SannyasNews: From Here

A New Opinion Column from Simon Dunster

It does sound like a good idea, to reduce the quantity of personal attacks and petty quarrels between contributors.

It’s been interesting to observe personal attacks and vitriol of some contributors for a long while. I have sensed a growing frustration, anger, irritation and  competitiveness in some of the contributions being expressed in these pages.

Yet it is a common theme online everywhere  – in newspapers and magazines, we humans seem to worship conflict and are motivated by a desperate need to express anger and unhappiness. Are we are losing the ability to empathise or try to understand other people’s views ?

 Debate, discussion and an open exploration of ideas is being replaced by simple prejudice. It seems belief and faith are now all that matters. It is happening at the macro level in politics and this is a reflection of the problem at the micro level, between individuals.

 The freedom and right to express anger is an old chestnut within Sannyas. It goes back to the earliest days, when Osho created dynamic and was surrounded by the therapists from Esalen and elsewhere. Over the time I’ve corresponded on the site some contributors have referred to the importance of this need to cathart in earlier years and some have defended their continued ‘ right or freedom ’ to do so on these pages.

In wider society too, ‘ political correctness’ has become so widespread that views that question, for example,  evolution or religion or liberalism are almost impossible to get aired.

The BBC, for example can’t and wont explore subjects like UFO’s or examine any so called conspiracy theories around 9/11 without mocking those who raise them. It will never produce a program which investigates such matters, or allows the voice of those who think differently.

The question is why is this anger growing? Why are trolls so widespread online? Why is this reaction towards real investigation so strong and widespread?

It seems to me that Fear is at the root of the problem, fear that if we allow real debate we lose our sense of Self.

Indeed it’s our identity with what we think we know, with our sense of Self that acts a powerful emotional blockage to exploring ideas, that may be new to us. The self ( or personality ) is always identified with what it ‘already knows’, rather than exploring and discovering moment to moment.

We have all constructed this personality or self, with the help of parents, school and society, and it takes great determination and discipline and self awareness to see and change this.

 Another feature of this knowing Self is a utter disregard for vulnerability. True vulnerability is the recognition that we don’t know anything. But unless we recognise and embrace our lack of real knowing, fear and anger arises. Instead we trot out well versed beliefs about this and that. No wonder we are at war.

This fear is the fear of being a nobody, a fear of being seen to be a fool. This fear is so great as to cause us to react impulsively, even angrily against those who are perceived to be the cause of our vulnerability.

As a result, we  begin to identity with our opinions and prejudices and what we see as ‘ facts’, which are themselves almost always borrowed from someone else and are based on what we have been told, or read, or based on the views of some live or dead authority figure we choose to believe in.

On this forum one of the consequences is that we quote Osho, who was always contradicting himself, or we imagine we know what other sanyasins should be saying or doing. We argue about events that occurred years ago and we imagine what Osho might think about events and ideas that are new, and quite outside his experience.

 -  Whereas my memory of the man is that he continued to live as honestly as he could, and continued to explore and discover moment by moment, until the day he died.

 His memorial could  have read “ never knowing always discovering “

 
This entry was posted in Discussion. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to SannyasNews: From Here

  1. Arpana says:

    Osho, before he was “enlightened”, seems to me, by his own words, to have been incredibly belligerent and aggressive, a complete egomaniac, self-centred and spoilt; and if he hadn’t become who he did, nobody would be saying how wonderful he was in those days. Seems to me, by his own reporting, he had no empathy, and the only people he cared about were people who never disagreed with him.

    Seems a lot to ask of us, who are not enlightened, that we should act as if we are.

    Maybe you think we should fake it, be more like Christians, who as we all know are filled with love and compassion for others.

    If you are a sannyasin why don’t you use your sannyasin name? Or maybe you’re not a sannyasin?

    By the way, compared to what goes on at non-sannyas sites, what happens here is nothing.

    Diane Abbot has been threatened with rape and murder hundreds of times. People have said she should die or be raped, and called her the most obnoxious names based on her race and skin colour, as part of the reason she should be raped and murdered. Nothing like that has happened here while I’ve used the sites.

    We have an inclination to adolescent name-calling and taking the piss, to use a British expression. Seems pretty tame to me.

    • frank says:

      The Very Reverend Simon Dumpster, a selfless preacher from the Church of the Latter-Day Barry Longers, was called to give a sermon at St. Sannyasnews mental institution for the spiritually challenged, the congregation of which was infamous for its sinfulness, bad language, unrepentant and godless ways which, along with that voice of Satan himself, the internet, had brought the world to the brink of extinction.

      As the strains of the final cathartic verse of hymn 69: ‘Fuck you, sweet Jesus’, died down, the devout man of the cloth meditatively made his way up to the pulpit. In time-honoured fashion, he intoned his sermon:
      “Let us just take a moment of reflection to ponder why we are all here…”
      At that moment a voice from the back pew shouted out:
      “Because we are not all there!”

  2. shantam prem says:

    Wow! Simond, you wrote your first article for sannyasnews with a Bang.
    Congratulations and hearty thanks for this thought-provoking prose.

    • satchit says:

      I did not find the expressions that were going on too heavy. But people are different and have different levels of what is tolerable. For some, can be already a few raindrops too much – others enjoy it, dancing in the rain.

      The problem is, if you cut things too much you cut the juice too.

  3. Kavita says:

    “It does sound like a good idea, to reduce the quantity of personal attacks and petty quarrels between contributors.”
    I thought on the same lines too and the last thought before leaving SN yesterday was I also need to put this out in some way, so thanks, Simond, for making it easy for me.

    I certainly think & feel that just like any other positive/negative response, catharsis which is a natural/basic outburst in the form of anger, fear, frustration etc. does not require anyone’s permission; it is another matter whether it’s published or not, that is the publisher’s/MOD’S lookout!

    MOD:
    POST EDITED!

  4. Arpana says:

    Your assessment is wrong, Rev. Simond.

    The real reason there is so much conflict at Sannyas News is because the Sannyas News team are so committed to giving a voice to different views, are reluctant to exercise the power to ban people, so certain
    issues come up repeatedly like a stuck record.

    “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Socialist.

    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”

    • Arpana says:

      Interesting though, that Sannyas News endures, whereas sites which are much more authoritarian and much more ready to ban those seen as transgressors, don’t! (Is there another sannyas site on the internet active, let alone as active as Sannyas News?).

  5. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    It’s hard to comment when you’re so generic about the contents, Simond.
    Your invitation to good expressive form, with your ‘psychologism; to look for the reasons for the lack of it, is typical of those who do not take a position on the substance.

    For example, OIF is one of these contents, indeed it is THE content that is undermining the foundations of our sense of community, and therefore anger, frustration, unhappiness, even here, in this free virtual space, the compensation of the physical one, which has become too much expensive for many of us.

    As I have already commented, what is happening in the courts can not be ignored by anyone of our sangha who knows “how beautiful a man can be”‘; being Him dissolved in his sannyasins it is painful to see that grace vanishing.

    It would be hypocritical to claim that the old wounds are not touched if we imagine that the spirit of Sheela is working again.

    To take a position is not easy when one does not know the protagonists of the two factions. I do not even know if there is a power trip on one side or whether it’s a projection on the other but I have no doubt that this underground fight is pure poison for all of us.

    My position is clear:
    The two factions have/should/could meet outside the court, privately or publicly, and together to breathe, talk, scream, cry and laugh…then STOP IT!

    Ciao,

    VF

  6. Lokesh says:

    It’s a question of balance. Good healthy comments are well and good. A wee bit of fun. in the form of getting on someone’s case in a playful way, is also well and good. The latter is also very much in the true spirit of Sannyas.

    I recently returned from a trip to Scotland that concluded with a weekend in Glasgow, the city where I grew up. I really enjoyed the Weegies’ sense of humour. They have a sense of fun and irony that I find very healthy, because it stops you taking your self seriously. It helps you lighten up. SN will die a death without that quality from the bloggers. For fuck’s sake, we do not want the site squeaky clean and all proper and respectful now, do we? That would be utterly boring. Which is not to say people’s comments should be full of abuse, which I find even more uninspiring.

    The basic law is that what we see in others is somehow a reflection of something inside of us. Not always an easy pill to swallow. Personally, I have made it a rule never to write a comment on SN if I am feeling irate or angry.

    People say that love makes the world go round. Viewed from another perspective it might well be the case that in reality it is negativity that makes the world spin. The thing about negativity, apart from being destructive, is that it breeds quickly. Therefore obviously negative comments are best ignored. That way the producer of the negative comment will realise that there is something up. That is, unless they are very stupid.

    I think it is fine to moderate comments to a certain extent, but not in an authoritarian way. We do not want to appear too respectable. Sannyas has always had a down and dirty element to it, and I for one always enjoyed it.

    Osho did not give a fuck about being respectable. Look at the flak he took for putting Mother Theresa down. As it turns out he was absolutely right about her. Let’s keep that spirit alive.

    • Arpana says:

      That’s sanctimonious and dishonest, Lokesh. You routinely lay into new posters, and keep it up if they don’t stop you.

      MOD:
      POST EDITED.

      • Arpana says:

        You wrote that because the Rev. Simond sermon put you on the defensive, and you’re not even aware of it, despite your delusion you’re the ultimate sannyasin.

    • Kavita says:

      “I think it is fine to moderate comments to a certain extent, but not in an authoritarian way. We do not want to appear too respectable. Sannyas has always had a down and dirty element to it, and I for one always enjoyed it.

      Osho did not give a fuck about being respectable. Look at the flack he took for putting Mother Theresa down. As it turns out he was absolutely right about her. Lets keep that spirit alive.”

      I second that, Lokie!

  7. simond says:

    Just to clarify a few points…

    I don’t support banning anyone or any comments per se. Let people say what they want and allow commentators their opinions.

    There’s enough censorship amongst the media and the liberal elite already.

    What I was asking is for commentators to examine their motivations and to ask what purpose is served when they are just attacking each other with anger and malice?

    Sarcasm and ribaldry for example has its place, but when it’s used only to express and vent unconscious anger and frustration and blame, it is hardly intelligent or productive.

    Sannyas, as I understood it, was supposed to be a focus for self-examination and enlightenment.

    As to Osho, yes, he attacked people like Mother Theresa and the hypoccrites and politicans as well as other teachers. I always felt his purpose was to teach us something and never a source of unconscious bitterness or anger within him.

    Whereas here, the personal attacks can (occasionally) seem vindictive and rooted in fear of the other. Debate, discuss and find out what people truly mean by their comments before pouring scorn and further misunderstanding on them.

    • Arpana says:

      Reverend Simond said:
      “What I was asking is for commentators to examine their motivations.”

      You’re assuming we don’t, and you’re assuming we don’t because you believe if we did we would come to the same conclusions as you do.
      However, you are exceptionally egocentric, and we are not all as egocentric as you are; and we are not all bothered about projecting a good Christian image in the way you are.

      Other people do have values and attempt to live by their values, conscientiously and diligently, even if the conclusions they come to are different to yours.

      I hung out with people like you before I took sannyas. Every bit as stuffy, self-controlled and judgmental as you are. You are just a middle-aged man who is caught up with an idea that spirituality means being nice, who likes to play rescuer, and sees the world as divided into villains and victims; and seems to me to have a typical black and white Christian view of pretty much everything.

      I know exactly why I am talking to you like this by the way; because according to my values, in this situation, this is the right and honourable way to behave, and coming across as a nice vicar is not important to me.

      • Arpana says:

        The only reason you haven’t pretty much taken this site over and imposed your Christian shite on it is because you’ve been stopped.(Straight talk is the only possible way to deal with people as self- deceiving as you are).

      • satyadeva says:

        I have a different view of simond, I find his contributions here refreshingly intelligent, thoughtful and thought-through, challenging and balanced. He comes across as a genuine seeker (‘finder’, even?) who’s committed to getting to the truth.

        His enquiring approach might not be in a ‘typical’ ‘energy and emotion’-based sannyasin style, but don’t forget, he’s been through the ‘Sannyas mill’ for many years, it’s not as if he’s just an intellectual and ‘needs catharsis and groups’ etc. Reading some angrily mocking, intolerant responses to him I think he’s radically misunderstood, maybe due to some confusing him with ‘sanctimonious bogeymen’ of their pasts?! Well, we’ve all known those, haven’t we? I think he deserves more respect.

        At times I wonder whether one of the beauties of Sannyas, the value placed upon emotional freedom, including full expression of negativity, has also been a root cause of its problems. I mean, how can such a huge bunch of emotionally-charged individuals (not just the Indians) with varying individual agendas and thirsting for freedom (or their concepts of freedom) ever hope to reach a stable consensus about how they are to be ‘governed’?!

        Veet Francesco’s plea to get warring factions together to “breathe, talk, scream, cry and laugh…then STOP IT!”, while understandable from someone of his Humaniversity background, kind of sums up how desperately, absurdly impossible the situation seems to be.

        Such a large, disparate constituency almost demands dictatorial, authoritarian rule, simply to get things done – and, sure enough, it’s happened. Quite a paradox for a movement dedicated to total freedom….

        • sw. veet (francesco) says:

          Maybe, Satyadeva, if before being a simple sannyasin and Osho therapist I had a Humaniversity background, stronger than yours, I would have written “must!” instead of “The two factions have/should/could meet outside the court, privately or publicly.”

          You too seem to feed the paradox if you think that the value given to the cathartic process is both one of the beauties and root causes of the problems of Sannyas.

          This is perhaps why you have not yet answered me about which factions you would like to govern.

          But feel free to not answer me, like I am free to remind you about it. For me, this variety is precious and unlike you, does not make me desperate at all, if what matters is love beyond the little things which make us upset.

          • satyadeva says:

            Veet, I’m really not very much concerned about who runs things in Pune, as the time when that was virtually the be-all and end-all has long past. By “desperate” I was referring to the impasse that exists, not to how I feel about it all.

            • sw. veet (francesco) says:

              “…kind of sums up how desperately, absurdly impossible the situation seems to be.”

              “Such a large, disparate constituency almost demands dictatorial, authoritarian rule, simply to get things done – and, sure enough, it’s happened. Quite a paradox for a movement dedicated to total freedom.”

              “I’m really not very much concerned about who runs things in Pune, as the time when that was virtually the be-all and end-all has long passed. By “desperate” I was referring to the impasse that exists, not how I feel about it all”.

              Thanks, Satyadeva, now it is much clearer why you prefer to be angry with Shantam, it is your way to overcome the impasse and the paradox of having no more passions, not even for the freedom of those young sannyasins to have the same option of living in the Osho commune as you had.

              • satyadeva says:

                Actually, you’re way off track and make further wrong assumptions, Veet F. I have simply been offended by the flaws in his posts.

                • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                  “I have simply been offended by the flaws in his posts.”

                  It’s ok, Satyadeva, it’s a good start, it shows that you are not completely unaffective.

                  Not everybody has the ‘physique du rôle’ of the revolutionary or dictator. What’s important is not to become an advaitist because one doesn’t want the responsibility to feel and see the difference between the two.
                  https://nevernothere.com/forum/who-advaitist

                • satyadeva says:

                  “It’s ok, Satyadeva, it’s a good start, it shows that you are not completely unaffective.”

                  Oh, thank you so much, I do try very hard – much obliged, I’m sure, sir.

              • frank says:

                These are the dudes I want presiding over my journey to enlightenment

                • Arpana says:

                  Have you read any of wotsis face’s books, Frank? He’s a great yarn spinner.

                  MOD:
                  wotsis face: what’s his face(?), IE IN THIS CASE, Jeffrey Archer!

                • Arpana says:

                  Mod, in this photo the guy to the right of Amrito is a British politician who was disgraced, made a career and a fortune out of writing, went to the House of Lords (he is a serial liar apparently) and I can’t recall his name. That’s who I was referring to. Not UG.

                  MOD:
                  OK, NOT U.G., BUT Jeffrey Archer! THANKS, Arpana.

          • sw. veet (francesco) says:

            @MOD:
            I wrote “to be governed”, mentioning SD’s previous comment, meaning under which management (which faction) he would prefer to stay.

        • Arpana says:

          SD,
          I have a great deal of respect for you, which I assume you will call bullshine, but I am staggered you can’t see through him.

          SD said:
          “At times I wonder whether one of the beauties of Sannyas, the value placed upon emotional freedom, including full expression of negativity, has also been a root cause of its problems.”

          Maybe it’s meant to be. Maybe it will stave off the the formation of a completely ossified, Shantam-type church, for the longest time possible.

          The honeymoon of Bhagwan’s work is long over, and we are deep into the- shit-has-hit-the-fan time, which will end.

          • satyadeva says:

            “I am staggered you can’t see through him.”

            And to me, you don’t ‘see’ him, or rather, what he’s actually saying, but are reacting to a self-created image that greatly disturbs you.

            Perhaps there’s a life beyond apparently knee-jerk (or even well considered) negativity? And maybe that doesn’t necessarily imply suppression, repression, weakness, sanctimoniousness,’do-gooding’, or anything like the “Christian” hypocritical crap we were all fed with in our formative years.

            • Arpana says:

              You are so much more than him, SD.

              • satyadeva says:

                Ok, Arps, the cheque’s in the post…

                (Now, where’s that pinch of salt I keep for occasions like this…?).

                • Arpana says:

                  You’re so fucking British, SD. LOL. I’m only surprised you didn’t come out with that sooner.

                  I’ve got a lot going on about sannyas news and a very particular time in my life, including seeing myself at about 27 years old in him, but recognising 27 year-old me in a man of fifty-plus, who claims to be above all this does nothing to detract from how I see him.

                  Jung. Golden shadow. You’re projecting all your best qualities, qualities you can’t own, onto him, and he isn’t a hook for it. He’s more like Shantam than anyone else who posts here.

                • satyadeva says:

                  No, Arps, I don’t accept that particular ‘Golden Shadow’ aspersion, although it’s probably endemic in many attracted to spiritual teachers and masters, and therapists.

                  It seems to me that you might have an innate distrust, easily moving into anger, rage even, of anyone who used to be a sannyasin, who’s been through the ‘mill’, as it were, and who’s ‘moved on’, who introduces ideas, modes of thought and enquiry that are outside the ‘usual’ sannyas orbit. I’m referring, of course, to Lokesh and Simond (who, btw, I regard as two of the most stimulating contributors at SN).

                  At times, it’s almost as if their very existence serves to undermine you at some level. Otherwise, why be so chronically opposed to them?

            • satyadeva says:

              I also happen to have had a small degree of contact with simond, albeit a long time ago, in a leisure context, but still enough to trust where he’s coming from here.

              • simond says:

                Cheque definitely in the bank.

              • Parmartha says:

                I agree with Satyadeva here. But maybe it is because we both know Simon from the old days. I never found him to be unctuous or wearing a collar…

                Also his article is clearly meant to help lay down some discussion points, etc. and sort of support closer moderation of the site, which is what we are trying to be about at present, without upsetting people too much.

                • Arpana says:

                  I agreed with starting a discussion of what goes on here, Parmartha. Often thought that would be a good idea.

                • frank says:

                  Nothing wrong with wearing the collar.
                  My grandad was a man of the cloth. After a hard day’s work putting the fear of the Lord into his congregation he would come home, sit back in his comfy chair by the fire, pour himself a large glass of sherry, light a generous pipe of Wills tobacco and ruminate on his life as a man of God:
                  “All in all, it`s not a bad job,” he opined, “apart from the fact you have to work Sundays.”

    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      Simond, you write in your article above:
      “Yet it is a common theme online everywhere – in newspapers and magazines, we humans seem to worship conflict and are motivated by a desperate need to express anger and unhappiness.”

      Maybe I have an opposite idea about cause and effect; one must distinguish between angry language that evokes conflict, projecting out someone’s neurosis, and an aggressive language as the result of an external conflict, the one we are dealing with.

      Your invitation can be applied in the first case and not in the second, implying that relationships are firstly a form problem.

      Albeit, having been educated under a repressive Catholic agenda, for me the road to recognize that there is nothing wrong with expressing anger is still long within me; when I encounter a hypertrophic ego it still resists that mechanism that is virtuous to leave to him/her, humbly, my space, for such a small sheep lost in his/her pride!

      I like to believe that these virtual conflicts sooner or later push the people out of the houses, at least to punch each other in person and eventually become friends.

      “We are the army of selfie
      Of those who get tanned with an iPhone
      But we do not have any contacts anymore
      Only one “like” for another post.”
      http://lyricstranslate.com/it/lesercito-del-selfie-army-selfie.html

      MOD:
      Veet F, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY “Your invitation can be applied in the first case and not in the second, implying that relationships are firstly a form problem.”?

      • satyadeva says:

        “one must distinguish between angry language that evokes conflict, projecting out someone’s neurosis, and an aggressive language as the result of an external conflict, the one we are dealing with.”

        Well, the one can – and, especially in a protracted conflict, almost invariably does – merge seamlessly into the other, so this distinction isn’t that helpful.

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        @MOD, ok, sorry:
        I made a distinction between two events:
        1) angry language that evokes conflict, projecting out someone’s neurosis;
        2) an aggressive language as the result of an external conflict, the one we are dealing with.

        Your (Simond) invitation (to all of us for self-moderation) can be applied (better, can makes sense) in the first case and not in the second, implying that relationships are (always, both cases) firstly a form problem, also when there are external conflicts, which can have different roots than language. For example, if Frank argues with Jack the Ripper, who speaks much better than him a polite English, my attention would be on the knife and not to the perfect accent of the gentleman.

        For me, an objectively aggressive-violent situation, lived or described as such, can justify an aggressive-violent language, sounding the effort, to avoid that “aggressive-violent situation” using pretty words, hypocritical, as well as tiring.

    • satchit says:

      “What I was asking is for commentators to examine their motivations and to ask what purpose is served when they are just attacking each other with anger and malice?

      Sarcasm and ribaldry for example has its place, but when it’s used only to express and vent unconscious anger and frustration and blame, it is hardly intelligent or productive.

      Sannyas, as I understood it, was supposed to be a focus for self-examination and enlightenment.”

      Simond, you see only the surface. They attack each other because they love each other.

      Self-examination is good as far as it goes. But it is too dry to enter the temple – a sense of craziness is needed.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UV6HVMRmdk

      • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

        You say, Satchit:
        “Simond, you see only the surface. They attack each other because they love each other.”

        That´s amazing, as it just reminds me of one of my contributions -trying, long, long ago here. When I wrote:”sometimes I just see quite distorted love-letters here.”

        You won´t imagine what kind of aggressive reactions I did get…huuhuhhh, booohoooh…

        Sure enough, even when I agree with what you say here, Satchit, I changed my mind meanwhile as far as coping with virtual chat completely unknowable contributors goes.

        As such a way of virtual responding (discovering the love IN the attack?) may rather really belong to an analogue face-to-face communication and the possibilities there provided: quite another way of feeling/sensing the other, viewing the other, providing other sensual possibilities to clear out and to face projections.

        The virtual chat like here is quite a very stern teacher, and if I am in a good, balanced mood a very good teaching too.

        As far as I am concerned, I´m left in a basement of total insecurity about whom I reach when – if at all – I am reaching anywhere and the open question, if that is a friend or at least a friendly receiver or if I reach an algorythm programming (?)…all of that. A stern teaching – as I said.

        And with all that I sit at my writing place, when deciding to look for words to come with my throbbing heart, being embodied. Instead of having a nice walk in autumn multicoloured sunny outdoors, for example.

        Inside – besides being empty (being IN the moment) but also full, full with all the experiences, traumatic scars, as well as the very beautiful traces of a lived Life: Going for a relating adventure. Lots is triggered.

        I wouldn´t write if that would not be the case. Same with you (?), I guess.

        I appreciated Simon Dunster´s topic-take, but wasn´t so far able to relate to his specific kind of using a ´we´ and ´our´ and so rare – if ever (for me) – recognisable, tangible, humanly experiential, personal approaches.

        Difficult for me a then to really understand , get it, where from his own experience or his own life, words are coming from.

        That´s what Veet mentioned in a less aggressive way than Arpana did too.

        Unfortunately, I must join both as I confess that any seemingly priestly lecturing approach to stuff, which can be or even is also relevant for my issues, is invoking resistance. It still is…

        The latter a pity, as the topic itself re the issue of the need of re-aspecting each other, has been and is an issue here in UK/SN chat for me too.

        Quite often I´ve been feeling wounded inside by attack responses addressed to me and there was no way (up to now) to communicate vulnerability in a way that both sides can have some profit out of that.

        A virtual win-win. I´d love it.

        You too?

        Wish to send to you all greetings from a golden, warm, sunny. clear and beautifully coloured autumn day, wherever you are situated just now,

        Madhu

        • satchit says:

          “You say, Satchit:
          “Simond, you see only the surface. They attack each other because they love each other.”

          That´s amazing, as it just reminds me of one of my contributions -trying, long, long ago here. When I wrote: “sometimes I just see quite distorted love-letters here.” ”

          Hi Madhu,

          Certainly they love each other. Arps loves El Loco and El Loco loves Arps. SD loves Shantam and Shantam loves SD. What else should be the need of their communication? The quarrel of lovers is the renewal of love.

          “As far as I am concerned, I´m left in a basement of total insecurity about whom I reach when – if at all – I am reaching anywhere and the open question, if that is a friend or at least a friendly receiver or if I reach an algorythm programming (?)…all of that. A stern teaching – as I said.”

          I am not so much concerned in reaching somebody. It is not in my control. If someone feels reached, okay. I write more because of fun.

          “Quite often I´ve been feeling wounded inside by attack responses addressed to me and there was no way (up to now) to communicate vulnerability in a way that both sides can have some profit out of that.

          A virtual win-win. I´d love it.

          You too?”

          I would say one feels vulnerable if something is triggered in oneself. Difficult to check this out in a virtual chat – already difficult in real life.

          “Wish to send to you all greetings from a golden, warm, sunny. clear and beautifully coloured autumn day, wherever you are situated just now.”

          Thanks, to you too. Fine Indian summer.

          • Arpana says:

            SD has just finished reading your post.

          • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

            “I would say one feels vulnerable if something is triggered in oneself. Difficult to check this out in a virtual chat – already difficult in real life.”

            Quite very right, Satchit.

            Bavarian Late Autumn…Sky is dark now and it is late.

            The ‘MAMMA PIZZA’ delivery service came for some digital neighbouring perpetrators just now; they had much to do today and are not so much into cooking themselves.

            If they read you comment addressed to me, they will be very content.
            If they read my response, they might have that roaring Bavarian laughter. Especially also the women of these family clans.

            So all is fine; but not for everybody.

            As far as the weather is (was) concerned and the beautiful river here I visited for a long walk, all is fine.

            Madhu

  8. shantam prem says:

    For years I have one simple point about my posts: do I stand with my words therefore have joyous courage to tell my family and friends where I write?

    I won’t say by name but can presume few bloggers will be hesitant to say so. They have the understanding almost like those who write comments on erotic sites.

    They know very well their friends will feel embarrassed to know their shallow words.

    • satyadeva says:

      This post of yours, Shantam, would seem to be run by pure self-indulgence. Comparing yourself to others, with such self-dramatising grandiosity (and so little evidence) – is that how you build up your self-esteem?! Sheer nonsense.

      • shantam prem says:

        I am waiting for two more names to react.

        SD, tell honestly, do your friends and family members know about your involvement with this site?

        MOD:
        POST EDITED.

        • satyadeva says:

          I suggest you re-read my post.

        • Kavita says:

          Shantam, of course my close non-Osho family & friends know I blog on some Osho site. I used to tell my mother some jokes from the site but now she is in her own world so I don’t bother to share with her since she has become very child-like and it’s hard for her configure complicated stuff!

          • Arpana says:

            @SD:
            Love and peace, old bean.

          • shantam prem says:

            Kavita yours and your mother´s remarkable life story as i know from your arrival in Pune is a story of Osho commune´s existence after Osho´s departure.
            Resort won´t be able to create such magnificent stories.
            Every story of disciple who joined Osho is not less important than the books. Basically disciples are the books.
            Unless dignity of disciple hood is not restored, Osho´s work will remain in Coma.
            Present Day Osho is reversed to Acharya Rajneesh!

            MOD:
            Shantam, PLEASE TRANSFER THIS POST TO THE ‘Trademark’ THREAD AS THIS IS THE WRONG PLACE FOR IT!

            • Kavita says:

              Shantam, first of all, you are the greatest prose-ham master I have come across!

              Secondly, you are still interested to sell Osho all over again, that too for a bargain price!

  9. preetam says:

    Out of the question, gagged sannyasins – how sneaky.

    99% of humanity is already gagged by ignorance and self-doubt. Panic and frustration are the left-overs of their primary love.

    Certainly rulers don’t like Kâma (love) – it only hinders if someone wants to possess others.

    IX, 2. Prayer to Kâma (love), personified as a primordial power.
    Source: Atharva Veda. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av.htm

    If love is changed into doom, the whole world becomes different and split. Simple: who doesn’t like to encounter himself – is free to leave.

    MOD:
    Preetam, PLEASE CLARIFY THE FIRST SENTENCE AND THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE LAST PARAGRAPH (If love is changed into doom – MEANING?).

  10. preetam says:

    From time to time, sannyasins have some quarrels and encounters.

    In cases where Kâma (love) was changed through intrigues into Karma (fate) the evolution of humanity has been manipulated.

  11. Arpana says:

    A Poison Tree, by William Blake

    I was angry with my friend; 
    I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
    I was angry with my foe: 
    I told it not, my wrath did grow. 

    And I watered it in fears,
    Night & morning with my tears: 
    And I sunned it with smiles,
    And with soft deceitful wiles. 

    And it grew both day and night. 
    Till it bore an apple bright. 
    And my foe beheld it shine,
    And he knew that it was mine. 

    And into my garden stole, 
    When the night had veiled the pole; 
    In the morning glad I see; 
    My foe outstretched beneath the tree.

    • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

      To digest your contribution, Arpana, quoting famous author William Blake, titled ‘A Poison Tree’, me at least really needed a Soul-to-Soul contemporary call.

      Called in another (and contemporary author, prose writer and very well known negotiator) to deal as a mediator in and for members of collective and also more personal, very challenging conflicts.

      His name is Wlliam Ury and he is living in US.

      In his very recent talks with Thomas Hübl about the theme (topic), ‘How Humanity can Heal itself’ – and deal with one another in a more constructive and peaceful way in the face of very challenging times, he offered a poem too.

      It´s quite an old one of an American author (of the 1930s) and it well serves as a clear ANTIDOTE To HATE SPEECH, HATE ACTIONS etc.

      The poem itself goes kind of like this:

      “T H E Y drew a circle, and shut me out; a rebel, a heretic -
      But LOVE and I had the wit to win
      and WE drew a wider circle – and took THEM IN.”

      Everyone, William Ury says, is experiencing exclusion in the one or the other way and has to deal with it.

      And this William* (Ury) of nowadays offers the QUEST:
      ´What are we doing when being excluded? Do we then, he asks: exclude the other in methoding revenge(s)?
      And what then is coming out of such?´

      He votes for a climate change with words, and I find so much more fitting for topics in these challenging times than this poem of William Blake.

      I am in need of being reminded here for quite some time, when I am feeling exploited, harassed and worse – and feeling my utter helplessness and my rage about it.

      I did like to share with you, Arpana, as a contributor, what helps me then and also share that with all visitors of this website, SN/UK.

      With Love,

      Madhu

      * For me, a poet who speaks essential poetry prose.

      ´

  12. sannyasnews says:

    Arpana somewhere says that SN is more alive than other sites, etc. Maybe.

    It is always a surprise to us that we ourselves have not, as far as we know, been the subject to some legal control on copyright, etc. and we certainly sometimes publish views that must be anathema to the victors in Zurich, but I guess also views anathema to their enemies.

    But it may be that we are deemed so backwater and small as to be not worth bothering with! We are not aware of any attempts to block us, etc.

    • shantam prem says:

      Other than sannyasnews there are only two active sites in English, among which oshonews has more aliveness and flavour than the official site, osho.com

      Sannyasnews is the only one in interactive format, therefore fitting with the New Man of today.

      I don´t know how many people read our daily jargon and sometimes I wonder how they digest all the posts.

      My suggestion to the shy bystanders will be, take a jump. Express yourself. If you express honestly, effect will be of meditation!

    • Parmartha says:

      Occasionally we have thought there might be hacking attempts, etc. or attempts to disrupt the site through a hack.

    • Tan says:

      Maybe, SN, the reason the OIF doesn’t bother about this site, is because Big P hasn’t become a millionaire or you guys don’t fly in particular jets?

      Now, there are people who really bother about SN, like the one who wrote this topic, this Simon?

      The darling, that some readers know and accept his frankness, wants to slowly finish with this site, isn’t it? The reason being he is not a sannyasin and far from loving Osho. Hate us, darling? Sod off!

      There’s an inner bond among the writers here that outsiders don’t understand, like when Lokesh and Shantam met each other very lovingly after a battle of years here in SN. It was lovely seeing that photo! Should be posted again, to remind the creep guy what it’s all about!

      Anyway, SN, my opinion is nothing should change in SN, it just should go with the flow…

      Simond, darling, Osho will carry on, healthily and strong, right? And go to hell! Cheers!

      • shantam prem says:

        Tan, Simond is one sannyasin maybe better than many flag-bearers.
        Don´t be part of Burqa-Clad Militant Sannyas Militia protecting your holy Osho M!

      • Arpana says:

        @tan. !(•̀ᴗ•́)و ̑̑

        MOD:
        TRANSLATION, PLEASE!

        • Arpana says:

          Are you serious, mod?
          You didn’t recognise happy-go-lucky me, waving and smiling at Tan.

          MOD:
          NO ONE HERE KNOWS ABOUT SUCH THINGS, Arpana!

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        You are usually so parsimonious in the comments, Tan, not just in length. For some reason this topic seems to have particularly stimulated you, with reference to the judgments you expressed, not a few.

        Not knowing enough of your point of view, for the reason I said above, I can only interpret some things and deduce others.

        You start by saying that maybe OIF is not interested in SN because Big P “has not become a millionaire”, maybe because Big P would not be able to repay any copyright infringement (or charged of defamation).
        But what is the relationship between managing a blog and becoming a millionaire, why did not you say “he is not a millionaire”?

        After defending Big P with an “Excusatio non petita”, you turned the “accusatio manifesta” to that poor creep of Simond, who is not a true sannyasin (by name, like Frank?) and hates us all, to the point he wants this blog to end.

        Because there is an “inner bond among the writers” that creep outsider like Simond can not understand. Proof of this is that the ‘spokesman’ of the anti-OIF faction personally meets Lokesh in Ibiza “after a battle of years here in SN”, fighting almost about the same topic, OIF.

        So our sangha is a great, cheerless family with no internal enemies but only outsiders, for sure Simond with his Christianity is more dangerous than Sheela and his gang.

        All this, for you, Tan, should minimize all quarrels mby putting on the same level love for money with love for Osho?
         
        Try again, Tan.

    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      It seems to me that you are doing a good job for one faction. Because more important than form and content are the frames, and the intelligence in putting them.

      And who are here the reframing intelligent servants is very easy to understand. But you can cancel the self-congratulatory comments about the pinch of salt.

      • Arpana says:

        VF,
        Can you tell me the date and time this post is connected to?
        Thanks.

        • sw. veet (francesco) says:

          “It is always a surprise to us that we ourselves have not, as far as we know, been the subject to some legal control on copyright, etc. and we certainly sometimes publish views that must be anathema to the victors in Zurich, but I guess also views anathema to their enemies.”

          I answered to SN, Arpana. From what little I know about Gestalt, nothing is less neutral than putting the frame on reality. Let’s say that you and SD in your quarrels in the end do not ever disagree on which frame to use.

  13. Parmartha says:

    SN is not a big site.
    By way of visits, about 2,000 a month, sometimes more, sometimes less. People do seem to ‘look in’ and from all corners of the world, but one can never be sure of such things.
    I doubt very much whether full strings are read by visitors.