no experience of painting, and have only looked at a few paintings in a museum is not the same as talking about painting from the place of being an experienced painter.

            • satchit says:


              Nice metaphor. But we are all experienced painters. Every minute we choose this colour or that to paint our life.

              • Arpana says:

                Honest to God, Satchit. That is so cliche.

                • satchit says:

                  No, it is not cliche – it is reality.

                  For example, in your sannyas life: whatever you have done or not done, you have chosen. You paint the picture. There is no Bhagwan or Osho who has done anything.

                  You have chosen to become a sannyasin, you have chosen to do Dynamic – because you enjoyed painting it as picture of your life.

                  Somebody else has chosen different colours.

                • Arpana says:

                  When you quote that kind of homily, can you add the source?
                  I have asked you about this before.

                • satchit says:

                  I know you think it is borrowed wisdom. Looks you are too cynical for poetry.

  10. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    You seem so committed to supporting the cause of a faction, Shantam, that I have to deduce that you already have a clear vision of what will happen if this faction, yours, ultimately prevails.

    Do you realise all that controversy to deal with egos like ours?
    For example, if I was the Resort boss and my men and women were those of this online community, how could I say to Lokesh about his shift washing pots or Arpana’s shift to clean toilets?

    But above all, how could I get you out of the sauna-jacuzzi?

  11. shantam prem says:

    In any civilised society, when powerful people or people in trustworthy position are accused rightly or wrongly they come forward to share their point of view.

    The photocopies of so-called Last testament of Osho with the signature of beneficiaries is in circulation for a long time. Has someone heard these beneficiaries giving any statement?

    They seem to have the idea, slow moving wheels of justice in India will be too slow to catch them during their lifetime. What happens afterwards, who cares?!

  12. shantam prem says:

    When I have just opened Daily Mail, the breaking news is about one society girl´s apparent suicide at the tender age of 28.

    Emotions upheavals shake many people, specially when delicate emotions are connected.

    This news reminded me about the lady of this string. Normal people become abnormal when Heart feels helpless.

    • satyadeva says:

      Vivek had a history of instability, mood swings, manic depression, apparently, Shantam. I well recall at my first darshan being surprised at how she seemed rather distressed, as if having recently been in an emotional crisis.

      Perhaps you’re likening your own condition to hers? If so, then yes, you often do come across as “abnormal” – hardly surprising though (despite Kusum’s typically somewhat shallow recent comment), considering the nature of your plight (no partner, no friends, no career (or other paid work?), in exile from your homeland with no German language therefore no normal daily communication).

      Given that, you may feel that your “Heart is helpless” – but you seem to ‘offload’ your suffering by turning it into chronic anger against ‘the powers-that-be’, as if they alone are responsible for your unhappy situation.

      I recall you declaring here, a few years ago, that you’d realised that fighting against those ‘enemies’ was now the raison d’etre of your life, your overriding purpose.

      All those years hanging around in Pune and you don’t seem to have learned the fundamental lesson that the buck stops with you and you alone.

      You’ve every right to your views, of course, but the impression you’ve given for years is that your personal unhappiness drives you to dwell upon this single external situation as its cause to the exclusion of virtually everything else, which is a certain indication of an unbalanced mind.

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        Bringing someone in front of the court is a bit more than blaming someone, Satyadeva.

        Are you blaming that? If so, stop the buck there.

        • satyadeva says:

          VF, as a relative newcomer here, you haven’t been exposed to years of Shantam’s repetitious, one-track rants.

          Yes, court action differs from just blaming, but it comes from the same basic source. The Will issue is really a red herring, just an excuse for his unhappiness to seize upon, as he’s convinced that only by resurrecting the past situation (impossible, of course – didn’t Osho declare at the start, “Know well the Gates will not be open forever!”? And he’s long gone anyway) he’ll somehow be ‘ok’.

          • sw. veet (francesco) says:

            So also you, Satyadeva, recognise that to avoid years of misunderstanding it is better to separate the fields of conflict.

            1) There is a level of legal battle about material things (structural) where Shantam seems to have read more than most of us.
            When the topic, as in this case, requires it, he, unlike the majority, generously shares on SN.

            2) There is a level of extra-legal battle, regarding the biography or Shantam’s way of sharing the reasons for that legal battle.

            If Shantam uses the legal battle to cover his personal problems it is a private problem but it is intellectually incorrect to use arguments of the second field type to delegitimise those of the first one, which are of public importance, if for you it matters what will happen to what we all have helped to build around Osho in Pune, material and spiritual.

            Which is your idea of Sangha, Satyadeva?

            Only successful people who possibly drink champagne with your money?
            Do you like to know that they are happy about you, who do not bring them in the Court? Even a small complaint?