Young Man’s Take on the Documentaries

Worth a watch from someone who was not even alive when the Ranch happened….

This entry was posted in Discussion, News. Bookmark the permalink.

103 Responses to Young Man’s Take on the Documentaries

  1. Lokesh says:

    I watched this vid for 3 minutes. I find his take on ‘Wild Wild Country’ a bit flat. What is interesting about it is that it shows a new interest in Osho by young people. I suppose that is probably a good thing. Time will tell.

    • satyadeva says:

      A bit late, perhaps, but here’s a few thoughts on ‘WWC’…

      I enjoyed it, although, as Parmartha and others have pointed out, it unfortunately left out a lot as well.

      Despite the persecution it’s clear the ‘Rajneeshees’ made a very bad start, steaming in with absolutely no research on Land Laws etc. or regard for the local people, exhibiting an arrogance that was simply asking for serious trouble. As one Antelopian remarked, “They had all that education but no common sense.” A totally understandable response, which in effect translates as “They didn’t care about us.”

      To attempt to offset that possibility, however seemingly inevitable it was, I think they should have used some of their vast resources as part of a ‘charm offensive’, to create something for the Oregonians. In Antelope, for example, to build something useful for the people, you know, providing something concrete to generate goodwill. Perhaps a medical facility, free massage/bodywork sessions, sports coaching for the kids, art and craft sessions, liaising with the local schools.

      That sort of thing, plus further efforts to meet the people as fellow human beings, to undermine the mutual sense of ‘difference’, suspicion, fear, enmity. As it was, for each side the other was its ‘shadow’, something that seems to have remained unacknowledged, predictably enough on the locals’ side, but unfortunate on the sannyasins’ part, given their much-vaunted superior awareness. The price of arrogance, I guess.

      And I think Osho was mistaken to encourage Sheela to be extra-confrontational, insulting. In India, she could bully and bribe and get away with it, but no way in America. As Barry Long said, Osho “couldn’t handle the West.”

      Of course, it might well have ‘all ended in tears’ anyway, given the ultra-conservatism of the local community and the local and national powers-that-be, not to mention the sensation-seeking media, but it could have been handled far more skilfully.

      Ultimately though, the bottom line is surely that anywhere in Oregon was the wrong place at the wrong time. A huge shame, especially given the enormous, amazingly successful efforts that created such a place.

      Yet, despite the failure, thousands benefited from the whole experience of being there, even those who, like me, only visited for a week of a summer festival. Astonishing what can happen when many are joined in a positive common goal, with shared beliefs and values.

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        It seems to me, Satyadeva, that the political mind was not very developed in Osho. The choice of a guard dog like Sheela shows that creating consensus or inspiring policies of that sign did not make the old guy sleepless.

        This does not mean that the guard dog could not have had the opportunity to emancipate herself from her instincts, and that the master would not have been pleased with it.

    • shantam prem says:

      This too is a flat idea, Lokesh, that young people will show interest in Osho. Evolution has brought western young people to at last this much level, where they can distinguish alive is alive, dead is dead.

      Young people are getting enough juice from their fitness and yoga. They look uncorrupted innocents and bit gullible, god bless them, no need to stuff them with the Indian stuff as well as enlightenment satsangs of India-returned holy Molies.

    • bob says:

      Looks to me like this whole current media push of the documentary and its spin-off interviews and youtube reviews is nothing more than an advertising/marketing strategy for a contemporary re-push of the Osho world view: basically, the Resort set-up, propagated through modern media and the seemingly ubiquitous and enthusisatic “young people”.

      I think you will see the “Osho Resort” package being sort of franchised-seeded out into the modern global cultures, replete with the Spa/Resort/Meditation Club/Oasis/Meet(Meat) Market core sales product. For young people with some luxury money in their pockets, and a need to be part of the new world global community of spiritual seekers who like to have a good time while getting fit.

      Just try to forget about the failed – probably known from the outset by the designers of the whole shebang – aspects of the project, i.e., ‘enlightenment’, the ‘commune’, the living physical presence of Osho, building cities and fighting locals, etc.

      Everything will be diluted and repackaged for the new market targeted.
      The radical parts of the neo-Sannyas movement will be cut, culled, washed, polished, and even deleted if necessary.

      You old war veterans who did nude encounter groups, engaged in criminal activities to make money, surrendered to a master for enlightenment, worked to build a utopian city, etc. are a thing of the past, it seems. You had your day.

      • shantam prem says:

        Bob, when was the last time you were in Pune?
        From your post, it seems it must be during the years 1989-1991.
        You can ask me how I found out.

        • bob says:

          Ok…how did you find out?

          • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

            Ok…Bob and other men in western-media-boots in the pub here, let me switch in, if you please…playing a nice bartenderess and offering you few, as a bunch of skilled, ‘talking it all over’ professionals, some ´digestives´ for free…

            John Lennon, a few days before being shot dead from an ambush, was interviewed by prime-time media journalists about his “paranoia” and whether he was not very happy now, as having got the ultimate ´green card´ and being a Citizen of America (after having been over years and years investigated and spied on by secret service agents of FBI/CIA etc.).

            I saw the doc of that interview where he tells the journalist: “To have paranoia does NOT mean you don´t have your good reasons for it.” Then he turned around to kiss Yoko and expressed his joy and contentment that a very long effort (of both) seemingly had been successful.

            And off they went.

            For me, the lyrics of the song Swamishanti liked to add to the Chat are the lyrics of one who has seen much, maybe all-too-much, and then found words for it. And in a way you could also see it as a kind of forecast, very much, unfortunately!

            (Such Doc-clip of this interview was/is not fabricated like many other Doc-Soap movies are, often being compiled or digitally worked on, for a purpose…).



            • swamishanti says:

              Madhu, if I could just butt in here, the song above I see as more of an angry song, off an excellent album, during which John was in his cathartic, Primal Scream therapy phase.

              For a more positive track, he wrote later, check out ‘Mind Games’:

              • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

                Thanks for the suggestion, Swamishanti.

                To get more than deep insights about ´mind games´, we don´t need even to leave this UK website, or do we?

                However, yes – you may be right about diagnosing “anger” or calling this song a bit “cathartic”. ( I won´t follow you there).

                Just wanted to shed some light, mentioning that doc clip which was busy with Lennon´s green card stuff and some anger in songs or without – with might very well be understandable!

                Anyway – just to remind you – it has been you yourself who brought in the song first-hand, was that not so?


                • swamishanti says:

                  Well, John certainly did have reason to be paranoid, he supported anarchist groups, including giving an island that he owned of the coast of Ireland to help form an anarcho-communal experiment. He was also said to have expressed sympathy with the International Marxist Group (Trotskyists).

                  These kind of people are always paranoid about the State. I knew that guy that John offered the island to and he always said that his phone was bugged.

                  John felt that they kept us doped with religion, sex and tv.

                  He also expressed that he couldn`t go out without being recognised, which would have made him a bit isolated, and isolation can often cause some paranoia.

                  Not to mention his large use of drugs, which also often causes some paranoia.

                • satyadeva says:

                  “John felt that they kept us doped with religion, sex and tv.” Would have been interesting to hear who exactly he was referring to by “they”. Who do you think he meant, SS?

                  Ironic that he accused whoever-it-was of keeping “us doped”, while, as you say, he himself was “making large use of drugs”, including heroin.

                  Great man of course, a genuine artist, rebel and ‘seeker’, but in some respects a bit lacking in the ‘responsibility department’? Perhaps, despite primal therapy, still haunted by his traumatic childhood and projecting a lot of anger (fed by much pain) on to bad-father-substitute ‘authority’?

                  Not that he was by any means totally mistaken, but clearly he had a way to go before being truly clear. Together with the prison of worldwide fame, that probably would have taken a whole lifetime, or more…

                  I recall Osho commented, after mentioning that poets and artists might well often have deep insights but invariably can’t ‘live’ them, something like, “Very nice guy – but he died totally unconscious.”

                • swamishanti says:

                  “John felt that they kept us doped with religion, sex and tv.” Would have been interesting to hear who exactly he was referring to by “they”. Who do you think he meant, SS?”

                  Well, here`s the song for you, SD:

                  “Not that he was by any means totally mistaken, but clearly he had a way to go before being clear. Probably would have taken a whole lifetime….”

                  Well, I`m not so sure, SD. After his cartharsis stage and ‘Plastic Ono Band’ album, he later released material that indicates that he was moving closer towards enlightenment:

                  “Love is the answer
                  And you know that, for sure
                  Love is the flower
                  You gotta let it, gotta let it grow.

                  Yeah, we’re playing those mind games forever
                  Projecting our images in space and in time
                  Yes is the answer
                  And you know that for sure
                  Yes is surrender
                  You gotta let it, you gotta let it go….”

                  Also, SD, whilst John and Yoko were apparently using heroin for years in the late sixties and early seventies, they later downgraded themselves to just a daily shot of methadone (which their private nurse is said to have given them in the morning before they got out of bed).

                  So it was more like just something that had to be maintained to avoid withdrawal symptoms, rather than getting totally out of it, John wasn`t ‘so young’ any more and wasn`t into getting smacked out of his head or chasing the dragon for the sake of it like (unlike Brett Anderson).


                  By “lots of drugs” I meant more the consciousness-expanding variety.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Well, SS, I think you might be prone to ‘spiritually romanticising’ John Lennon (a bit like you seem to do with people who use heroin etc.).

                  Do you recall what Osho said when someone with a similar sort of attitude asked him about JL, shortly after he’d died?

                  Here it is:

                • swamishanti says:

                  SD, we are going round in circles here. I already told you before, I am not romanticising heroin, I’ve never even wanted to try it. I’ve seen the needle and the damage done:

                  I put ‘So Young…’ up because it is a good song, and musically I find Suede’s first album to be a good one. A bit like ‘Golden Brown’ by the Stranglers, a beautifully crafted piece, whatever the subject matter.

                  It really doesn”t matter whether John Lennon was enlightened or not, he touched many lives and the music he channelled touched as many people and gave as many moments of blissfulness as any Buddha.

                  Besides, can you really judge how evolved in consciousness John Lennon’s soul really was?
                  He may not have spent a large amount of time meditating but that doesn’t mean that he was ‘meant’ to be doing that. He could be reincarnated now as a young man or woman and already be a seeker close to enlightenment.

                  You never know, he could have had more spiritual experience during his acid-fuelled years in the sixties than you ever did in all your years with Barry Long.

                  After all, he sang “Love is All and Love is Everyone” in ‘Tommorrow Never Knows’:

                • frank says:

                  “You never know, he could have had more spiritual experience during his acid-fuelled years in the sixties than you ever did in all your years with Barry Long.”
                  You can say that again.

                  The poor guy SD tries so hard to be a rational, common-sense, unemotional guy, but really he`s a total devotee who flies off the handle when anyone threatens his pet loves.

                  For literally years repeating the same OCD loop and fighting endlessly with Shantam whom he sees as `sentimental and emotion-driven` without seeing that it`s painfully obvious he is that emotional devotee himself.

                  He`s got the self-awareness of a blinkered bull on steroids in a china shop.

                • satyadeva says:

                  “really he`s a total devotee who flies off the handle when anyone threatens his pet loves”, “He`s got the self-awareness of a blinkered bull on steroids in a china shop.”

                  Thanks, Frank, for providing the best laugh of the day so far! Although I wonder why you feel a need to ‘repeat the dose’, as it were, as you’ve already made several similar remarks recently. If you’re not sure whether they’re achieving your intention then you’re right, as I’m not about to collapse in abject humiliation (not just yet anyway).

                  Your likening of me to my old sparring partner and sworn ‘bitter enemy’ Shantam (RIP – lol) is in fact true, in the sense that we’re both stubborn so’n'sos when pushed. And there the similarity ends as I’m certainly no ‘devotee’ (sorry about that, mate).

                  Talking of which, it’s occurred to me that you yourself might well be projecting your own disowned ‘shadow’ onto BL. I used to rather enjoy the way he had a right go at some sannyasins, eg calling them out for imagining they were “special”, causing some uneasiness in the ranks when he criticised their ‘casual’ attitudes masquerading as ‘non-seriousness’, denouncing loveless sex and abuse by therapists (both of which he’d heard a lot about, particularly about the former from women).

                  I’m not accusing you of the two last-mentioned, but perhaps it might be worth your while to look at the ‘shadow’ idea (but I know you won’t, of course, you’ll turn it into another round of attempted ridicule – and waste more of your time!).

                  Have you read Osho on John Lennon (via the link in my 8.01am post to SS today)?:
                  Especially the part near the end where he speaks about the particular problems of “talented people” (ie people like you).

                  (SS, in his reply to me today, completely overlooked this response by Osho. I wonder why…surely not hero-worship of John Lennon? I’ll ask him later).

                  I tend to agree with what Simond said about you yesterday:
                  “Perhaps you have always had this jokey, cleverer than everyone else personality which seems to love deriding and mocking those who aren’t as witty or clever as you.

                  I don’t fall for it, Frank, as amusing as you can be, and perceptive as well, as well read as you are, as informed about so many things, you can come across as defensive and closed-minded at times.”

                  From my experience of you here (or at least, your online persona (as the cyberworld admittedly is a fairly severe limitation, a sort of ‘separate reality’, as Madhu often points out) I have a sense that what he says might well apply to you; ie (briefly) you tend to be ‘seduced’ by your own talent, a sort of narcissistic tendency that keeps its victims well stuck in their ‘selves’, their ‘egos’. Which is the point Osho was making, of course.

                  I’ll reply to your other post later or tomorrow.

                • Arpana says:

                  @frank 30 March, 2018 at 12:15 pm

                  SD has as many good qualities as you, Frank; although he’s just as spineless about calling Lokesh out as you; and in this instance you sound to me like you are projecting onto him.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Cheque in the post, Arps.

                  (Not sure about the Lokesh remark though. Fact is, I very rarely disagree with him, pretty often agreeing wholeheartedly or just neutral).

                • frank says:

                  “Thanks, Frank, for providing the best laugh of the day so far!”

                  Always happy to provide the service.

                  Intrigued by the possibility that my shadow may be a sober-minded newspaper man turned self-styled tantric master. I shall conduct the appropriate enquiries into my unconscious forthwith.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Many congratulations, Frank – but I knew you’d see the Light one day, you just needed a mentor to put you on the right path after all these years…

                  Lucky old you, by the way, to have a tantric master as a shadow – I’m lumbered with bloody Shantam (according to you anyway)…

                  Never mind – Karma, I suppose….

                • swamishanti says:

                  SD, firstly, I am not into hero worship of John Lennon, I just appreciate some of his music, mainly the stuff he made with The Beatles. I think ‘Plastic Ono Band’ and ‘Imagine’ are good albums, but I’ve never owned any of his other work. ‘Mind Games; I used to have on cassette. I thought ‘Double Fantasy; was a bit crappy.

                  I have no access to a laptop or pc for a couple days, just got my smartphone, so briefly, on this quote you have pulled out on Lennon:

                  As you well know, Osho contradicted himself thousands of times, sometimes deliberately.

                  I can remember another quote, where Osho talks about musicians and declares that they come closest to meditation.
                  As far as your quote is concerned, I get the point that he is trying to make, but I can see that this is an example of something where he is not talking out of his own experience.

                  I doubt he would have listened to much of Lennon’s stuff, or been in tune with where it was coming from. Osho loved to listen to Indian classical music and some film music. I know where he’s coming from, I love that music too, when I’m in the right mood.

                  Osho says:
                  “John Lennon on the one hand sings: “Love is the answer, and you know that’s for sure.”

                  He himself does not know it. He says:
                  “Love is the flower, you got to let it grow.”

                  But to know it you have to be absolutely awakened, because love is the ultimate peak of consciousness.”

                  Now this is simply not the case. Osho states that “He himself does not know it…to know it you have to be absolutely awakened, because love is the ultimate peak of consciousness….”

                  Many meditators experience unconditional love. You do not have to be fully awakened to know it, so this is not true.

                  Also, Osho states somewhere that his way goes beyond the heart.

                  Ok, so John Lennon may not have been into meditation much, but as Osho states elsewhere, musicians can move into states of meditation through their music.

                  “So he sings: Love is the answer…Love is the flower…Yes is the answer…Yes is surrender…and you know that’s for sure” – but he himself is absolutely unaware of it; he has not experienced it. A beautiful man, but still lost in dreams and imagination.”

                  How does Osho know that he has not experienced it?

                  Also, Osho would not have been aware that the Beatles and other psychedelic groups were singing about their experiences of love and oneness that they were getting revealed to them by consciousness-expanding drugs.

                  Osho comes out with:
                  “Buddha may not say things so beautifully because he is not a poet in the ordinary sense, but whatsoever he says is the truth.”

                  This is total bullshit, and this is where the subtle ego of the master shines through. Everything Osho or Buddha says is not true.

                  Osho knew very well that the ultimate truth cannot be spoken.

                  “Now, Lennon was continuously fighting with his own woman – many times they separated and many times they got together again – and he is talking about mind-games, and he was playing those mind-games himself!”

                  And Vivek also left Osho many times and then came back to him – and what about the tape where they threw the plate at each other – look who’s talking!

                  “Sarjano, the words are beautiful: Love is the answer. I also say love is the answer, but I mean it! He does not mean it, he is simply saying beautiful….”

                  No, Osho, he does mean it.
                  And he spread the message around.
                  Stop slagging him off.

                  Osho uses the question to make a point but it is a bit stupid.

                  Let Osho be Osho and Lennon be Lennon.

                  And if you keep trying to dissect music or poetry like this it just destroys it. Just enjoy it!

                  “Listening to great music you suddenly become silent — with no effort. Falling in tune with the music you lose your ego with no effort. You become relaxed, you fall into a deep rest. You are alert, awake, and yet in a subtle way drunk.”

          • shantam prem says:

            Should I take as confirmation that you were never in Osho Resort, maybe few times in Osho Commune?

      • frank says:

        That reminds me of the story of the Ranters, the hard-core antinomians who caused outrage in 17th century England with their egalitarian anti-authoritarianism and extremely wild behaviour.

        Even other extreme proto-communist sects such as the Diggers were appalled by their “general lack of moral values or restraint in worldly pleasures” (That`s `Sexcult` in 21st century Netflix speak).

        They held rowdy meetings in pubs and halls with both men and women stripping naked, indulging heavily – smoking tobacco, drinking booze and coffee, taking it in turns to outdo each other in blasphemous tirades against the clergy and all in power – the original ‘rant’. Apart from the word ‘rant’, they bequeathed one other word to the language: ‘(to ride) rantipole’, which means to have sex with the woman on top.

        These guys weren`t messing about, or rather, they were – inevitably getting chased out of towns all over the country with their leaders such as Abiezer Coppe doing time in nick.

        They only lasted a very few years until things got too heavy, then large numbers of them cleaned up their act, blended in and ended up as Quakers, who had still somewhat radical but cleaned-up versions of their earlier wild beliefs and practices.

        Later Quakers had little idea as to the reality of the former exploits of some of their members, or if they did, were only too keen to sweep it all under the carpet and keep things under control.

        I could just imagine some of the former ranters in their old age, sitting with a bowl of Quaker Oats on their lap, watching a Netflix docuseries about their past and chuckling at their antics as they watched the pics of themselves going bonkers and leaping around in darkened rooms and in the fields, like Adam and Eve on E and getting hounded and busted by the outraged righteous townsfolk, sheriffs and the clergy….

        • bob says:

          Amazing what spending a little time in the cooler will do to you. Lop off some of those rough edges in a hurry. “Hey, maybe it’s not such a bad idea to hang with these Quakers, mellow out a bit…some nice-looking chicks too…do some Quaking Meditation, I mean, you can only rant for so long….”

  2. satchit says:

    SD declared: “As Barry Long said, Osho “couldn’t handle the West.” ”

    This sentence has only meaning if there was a goal in the enterprise.
    Maybe there was no goal. Maybe the Ranch was like building a sandcastle on the beach.

    • satyadeva says:

      But there was a goal, Satchit, stated by Osho, which was to create and sustain a large community, a ‘town’ even, of spiritual seekers, to serve as an example and inspiration to the world, as well as an optimum ‘growth’/meditation environment for its inhabitants and visitors.

      • satchit says:

        SD, my favourite Osho statement is: “All Masters are great liars.” The consequence of this statement is: you cannot believe in any statement, got it?

        The Ranch, as part of the world, had to fail, sooner or later.
        Only the witness is eternal.

        • satyadeva says:

          Yes, ok, Satchit, in ‘ultimate’ terms.

          The problem with this, of course, is it causes confusion as anyone, including you and me, are left to choose which statements to believe and which not to believe.

          For example, if, before it all happened, you were to ask Osho whether he’d prefer the Ranch to succeed or to fail, with him being poisoned and his movement being discredited rather than viewed as an example to the world, thus preventing him influencing people with the sort of statement you’ve just made, what do you think would have been his answer?

          And indeed, in your terms, why be concerned about any case of justice or injustice? In extreme terms, why bother fighting the Nazis, or any bunch of mass murderers? Because we’re all going to die anyway, “only the witness is eternal”, so who cares?!

          Not much help to the vast majority, spiritual seekers included, who have little or no ongoing experience of “the witness”, is it?

          • satchit says:

            SD, one sees that you are not a sannyasin.

            Did you learn this at Barry Long, the “if”-questions? If your father did not make love to your mother you would not be here…ho ho.

            • satyadeva says:

              My God, Satchit, you call that an adequate response?! Your false assumptions are actually too-clever-by-half pathetic.

              If you think Osho didn’t give a damn when the Ranch failed then I say you’re a deaf and blind fool. Yes, thanks to his consciousness, he made the best of a bad job, as the English saying goes, but do you really believe he was ‘happy’ (or even neutral) about having been poisoned and thus his life’s work being curtailed by his premature death?

              • satchit says:

                Yes, I know SD, you are a true believer of Osho’s words.

                If Osho says he has been poisoned, you believe him.
                If he says Sheela is responsible for all the shite, you believe him. You are a true devotee, SD.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Not necessarily so, Satchit. I suggest you make it a point in future to remind yourself of what another has actually said before you prematurely jump in with sarcastic remarks based on false assumptions.

                  It’s a matter of looking at the evidence and using common sense. And frankly, I trust my own judgment, thanks, not yours.

              • Levina says:

                SD, wasn’t it that Osho was total, total in His expressions of Life, and yet, and yet He knew He was the Mystery, totally touched by Its expressions but always seeing them for what they are: the temporary faces of existence..?

                These are just words as I write them, but I trust He was the living example of that Mystery, and if that was not the case, if the whole Osho/ Sannyasin game has been one big ego manipulation, then from the point of Existence it’s still only an expression of Itself, and therefore not right or wrong! And if I can’t see the big picture then I could be forever mind-fucking about the past: Was Osho wrong, was Sheela wrong, who did this, who did that..?

                It’s a great story and great food for the mind, and I get totally hooked in it, but I see it has nothing to do with now, all I can see now is a keyboard, letters on a screen, pain in the shoulders, bladder is full and the thought that I’m going back to bed….

                • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

                  Thank you, Levina,
                  You managed a most beautiful ´posting´ before breakfast today, sitting at your keyboard at 5:01 am, giving ´it´ a send-off. (Btw, I´ve been also quite awake at this time of late night-early morning)…

                  Hope you had a good nap in bed after that effort, have taken a second breakfast or something similar, and I wish you a very beautiful day.

                  With Love,


                • satyadeva says:

                  Good post, Levina, perhaps especially bringing it all back to Now….

          • frank says:

            Really, Barry Long should have been more grateful for the demise of Osho and the Ranch.
            Who went to see Barry Long before ’85? 2 or 3 former sannyasins.

            Then when Osho was on the world tour, his business mushroomed due to all the lost sannyasins.

            He was like the kind of guy who hangs around his much better-looking mate to get some sloppy seconds and then once he`s pulled one or two, he gets cocky and slags his mate off!

            • satyadeva says:

              Frank, you really should get your facts straight before sounding off with exaggerations, untruths and cheap innuendo. Read the following and, if there’s any honour in you, apologise, please, Mr Clever Dick. (Some chance!).

              Osho left the USA in mid-Novemner 1985, by which time Barry Long had been giving regular midweek, weekend and other public meetings in London for well over 18 months, attended by ever-growing numbers, including selling-out several quite large venues.

              His audiences certainly attracted sannyasins, former and current, but these were in the minority, including when sannyasin numbers at his events increased during Osho’s world tour – until, that is, BL moved back to Australia not that long after, in March ’86.

              Btw, I know the facts as I was there, at almost every meeting, from May ’85 till he went ‘back home’.

              • frank says:

                Well, it`s an odd thing, because I happened to be walking past a place in 1984, where he was giving a talk – a small room in a little library(?) just off Highgate village. They were having a break, the door was open. There were indeed about 4 sannyasins, all dressed in red. I chatted to them. Barry Long was looking at some pictures on the wall. I didn`t see any other punters. Maybe they were in the toilet? Was this the ‘packed-out venue’ you are referring to?

                I know that you are a devoted follower of his and I wouldn`t want to hurt your religious feelings, but I can`t take your man seriously at all. I remember someone played me a tape of his, recorded just after Osho died. He said, “Bhagwan ,the guru of sex, is dead. I am the guru of love.” I thought, “What an idiot.”

                But I am grateful to him, in a way. It was the first time in my life that I got it that so-called spiritual seekers would swallow any old tosh from pretty much anyone who could get his hands on a microphone.

                • simond says:

                  A little more investigation into BL might show you he said rather more than you think, Frank.
                  It’s a bit facile to represent his philosophy with a single quote.
                  Did you ever bother to find out any more?

                • satyadeva says:

                  Simond, to paraphrase Frank’s last paragraph, I’m afraid this time he himself comes across as one of those so-called spiritual seekers who would spew out any old self-justifying tosh as long as they can get their hands on a computer keyboard.

                  Frank, for clarity’s sake, please say what time of day you passed by that Highgate venue (The Highgate Literary Society building, which, if I remember rightly, BL used from around July/August, ’84). It must have been a weekend and by the sound of it, probably during a lunch break, when people tended to go out to eat.

                  Because in my experience there were never so few people there, although only twelve places were available for his occasional weekend ‘Facing Yourself’ sessions, so one of those might have been on when you turned up.

                  That’s a pretty laughable basis for your misguided claims about numbers attending events, isn’t it? And you’ve conveniently ignored my note re the well-attended larger venues. Never let the facts intrude upon a fixed ‘mind’ position, eh, Frank? Come on, man, where’s your sense of absurdity when you need it? Or does that sort of retire into the background when you have an emotional axe to grind?

                  Btw, re ‘swallowing’ “any old tosh”, BL was careful to often advise never to just “believe” him, but always to look within and test what he said in one’s own living experience, and to see whether it had “the ring of truth”.

                  No problem whatsoever if he didn’t ‘do it’ for you, but no reason either to come out with uninformed, insulting crap which only serves to make you look a bit of an ignorant jerk.

                  As for not wanting “to hurt” my “religious feelings” – pull the other one, matey! It ain’t ‘religion’, which I suspect you well know anyway. As Hurree Singh would say, “the throwaway insincerity of it all is terrific!”

                  Here’s an idea though, Frank…Why not get hold of a mic yourself? According to your own criteria you would appear to be rather well qualified for the job!

                • frank says:

                  Simond, when you first wrote on SN, I read it and immediately dubbed you The Reverend Simond of the Church of the latter day Barry Longers. If you had remembered that, you wouldn`t have needed to ask if I had “bothered to find out a little more” about BL.

                  SD, Ok, I exaggerate a little.
                  Nevertheless, to claim that Barry Long didn`t piggy-back on the Osho scene is disingenuous.
                  His main man (can`t remember names) and his girlfriend and later Barry Long’s girlfriend (in true guru style) were sannyasins. You and Simond are still hanging around here. Who bought his ‘Making Love’ tapes and practised them?

                  BL had his adverts on the front page of Big P`s paper, the forerunner to SN. etc. etc. He was a marketing man and he knew his target market.

                  Hey, I like your idea of getting hold of the mic. I think you are probably right that I am well qualified for the job. Do you mind if I practise on you?

                  Here we go…

                  “Bhagwan, the guru of sex is dead. Barry Long, the guru of love is dead. You will be dead pretty soon, so wise up!

                  I am still alive. I am here to take you beyond these dualities. I am the guru of Lovesexy.
                  Bhagwan told you to cathart and leap about like a sex-crazed bonobo monkey in a sexcult. It worked for a while but after a bit you remained fucked-up.
                  BL told you to calm down, get less emotional, get more down-to-earth, commonsense no-nonsensely spiritual.
                  It worked for a while until someone winds you up (usually female or a foreigner) and it blows and you seriously lose it, then you`re fucked up again.

                  Don`t worry, I can help you to sort it.
                  I already am.
                  All will be revealed when you come to my packed-out intensive this weekend, and don`t forget to bring your debit card and girlfriend (unless she`s a real minger).”

                  How am I doing?

                • satyadeva says:

                  Frank, your point, accusing BL of somehow ‘exploiting’ a pre-existing ‘sannyasin community’ to propagate his own work is (to coin a phrase) nothing but a red herring.

                  When he was just beginning his public teaching (I was there around that time) and attempting to reach all who might be benefited by it, he’d already become aware that sannyasins he’d come across and encountered in depth were often grateful for his help, discovering things that hadn’t previously been made clear in their Sannyas experience, not to mention those who’d suffered in various ways at the hands of therapists and others. So specifically reaching out to sannyasins (in addition to other potential audiences) was an obvious natural step.

                  As a result, and also by word of mouth, many sannyasins benefited from being with him, many, as you intimate, simply bought his audios and books, notably ‘Making Love’, and ‘just got on with it’ (although there’s no evidence I know of to support your typically exaggerated claim that only sannyasins followed the advice in the last-mentioned tape/cd), quite a few came just once or twice, quite a few remained long-term, many of these dropping sannyas altogether. So what?

                  If such people were helped spiritually, as I myself and many whom I knew were, what exactly is the problem? Or are you going to tell me this is tantamount to ‘cheating’, ie that it’s about some big competition we’re all engaged in, you know, winners and losers etc. rather than all of us simply doing our best to find what’s real despite often adverse conditions?

                  It also seems rather churlish, if not downright stupid, to focus on such flimsy points and overlook the fact that after his couple or so years in the public domain in London, BL spoke in person to hundreds of thousands of people all over the world (not to mention through audios, videos and books).

                  Finally, point of info (again, check the facts, Frank!):
                  BL’s “main man” at that time (or any time) was not a sannyasin, he was a guy called Clive Tempest, who formerly helped to run the famous Roundhouse music etc. venue in Chalk Farm. One or two other non-sannyasins helped with the admin etc. You’re thinking of someone else, whom I knew as Ian Wolstenholme, the chap who looked after art/design aspects of publicity and publishing, who was a sannyasin, but who eventually left both Osho and BL after his girlfriend got together with BL, later becoming a spiritual teacher in his own right.

                  As for your efforts with the mic, Frank – a disappointing load of old bollox, mate: 0/10.

                • shantam prem says:

                  Barry Long’ s devotees using sannyas communication site shows very clearly man was maybe an inspirational speaker but not one of the spiritual masters.

                  Spiritual masters leave behind disciples who may enhance communion with each other or fuck it up. It is like fathers leave behind children and not servants and employees.

                • satyadeva says:

                  You’re totally mistaken, Shantam, because your concept of a spiritual master is self-evidently flawed, due to your overriding obsession with ‘community’, ‘commune’, ‘communion’. Must be your Indian conditioning, I suppose.

                  Before you make such stupid statements, I suggest you take the time to actually bother to investigate who and what you’re talking about. But that’s never been your strong point, has it? Anyway, given what I know about you there’s no way he’d be your cup of chai (and vice versa).

                  BL was never interested in communities and never interested in being ‘worshipped’. His was a completely different teaching to Osho’s approach. A breath of fresh air, thankfully. So I wouldn’t bother yourself any further, you’d only be wasting your time.

                • satchit says:

                  “A little more investigation into BL might show you he said rather more than you think, Frank.”

                  Does not impress me much, this Barry Long stuff: “You have no right to be unhappy!”

                  At the most, a teacher to help people becoming normal again.

                • satyadeva says:

                  And you’re another, Satchit, who has no idea who or what you’re talking about.

                  If you can’t see the point of a statement like “You have no right to be unhappy!” then you don’t appear to understand very much about the human psyche and the way many people (even know-it-all sannyasins) choose to live – or rather, exist – in justifying, exaggerating and basically defending their ‘stuckness’ in any given area of life.

                • satchit says:

                  “And you’re another, Satchit, who has no idea who or what you’re talking about.”

                  I have an idea of what I’m talking, maybe more than you.

                  What’s written in wikipedia about his teaching:
                  Concentration on the Good in one’s life and not on the Not-so-good.
                  Practising of thankfulness towards the superior…

                  Like I said: Good for therapeutic reasons, but not more.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Yes, as I thought, Satchit, you really don’t have much of a clue, do you?!

                  A couple of bits and pieces (the second a misquote, by the way) from Wikipedia, eh? Is that the best you can manage? Do us all a favour and get to know the man and his work before coming on here and imagining you have the right to pronounce on his authenticity.

                  Truly, the stupidity and arrogance of some people is astounding.

                • satchit says:

                  SD, it’s okay for me if you are a passionate devotee of B.L.

                  Personally, I’m not interested in such kind of thought control teaching.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Do you realise, Satchit, that each time you comment about BL you put your foot right in it, showing you just haven’t a clue? “Thought control”? What are you on, Swami?!

                  And, btw, I wouldn’t necessarily describe myself as “a passionate devotee of BL”. He tended not to attract or encourage ‘devotees’. But, as Osho most certainly did, as Mother Meera has done, he helped me in crucial ways and his teachings remain a key resource for me.

                • satchit says:

                  “Do you realise, Satchit, that each time you comment about BL you put your foot right in it, showing you just haven’t a clue? “Thought control”? What are you on, Swami?!”

                  It’s okay, SD. If these guys helped you in crucial ways, perfectly good.

                  Thought control? What I read gave me a bit the impression that positive thinking shall be better than negative thinking.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Satchit, you probably don’t know that BL produced a recorded talk in the 80s titled, ‘How to Stop Thinking’. Which began something like, “Thinking is a psychological disease…”

                  As I suggested to Shantam, know your topic before making ill-informed and therefore useless comments. Unless you prefer to embarrass yourself….

              • frank says:

                “I wouldn’t necessarily describe myself as “a passionate devotee of BL.” ”

                Gosh, you could have fooled me. Since I started dissing BL, you have gone way more passionate than you`ve ever been on SN in all the years. (I never saw you get fired up about Osho). You are positively steaming.

                I always knew that the ultra-logical, common sense guy was a cardboard front for a kick-ass spiritual hooligan.

                Keep up the good work!!

                • frank says:

                  Maybe Shantam represents the Eastern devotee in your shadow that your rational persona has been fighting against and repressing all these years.

                  Really, your soul deeply wants to be devoted and give your everything and your life to Barry the master….

                • satyadeva says:

                  You’ve missed my many diatribes at Shantam then, Frank? Plus one or two others, including issues concerning Osho?

                  What gets to me is disregard for facts, for evidence, and particularly, people substituting personal and/or cultish bullshit for informed experience, and imagining their nonsense constitutes any sort of fair or worthwhile assessment. Eg, today: Satchit, Shantam and you.

                  Reckon I deserve a break so I’m going to order a nice Indian meal by phone…

                  Have a good night!

                • frank says:

                  Your diatribes against Shantam haven`t had a slight effect on him. You’re literally talking to yourself and are just you fighting with your shadow self.

                  You saw it clear enough with the opposing sides on Netflix, I`m surprised you can`t see it in yourself.

                  You are a hardcore devotee, man. But you think you are a rationalist concerned with facts. Let go of your mind and live your own passionate, devoted “I will do anything for my master energy.” It`s the real you!

                • satyadeva says:

                  See my reply of 9.39pm, Frank.

                  Any more such comments from you will be despatched immediately to my lawyer.

                  Ok, Frank?

                  Enough for today!

                • satchit says:

                  “I can barely believe what I’m reading here…
                  Of course one needs to be adequately informed before making a critical comment (aka making sure you actually know what you’re talking about!). Up to now, nothing you’ve said about BL indicates that you are thus ‘qualified’, which is why your comments have appeared so foolish.”

                  Come on, SD, you cannot be this stupid!

                  How many guys made critical comments about Bhagwan without being informed? I should be
                  “qualified” ha ha.

                  Certainly you are the insider, I’m the outsider. Or is it because you are a Deva? My experience with Devas is they are all very stiff.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Yet again you miss the entire point, Satchit. I’m not sure it’s worth continuing this dialogue as it appears that you’re either rather dense or simply ‘on the wind-up’, as we say over here.

                  But I’ll give it a go anyway…

                  Do you agree that in order to make a worthwhile contribution to a discussion/debate (including those that might go on in one’s own head) one should make sure one actually knows quite a lot about the topic(s) concerned? (That’s what I mean, btw, by being “qualified” – actually knowing what you’re talking about and/or pronouncing judgment upon).

                  If so, then why lower oneself to the level of those who simply comment, or argue, or judge from a position of not knowing much, if anything, ie of ignorance? Which is what you’re endorsing by this:
                  “How many guys made critical comments about Bhagwan without being informed? I should be
                  “qualified” ha ha.”

                  If not, then I’m not interested in taking any more time communicating with you.

                  As for “Or is it because you are a Deva? My experience with Devas is they are all very stiff”, well, so what? For me, that’s just typical sannyasin bullshine.

              • satchit says:

                “As I suggested to Shantam, know your topic before making ill-informed and therefore useless comments. Unless you prefer to embarrass yourself….”

                Don’t worry SD, I don’t feel embarrassed.

                What you want, SD? You are the expert on BL, at least you think you are. Shall I read 10 books here before I share my opinion, sounds a bit stupid.

                Strange that I have the feeling with you, you try to manipulate in the talk, hmm….

                • satyadeva says:

                  Use your common sense, Satchit, instead of playing the manipulative game of pretending you don’t know what to do. You’re not so stupid you don’t understand what being informed means, are you?

            • Levina says:

              Thank you, Madhu and Satya, for your ‘personal’ responses. Although I don’t know you ‘for real’, but only in this virtual reality, both your posts touched me!

              • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                I like your Latin side, Satyadeva.

                Not having bet on it, there is no cheque to send, assuming that Frank would know how to turn it into Feni* before swallowing it.

                *feni – an alcoholic liquor made from coconut or from the juice of the cashew apple, originating in Goa, India.

            • simond says:

              That you claim to know so much about Barry Long because you see me as some Reverend or another, is pretty irrelevant. It was a great jibe, which I also found funny and had a ring of truth about it too.

              Did you actually find out much more, read any of his books? If you did, you didn’t clearly understand much of what he had to say.

              To claim that he piggy-backed Osho or anyone else for that matter is pretty superficial a comment. Who hasn’t ridden on the back of those before? We all have. So what? That’s hardly a crime.

              As to paying for his workshops or any other self-help seminar, I’m sure you paid handsomely for some Osho workshops back in the day.

              But perhaps not. Perhaps you have always had this jokey, cleverer than everyone else personality which seems to love deriding and mocking those who aren’t as witty or clever as you.

              I don’t fall for it, Frank, as amusing as you can be, and perceptive as well, as well read as you are, as informed about so many things, you can come across as defensive and closed-minded at times.

              • frank says:

                Hi Simond,
                I didn`t express clearly what I meant.
                The point that I was making was that by reading your first post all that time ago, I was able to recognise that you were a BL fan, without you having mentioned or referencing BL. This was due to the fact that you trotted out some recognisably typical BL lines. This required some acquaintance with BL`s ideas on my part.

                I did actually go to one of his talks once. I was quite surprised. I really couldn`t believe that the audience (and the large part of them were sannyasins, whatever SD claims) were listening to this rather pushy, bad-tempered, humourless guy and believing that he was `enlightened`.

                I did read some of his stuff about the planet Dracon or whatever. Sub-theosophic rubbish that he claimed wasn`t a myth but the `truth`.

                And that nonsense that SD posted the other day:
                “It is the intermittent appearance of UFOs that most obviously challenges modern science.”

                I apologise, Simond, for being so clever as to see that as a load of absolute nuage bollocks!

            • satchit says:

              “You’re not so stupid you don’t understand what being informed means, are you?”

              It’s not a question of being informed or not, SD.

              Come down from your head and admit that you are BL-lover! Love makes one blind to certain things. Same happened in the Sannyas scene.

              • satyadeva says:

                SD: “You’re not so stupid you don’t understand what being informed means, are you?”
                Satchit: “It’s not a question of being informed or not, SD.”

                I can barely believe what I’m reading here…
                Of course one needs to be adequately informed before making a critical comment (aka making sure you actually know what you’re talking about!). Up to now, nothing you’ve said about BL indicates that you are thus ‘qualified’, which is why your comments have appeared so foolish.

                P.S: I don’t ‘love’ BL in the way you imply, I’m no ‘devotee’. But I do love the way he communicates his truth – with clarity, integrity and down-to-earth directness. Which enhances my own perception, rather than undermines it.

        • sw. veet (francesco) says:

          Satchit, in case it’s not too late for you, in Kavita’s link below, you can hear Osho says, before leaving Pune and starting the silent phase:
          “…it will not be possible to make a dogma out of my words. Anybody trying to make a creed or dogma out of my words will go nuts…you are truth, you are love, you are bliss, you are freedom.”

          • satchit says:

            Veet, tell me what it means “you are truth”!
            If you can convince me that you know, I give you the permission to give sannyas.

            If you don’t know, you are just parroting words.

            • sw. veet (francesco) says:

              And why not “love”, “bliss” or “freedom”?

              If you ask this question, Satchit, formulated in this way, it seems to me that you try to refute Osho through me, one of his disciples.

              As such, I am the least suitable person to answer a question flattened by an intellectual perspective, precisely because I have surrendered to the idea of being able to separate the different levels of existence in Him, being after many years, for my eyes/heart/mind/soul, a beautiful and luminous mystery.

              Reflect on this:
              If His message is “celebration” would it make sense to celebrate the truth without love, bliss or freedom?

              What did you write about morality, again philosophical speculations or did you really know how to go beyond good and evil without going nuts?

              • satchit says:

                Veet, growing happens only through understanding.

                The Master is the meeting of the opposites. So, you also have to become the meeting of the opposites. Too much projection on the Master does not help.

                • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                  “Projection” like that one of you deciding, Satchit, even for me, which pairs of polarities to consider in him, based on the qualitative/quantitative value that you previously attributed to them?

                  Exercising logic has many functions among which to identify its limits.

                  From the paradoxes on you have to close your eyes and start to see.

    • shantam prem says:

      Osho “couldn’t handle the West” is half truth.

      It is very much possible, neither West nor disciples from the West could understand the Indian mystic. Communication gaps and different style of non-verbal responses must have played havoc.

  3. Kavita says:

    Came across another interesting link, youtube & makers of these videos are earning some money due to Osho & all the controversies! The comments are also a good-fun read!

    • Parmartha says:

      Thanks, Kavita.
      In my book, this shorter piece is better in a way than the Netflix stuff.

      • Kavita says:

        Parmartha, they are four short parts & one more from KGW News (link below). On the right side one can find them in case you didn’t watch the other three. & I agree they have better coverage than the Netflix one.

        • bob says:

          Yes, good links there Kavita to the ’84 Portland TV News 1 hour special, focusing mainly on the Homeless/Voting scheme. Much more insightful than the WWC view of this episode at the Ranch.

          In fact, I actually learned something new about this, that had always seemed odd and incomplete to me. These homeless guys were not brought to the Ranch to sway the elections in Wasco County. That was a smokescreen. And they were not brought in for any humanitarian reasons either. That was a joke.

          In fact, as discussed by the talking heads in this program, they did not even vote! Even though they had the right to–they were citizens of the U.S., over 18 years, and had resided in Wasco County for at least 20 days. Those were the only requirements. But, at the last minute, the Rajneeshees just backed off, backed down, and stayed home on election day! All of them. The sannyasin candidates even withdrew. WTF?! After all this time and money spent on this crackpot program, it just was abandoned on D-Day? The commentators were asked why they thought so, and they didn’t really know, saying just that maybe the Rajneeshees thought they didn’t have the numbers at the end to take the trophy home. C’mon, sannyasin accountants couldn’t crunch the numbers correctly?
          Hard to swallow.

          Seems to me, from the interviews and video clips of the homeless guys, particulary the black dudes, they were brought in to do some grunt, dirty labor jobs, that needed to be done, but that the sannyasins didn’t want to do anymore–like cleaning toilets, doing the garbage removal, feeding and cleaning the barn animals. Also, the homeless were used as a “shield” for the Rajneeshees against the opposing forces to the Ranch. It is very difficult, nearly impossible, for Americans to openly criticize black Americans, after the ugly slavery and discrimination realities of their country’s history. If you bring them in, and make them part of your commune, you can create a very effective buffer protection against your enemy–the “white”, “redneck”, conservative Christians and politicians. They are frozen in their tracks.

          In fact, listening to the interviews with the share-a-home guys, they came off as people with more honesty and out-front transparency than most of the other, more celebrated and certified players in the drama. Just like street people everywhere. More innocent, more blunt. Less cunning, less educated.

          Scott Miller, one of the TV reporters, is a guy you can’t forget with that deep voice and constant restrained smirk on his face. Like he knows what the game is, but is making a living off it too, so keep it going. He interviewed Osho on the Ranch later too, in one of the World Press interviews.
          I remember it clearly–”Hey, Bhagwan, Howya doin’? ” Smirk/smile. Osho, smiling…”Good.”

          • Parmartha says:

            Thanks, Bob. Good post.

            But for the record, the homeless did try and vote, and turned up to do so. The local authority just passed some sub law to say they could not, and it seems this could not be overturned by Ranch solicitors.

            As soon as Sheela and co. heard this, they ditched the homeless, some in a very inhumane way onto the streets of snow-filled streets in the north-west.

            I still consider the main weakness of the six documentaries is the inordinate length of screen time given to Sheela and Shanti Bhadra. They are convicted criminals.

            • satyadeva says:

              Completely agree, Parmartha. I also found Sheela and Shanti Bhadra droning on and on pretty boring. More time should have been given to the so-called ‘rank and file’, the very backbone of the Ranch.

              Plus the covering of the treatment of the homeless in the film was inadequate. It was included, but didn’t give a full enough account of when they were ditched.

              The hypocrisy and cynicism of Sheela in first welcoming them as ‘downtrodden, uncared-for victims of oppression’, then getting rid of them as, er, ‘surplus to requirements’ when they were no longer useful for voting purposes, was breathtakingly despicable..

            • bob says:

              “But for the record, the homeless did try and vote, and turned up to do so. The local authority just passed some sub law to say they could not, and it seems this could not be overturned by Ranch solicitors.”

              I find it very hard to buy this story. The right to vote in an election by a U.S. citizen is one of the fundamental cornerstones of American democracy. In fact, it is almost a sacred law. To disenfranchise a person of this right is almost impossible in this country.

              For the Wasco County authorities to quickly pass some law to be able to forbid these people to register to vote, and this law not being able to be shot down by Rajneeshee attorneys, is nearly unbelievable to me. Remember, these people were not homeless – they had a home, in Rajneeshpuram.

              Yes, I saw the shots of the attempt to register a busload of them in The Dalles, with County Clerk Sue Profitt reading the prepared statement, saying they could not. But it was never said why they couldn’t. And Niren and his team couldn’t overcome that flimsy, wimpy little legal tactic, after all the massive work done to come to this point in the plan? Something is wrong with this picture, very wrong. The full story is not being told.

              • Lokesh says:

                The full story will never be told, because nobody knows the full story. The Wild Wild Country series is pretty good. I for one enjoyed it. It’s easy to knock it but at least these two guys made something worth watching, and it certainly stirred the pot.

                To make such a series requires a lot of work and time. Saying it could have this or it should not have this is all very well, but at least those guys got their shit together and produced something. They will probably have earned a lot of money out of it. Good for them.

                I ask you, what are you putting out there? When is your documentary about Osho coming out? We all know the answer to that.

                This post is not addressed to anyone in particular. Bottom line…the brothers did it, and hats off to them.

                • frank says:

                  Totally agree.
                  There is no such thing as a full story.
                  As the Japanese proverb goes: “The other side of the coin also has another side.”

                  For any perceived faults (and in the online reviews, all sides complain that the boys were too slanted against their particular choice) the bros got one thing bang on:
                  Painting a beautifully crafted and huge rorschach blot of a story where you have to see what you have to see.

                  That`s quite in the spirit of Osho, I would say.

                • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                  Lokesh, do you remember that tale about a Master who gives a small object (a stone?) to a disciple, and then he began to change things around that did not fit with it? I believe that this would be my criterion, devotional of course, anti-British.

                  I would go for a ride in the ghost town of Antelope, looking for that sign in a stone, now that the wind and the sand have ripped the gift wrapping around it, packed by the clumsy spin doctors of the time.

                • Lokesh says:

                  Veet, I am not familiar with that Osho story. Sounds like a good one, though.

                • Arpana says:

                  @sw. veet (francesco)
                  30 March, 2018 at 5:18 pm

                  Here’s another version. Always seemed to me Osho was telling us about the point of the mala and red, the name change.

                  “I have heard a story about Count Keyserling — his grandson is here, a sannyasin. Count Keyserling was one of the most famous German thinkers. He traveled far and wide in the East; he was fascinated by the East. The grandson must have something of Count Keyserling in him, hence he has come to me.

                  When Count Keyserling was in China, a friend presented him with a beautiful box, two thousand years old, but with a condition which has been fulfilled for two thousand years: that the box’s face has to be towards the East. A beautiful piece of art work, a great work of art! With that condition, for two thousand years whosoever had it has followed it.

                  Count Keyserling went with it. He placed the box in his drawing room facing towards the East, but then the whole drawing room was unbalanced. The box looked odd, so the whole drawing room had to be redone. But then the whole drawing room was no longer fitting with the house! But Count Keyserling was a man of his word — he changed his whole house… but then the garden was not fitting, so he had to change the garden. And then he became afraid, because when he changed the garden the house was not fitting in the neighborhood. Now, he could not do anything with the neighborhood!

                  Then he wrote a letter to the friend who has given the box, “Please take this box back — I don’t know how I can fulfill the condition. I will have to change the whole world! Now the neighborhood, then the town, then the district, then the province, then the country…. This is too much!”

                  If you start seeing just a ray of light, a new light, you will have to change your whole world.

                  The friend wrote to Count Keyserling, “Don’t be worried, that’s exactly the message: that even a small box can change your whole world. It is an ancient Taoist symbol; a message is contained in it. You have understood the message.” ”

                  The Dhammapada: The Way of the Buddha, Vol 7
                  Chapter 2
                  Chapter title: The greatest rebellion ever tried

                • bob says:

                  “The full story will never be told, because nobody knows the full story.”

                  Sure, somebody does, Lokesh. By full story, I don’t mean the total story of Osho’s movement, or even the Ranch in particular. I mean the Share-a-Home Program. The designers of that cockamamie scheme (and I guarantee you, it wasn’t Sheela) were probably a handful of people at most. They could easily tell the world the whole story of how, when, and why it was thunk up, if they chose to do so. But they don’t. They’re still maintaining the play is still being played out. Simple as that.

                  You query:
                  “I ask you, what are you putting out there? When is your documentary about Osho coming out? We all know the answer to that.”

                  Well, speaking for myself, Lok…I spent 5 years creating a free website that featured Osho as the main character. It was a documentary really. Gave the man an open mike–had every one of his talks available to hear. I was not bankrolled by anyone, I spent my own time and money to do it. Went to China 4 times to get the Zen connection, which the Man seemed to be zoned into. Had photos of him, video clips, the whole 9 yards…

                  4,000 pages! When I used to call up the Yahoo Tech Support that helped solve my web site technical problems as they came up, they were always aghast at the size and scope of my site. They said it was the largest site they had ever seen on Yahoo!, in part due to all of Osho’s mp3 audios I had organised, book by book.

                  I didn’t use any sensational controversies, sexcult innuendos, murder/poisoning thriller titillations, or anything else of that sort.

                  Pure Osho, in his own words and visuals.
                  OFI had Yahoo! shut it down for copyright infringement, as was maybe their right, who knows?

                  Never made a penny off of it, no interview requests from anyone anywhere. It launched my career From Nowhere to Nowhere. But I enjoyed every second of it, that was the reward.

  4. James Abbott says:

    Interesting Netflix series. Episode 5 and still watching….

  5. Dhanyam says:

    As a result of the Netflix documentary, many new people have contacted us here at Osho Viha. Some have bought malas and some have taken sannyas. The young people who are viewing the documentary in 2018 see it very differently from the Ranch-era sannyasins looking back.

    • Parmartha says:

      Thanks, Dhanyam. Very good to know.

    • samarpan says:

      Great news! To paraphrase Mark Twain: The reports of the death of neo-Sannyas have been greatly exaggerated. Likewise, claims of Rajneeshpuram’s “failure” may be premature.

      Nobody knows the future. Anybody witnessing the crucifixion of Jesus might have concluded his project, with only 12 disciples, was a “failure”…a fizzled out movement…LOL!

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        Samarpan, in the book of Judas it was a hopeless failure, regardless of whether the betrayed was a Messiah, an Enlightened one or neither.

        • frank says:

          Oshoism is the new Xianity!
          Great news!
          All’s well that ends well!

          Can`t wait to get my hands on those choirboys.

          • sw. veet (francesco) says:

            Frank, if there can be doubts about a Messiah or Enlightened one, no one confuses a traitor with a clown, you do not have to hang yourself.

            Btw, thank you for pulling out the Latin side from Satyadeva.

            I only have a curiosity: how do you hide your heart, stretching so widely your asshole?

            • frank says:

              I see what you mean, Veet, but it`s useful to bear in mind that quadruplicity drinks procrastination whilst the exquisite corpse will drink the new wine while holding the reader’s nose squarely in a friendly milk that countermands one`s trousers.

              • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                It’s okay to play the surrealist role but you’re also irreverent as a Dadaist, although it is difficult to establish the canons that distinguishes the two forms of expression.

                It is enough for me to know that you too have a heart, since the Dadaists (unlike the Futurists) were against the intervention in the First World War of Italy and that Surrealism puts Love at the center of life.

                I do not want to give you false hope but sometimes it’s nice to be touched by the love of someone who realizes that we exist.

                If your wife is sour, leave her and return on the market.


    • satyadeva says:

      Around how many new people have enquired, and could you possibly be specific as to how exactly they view the Ranch saga differently, please, Dhanyam?

  6. Lokesh says:

    Yes, folks, its high noon in SN City. A time when all good Osho-fearing citizens should be safe indoors watching Wild Wild Country, avoiding the harsh realities of the wild wild West, taking place on the dusty main street of SN. Villains are on the prowl.

    But don’t worry, self-appointed Marshal Arpana is here to protect you and dispense rough justice. He’ll call the bandits out and put paid to them with his six-shooter. His love gun is loaded not with bullets but…wait for it…Osho quotes. That’s right! If a relevant quote is needed he’s the man to fire it off. A regular old Dead Eye Dick, he never misses the mark…sinners repent.

    I’m speaking from experience here. I once fell foul of the Marshal after creating a ruckus in SN City’s Last Dance Saloon. Marshal Arpana called me out and…wait for it again…put me in my place.

    I’m a changed man. I try my best every day to stay within the rigid confines of Marshal Arpana’s law. God forbid that I should ever be called out again and put in my place. One shot from his love gun is enough to tame a desperado like me.

    Jai Bhagwan…I surrender!

  7. frank says:

    I read today that the Way brothers did an episode that didn`t make the final cut which was called “A day in the life” in which they showed what a day in the life for the grunts was like on the ranch.
    It may get put in as an extra feature when the directors cut/DVD comes out
    (crafty buggers).

  8. frank says:

    ‘Wild Wild Country’ is so wildly popular that journos are now out raking through any related dirt to get more easy copy.

    Apparently, John Bowerman, the son of the Nike founder whose interviews were lengthily featured in ‘Wild Wild Country’ (the guy who said he “misses the fight”), married a woman 40 years younger than him, a teacher, who in 2014 got done for sexual abuse of one of her students.

    Should have joined a sexcult to save themselves the hassle, maybe?

Leave a Reply