Killing the Buddha, a Meaning

Someone sent this to SN. It shows another level of Consideration… of the Netflix thing…


Kill the Buddha if you meet him on the way.


Today it struck me, why do we still get so worked up about the Ranch?
 Because we are identified with it, just like being identified with a nation or religion, it reflects our ego as a group and if the world looks down at us, they look down at our image as sannyasins, we are spiritually and socially stained, including the legacy of our master, our group ego is stained, my EGO, and we had a lot invested in it, a utopian city with an enlightened master to lead us on and show the world how it is done! To live in peace love and harmony. 
But some of us screwed up the dream.
As a group we cannot be proud of what we have accomplished, we have done fantastic and then….
We don’t like it; we take it personal, otherwise who really cares, it has been almost 30 years, but the stains are still there and now they have been exposed again.
We were hoping for some exoneration, maybe this new documentary shows us in our best light.
Didn’t happen again, can not because of the facts!
 That is how ego behaves, it expects, it depends and then if it doesn’t work out as planned, the blame, but “the failure is in the structure of expectation, the dependence on others to fulfill that expectation”. Of course there is a reason for this dependence, we want someone else to do it for us, we want the master to give it to us, fulfil my
 individual dream, if I can see that, I am free! No more blame no more need to justify no more need to identify.
Because I have learned the lesson, I am better off on my own and take responsibility for myself and not depend on others anymore, because if I depend on others, this is what happens, I have no control over anything, I am a victim.
I cannot control what others do, how they behave, that is not possible.
Others have stained our image as a group, and I was part of this group, I am part of the failure too.


So to me the lesson, the message is, be alight onto yourself, be alone, don’t hold on to an outer group image, this is religion, the master never wanted a religion. He always wanted us to be ourselves.
The so called “terrible immoral, criminal” acts are the insurance policy that this will never become a religion, at least not in our lifetime.
Move in, be a light onto yourself, dare to walk alone, without any outer support, find the master inside, let go of the outer image of the master too, that is the message for me, I have done so already a long time ago.
Yesterday I wrote about the invisible Buddha field and that is not a contradiction, because that is an inner invisible web of consciousness, and not an outer structure.
We have to face sooner or later that we are alone and have to walk alone,
the truth I am longing for is not outside, if I depend on others we are always screwed in the end, this is true in any relationship that believes the other has there key to happiness and can give it to me.
We have to take responsibility for ourselves only!!!!
If I screw up it is my responsibility and if I succeed it is my responsibility alone.
The master has left us alone, to figure it all out by ourselves. The time has come to get the message. The master is inside, available, there is no outer master anymore, he is gone as a physical presence, we have seen the flames consuming his body, now he is available as pure consciousness inside all of us, we just have to let go of the outer and tap in to this consciousness, and it is not some vague idea, I have experienced it as pure alive intelligence ready to respond if I call on it, to call on it is the true surrender, “ thine will be done “ not personal, But existential, cosmic, universal.
In the very beginning of writing, I have come up with this poem and now it seems absolutely relevant.



Last Poem to my beloved Master
I understand now what is meant

When they say, 
kill the Buddha when you meet him on the way 
it is the Buddha in my mind, the memory.

That I have held on to so loyally

The one that I have called on every day 
Please, please show me again the way

His image, I have carried everywhere with me 
chatting with my friends over a cup of tea
 of how magnificent it all has been 
his wisdom and the amazing mystery.

But now I clearly see,
 I have to add that,” let’s do it all again” desire 
that sweet delicious memory,
 also to the Master’s funeral pyre 
for the phoenix, the essence, to arise,
every bit of it has to be burnt to ashes in the holy fire.
in flames of love and gratitude, that is the price

 Dyanand Robbins

This entry was posted in Discussion. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Killing the Buddha, a Meaning

  1. frank says:

    I watched the sun and moon
    rise together over the sea.
    I swam in the holy river
    and hugged the ancient tree.

    Gods and goddesses
    out in the noonday sun,
    barking mad divinities,
    count me in as one.
    I helped myself to the nectar
    and let the credit run.

    The curtain falls, bitter-sweet,
    tears away the warm blanket and sheet.
    Suddenly my dreams are out of date,
    thrown again from the womb into an unknown fate.

    • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

      “Suddenly my dreams are out of date,
      thrown again from the womb into an unknown fate.”

      I don´t know, Frank, if this poem comes from your place inside or you found it somewhere. But especially the two lines from yours I quoted reminded me of The Satsang Series with the Master 1981, in Pune, before He took off to America.

      These – sittings in Silence – were dedicated some of the Kahlil Gibran songlines, one can say – and there is one of these songlines that might be more difficult to embody than others (?) and that goes ´about children´:

      “Your children are not your children.
      They are the sons and the daughters of Life´s longing for itself.
      They come through you but not from you.
      And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
      You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts.
      You may house their bodies but not their souls,
      For their souls dwell in the house of t-morrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
      You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
      For Life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
      You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth
      The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
      Let your bending in the Archer´s hand be for gladness:
      For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He also loves the bow that is stable.”

  2. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    How precious, Dyanand Robbins, that you had (have?) a stop this (these) day(s?) in the Sannyas News Caravanserai; as vagabonds we all are, aren´t we?

    Storytellers at a meeting place, and as this one is a viral one with all its implications embedded – quite unlike the chat with friends (fellow-travellers) over a cup of Tea in Real-Life – it becomes on the one side more easy to be reminded of His take: “Don´t be a carbon copy, Be yourself”. And on the other side, it becomes more difficult to discard the false from the true stances, reading story-telling or listening to noise.

    You brought me out of my hidden corner in the caravanserai, Dyanand, and I loved your post.

    And thank you for coming up and for THIS.


    Whosoever sent this to SN, hopefully it was you, yourself, Dyanand?


  3. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    What’s the right time to kill the buddha?

    I suppose it must happen in the period between the sannyas celebration and his funeral pyre …or maybe ours?

    Those who jumped from the boat before Rajneeshpuram and looked for other Buddhas to be killed, having not yet found the inner one, were perhaps the wisest disciples?

    Perhaps there are many ways to kill a Buddha but not even one to make him born, cutting the problem to the root, the Buddha and his killer.

    When the will to kill a buddha is of people who do not recognise him as such, should the disciples turn their heads or give thanks?

    Kill the buddha to leave the Sangha and live alone behind a keyboard pc? No thanks.

  4. Lokesh says:

    I’m not in the least bit interested in killing Buddha, or anyone else for that matter. If I meet the Buddha on the path I will say hi and be respectful. That is what I learned in life and I don’t listen to anyone else’s bullshit about what to do if I meet a Buddha.

    I have met a few real life killers in my life. They are a pretty sad bunch who ruined their lives. Killing anything imaginary or otherwise is strictly for the dummies in the class. If Existence breathed life into someone, who the fuck am I to take it away? None of my business.

  5. satyadeva says:

    Do you really believe it’s meant literally? Try reading the article again.

    • satyadeva says:

      You of course, Shantam, are the last person one would expect to take on board such a viewpoint as doing so would undermine or more likely destroy your ashram/commune fantasies.

      Which are hopes that you appear to need to maintain a sense of purpose and meaning (not to mention your ‘warrior’ self-image of a ‘fighter for Justice’) and to prevent yourself becoming dangerously depressed.

    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      In case you are asking me, Satyadeva, the article has a little irritated me, in its outline, as definite and definitive as it is predictable.

      The first comment in my mind was “Amen”.

      No, I love that there are still places to feel at home with friends of my Sangha, and we can still celebrate and above all share the gift of the Master with the newcomers, despite the gossip and mud of the country of freedom.

      Have you ever been here, Satyadeva?

      • satyadeva says:

        Yes, I visited Miasto back in the mid-90s, Veet. Lovely area, a relaxed vibe, the Tuscany countryside in summer…

        Strangely, I don’t remember much, except some quite tall Japanese woman who, although possessing the attributes of outer beauty, bound to attract male attention, walked around emanating emotional discontent, looking at people with an air of superiority and contempt, seemingly inappropriately exaggerated defence systems well to the fore.

        I thought, “How ugly! I bet she has an unhappy love life…Probably not enhanced by casual sleeping around with sannyasins…”

        Doubt whether “kill the buddha” had any relevance or meaning for her at that stage of her life. The readiness is all, you can’t force anything.

        But don’t worry, Veet, I expect no one’s saying living this phrase means one can’t enjoy socialising, surely? That would be absurd. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water!

        • sw. veet (francesco) says:

          Satyadeva, if you have noticed such an arrogant form, perhaps it is because it stood out against a background of humble and welcoming people, who for the untrained eyes have the limit not to be noticed.

          What relationship do you have with your arrogance?

          • satyadeva says:

            Yes, it was rather strange, which is probably why it’s my only memory of the place.

            “What relationship do you have with your arrogance?

            Totally conscious, absolutely aware, complete acceptance – no problem whatsoever! That, of course, is why “killing the buddha” is a walk in the park for me. Bet you can’t match that, old boy!

            • sw. veet (francesco) says:

              Sorry, MOD, we are becoming friends.

              I do not remember who said in a comment that sannyasins’ arrogance was one of the ingredients in the war about the existence of the Ranch.

              Even in the current topic, the author refers to errors or crimes that could be connected with arrogance, people who perceived themselves above the flock, beyond the moral law of God or of men.

              I do not know if anyone who speaks of this is referring to the narrow circle of Sheela or as a general character of the average sannyasin, then and today.

              However, do not you think, Satyadeva, that social life in the Ranch (in Osho’s communes in general) is sooner or later an opportunity for someone to mirror his arrogance, deciding to look at it rather than recite solipsistic speeches about the pride of killing Buddha?

        • sw. veet (francesco) says:

          I saw your reaction, Satyadeva, when the child’s name was Barry. I hope you now understand my irritation.

          • satyadeva says:

            I have no idea what you mean, Veet.

            • sw. veet (francesco) says:

              Satyadeva, my question, in other words, was if would be right to speculate that there is an average arrogant character referring to the disciples of…Barry Long-based, for example, or your own character.

              Or if it is more correct to explain the sangha’s arrogance watching the Master’s teaching…or that there is even no relationship between the two things.

              The other hypothesis, which is not widely considered here, is that instead, the Ranch would have been a peaceful and alternative social experiment if a repressive and fascist system had not arrogantly interfered.

              For me, not considering this hypothesis makes the article by Dyanand Robbins misleading, where he declares himself surprised about the facts that the Ranch can have any relevance today.

              Perhaps before questioning how and when to kill the Buddha symbolically we must ask ourselves what it means and why to recognize the Buddha, and if it is arrogant to defend the Master from those who want to kill him not symbolically.

              • satyadeva says:

                Veet, in my experience the people who went to Barry Long (he had no “disciples”, by the way) were not full of the same sort of sense of individual and collective superiority as was often enough the case with sannyasins, they were simply there to listen and be helped to grow spiritually. It wasn’t about belonging to a group, a sort of ‘club’ (and thereby obtaining an ‘alternative social identity) at all, it was (and is) an individual thing. And therefore obviously was never going to be prone to suffer the sort of crises that are often the fate of large, communal-type movements like Sannyas.

                Whether the Ranch might have succeeded long-term without such a ‘fascistic’ regime, who knows? Given the obvious difficulties of the local (and national) political environments which ensured it was always going to be a struggle.

                But with a more sensible approach from the start to the entire legal, social and political situation they’d at least have stood a better chance, the appalling attitude towards the Antelope residents being a telling example. That’s why I say arrogance was a major cause of its failure, together with a sort of naive, misplaced ‘blind faith’ that surely nothing could possibly go wrong with Bhagwan around, including, of course, the regime he himself had authorised.

                Nevertheless, if it helped people, eg Dyanand Robbins, to see through such foolishness and false notions, then much was gained, hopefully a more mature attitude towards and relationship with Osho and the Sannyas collective, even if for some that might have included leaving him altogether.

                Because the bottom line of spiritual life is surely individual responsibility, that in both the inner and outer realms each has got to do what he/she has to do, and take the consequences. (Including, of course, whether to defend the Master from any murderous attack, where I agree “arrogance” is not actually the point at all, although it certainly played its part in creating the situation).

                • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                  Thank you, Satyadeva, I reflect on what you wrote.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Barry Long had no disciples…but he had five girlfriends on the go at once, is that right? Also, he was so Australian and casual in his approach, perhaps too laid back.

                  I know a few Aussies and they are so laid back about everything, but Barry was like, “Well, good day mate, stop thinking, now. Just do it now. Have a can of Fosters and stop thinking now.”

                  And people were like, “Well, what, no instructions, no methods? Isn`t he going to talk about oneness or anything?”

                • shantam prem says:

                  I don’t know a single person who has washed away Osho and his commune’ s impressions though many have tried their best to sit like dodos before this and that.

                • satyadeva says:

                  A more ill-informed, prejudiced description would be hard to find, SS. Perhaps you’re ‘on the wind-up’ and if so, you’re being rather silly. Assuming you actually mean it all, here’s a few comments:

                  “…so Australian and casual in his approach, perhaps too laid back” applies precisely to this post of yours! One thing BL wasn’t was “casual” or “too laid back”, quite the contrary in fact. This remark alone is enough to indicate you simply don’t know who you’re talking about, which doesn’t exactly serve anyone or anything, does it?

                  I well recall him lambasting some sannyasins (perhaps you were one of them?) who exhibited that sort of attitude although he respected everyone who was prepared to truly commit themselves to any genuine path, including Sannyas and, despite various criticisms, viewed Osho as “a great master”, even saying once that he and Osho weren’t ‘enemies’, although very different, but were “working together” in a much wider context (like all real masters, apparently). Half-heartedness he couldn’t stand, neither people who ‘used’ Sannyas’ as a sort of ‘club’.

                  As I said before, you seem to have not really bothered to listen to the ‘How to Stop Thinking’ talk, so these latest remarks appear like gratuitous, snidey bullshine, frankly. “And people were like…” – yes, of course they were. Unfortunately, however, you haven’t heard from enough of them to form a credible sample (see my previous post about this).

                  Oh yes, the “five girlfriends on the go” – in his later years, after two marriages and children, by the way. Have you any idea what the point of that was? Done any research, perhaps? Spoken to any of the women concerned?Or has the term ‘tantric master’ activated certain ‘can’t-fool-me’, ‘educated-by-tabloid’ buttons, not to mention any stray puritanical buttons (masquerading as know-it-all scepticism) in a follower of “the sex guru”?!

                  I’ve not forgotten about your Lennon post – will respond soon.

                • swamishanti says:

                  You know Barry Long much better than I do, I never went to any of his meetings, I only listened to one of his tapes.

                  Actually, I remember now, I actually recorded over that tape with a mix of deep ambient recordings that was being played on a pirate radio station, and I remember that the tape sounded quite good because it had a sample of Barry Long speaking right at the beginning from the old recording, which my friends found amusing when I played that session.

                  I also remember reading an article by Barry Long in one of the early black and white editions of Kindred Spirit magazine, which also featured pages on Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Michael Barnett and Paul Lowe (Swami Anand Teertha) who at that time was talking about connecting with extra-terrestials.

                  But Teertha/Paul Lowe also thought that he was enlightened and wrote a letter to Osho stating that “Now we are doing the same work, I am just doing it on a smaller scale”, which Osho recalled in a discourse and said that Teertha wasn’t enlightened.

                • satyadeva says:

                  “You know Barry Long much better than I do, I never went to any of his meetings, I only listened to one of his tapes.”

                  Ok, SS, so your previous post today was like “killing the buddha” that you barely had anything to do with, let alone knew. A bit of a waste of time and energy, some might say ‘indulging the self’ (or ‘ego’ in sannyas language).

                  And then you imply a similar lack of authenticity between BL and Teertha, on the most specious grounds. You really haven’t a leg of your own to stand on.

                • swamishanti says:

                  SD, you are getting defensive of BL again. I wasn’t implying a lack of authenticity of Barry Long, or comparing him to Teertha, as you presume, rather just remembering the early editions of ‘Kindred Spirit’ magazine which featured both of them.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Ok, Swami Innocent.

      • Parmartha says:

        I liked the clip you posted of Miasto. Veet.

  6. satchit says:

    First they want to be the chosen few.
    Then they want to kill the silence of the Moon.
    Ego – always ready to change clothes.

    • satyadeva says:

      You seem to have misunderstood the article, Satchit. The Ranch experience has not led him to “to kill the silence of the Moon”, but to see through his dependency and his expectations, and in the light of that insight to instead “find the Master within” – and with gratitude for all he’s received. Seems like maturity to me, rather than “ego” changing its “clothes”.

      • satchit says:

        SD, the writer talks too much of “we”, in my opinion.

        So what does he want to tell us? That now we all shall kill the buddha? And who else than the ego wants to kill?

        But as usual, we have different opinions, SD, I guess.

        • satyadeva says:

          Well, Satchit, using the word “kill” is probably an unfortunate choice. ‘Let go’ would be better, make the meaning clearer, I expect, as in ‘let go of dependence on and expectations of’.

          But ok, you might have a point re his over-use of “we” rather than “I”.

          • satchit says:

            Yes, SD; “Let go” is better.
            But even the let-go, you cannot ‘do’.

            I’m just reading Devageet’s book. Funny that Osho had a car accident because of driving too fast. One should think being super-conscious this cannot happen, but it happened.

            No, Osho was not perfect. Not perfect as a car driver and also not perfect with Sheela.

            • satyadeva says:

              “Funny that Osho had a car accident because of driving too fast. One should think being super-conscious this cannot happen, but it happened.”

              Why is this strange, Satchit? Such a concept of ‘enlightenment’ is old hat. Being ‘super-conscious’ doesn’t imply being super-competent, let alone merely competent, in any outer activity. Why expect such a person to do anything, eg use a computer, repair a car, play table tennis, cook a meal, or even appoint a secretary, without making any mistakes?

              • satchit says:

                So what do you suggest, SD?
                That careful driving is only for the unenlightened ones?

                And if one is enlightened and last life on earth, no problem with accidents.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Strange question, Satchit! In such worldly activities all are equal, so why have expectations for either ‘enlightened’ or the 99.99999999% (approx.) rest of us.

                  As for “no problem with accidents”, I expect I’d disagree, as they’re probably not that stupid!

              • swamishanti says:

                Osho really did begin to realise he had made a mistake with Sheela, and that it was time to leave the US, well before Sheela left.

                According to the sannyasin who designed Osho`s fancy oufits on the Ranch, Veena, Osho called his previous secretary, little Ma Laxmi, to his trailer and asked her to leave Rajneeshpuram and go and look for a new commune site back in India.

                • satyadeva says:

                  According to Veena (who also ran, quite superbly, the first European Sannyas Centre in Bell Street, London, in the early 70s) this meeting occurred as early as within the first 18 months of the beginning of the Ranch, but she doesn’t say Osho was unhappy with Sheela (nor, to be fair, that he was happy with her – although Veena most definitely wasn’t, describing her as “the quintessence of Evil”, an impression she’d had from the start).

                  Veena writes:
                  Laxmi “didn’t elaborate much but the inference was that he was not happy being in the USA and wanted to go back to India as soon as possible.”

                  She recalls Osho’s dismay on arriving at the Ranch: “Where are the trees?” he enquired.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Veena with Osho and Dr Shyam Singha in 1972:

    • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

      Hey, Satchit,
      Yes, it’s very, very beautiful to meet a Presence in a human form, to give you more than just a feeling you are very much appreciated as you are and more so, acknowledged in your very uniqueness, a ´chosen one´, for the moment being.
      There´s no doubt about it.

      If you are not a priestess BOT you will know that too; and maybe now denying it in full blast arrogance, you often come along here with with one of your favourite few-liners.

      To become acquainted with Silence (won´t speak of ´moon´ just now) after having short or longer glimpses on what that really is or can be, may take a lifetime.

      To drop your second statement means, in my eyes, to drop any priesthood kind of stuff re shame and guilt or also deep pain (about some or other broken ´silence´) and just get ordinary: sometimes silent, sometimes in Silence, sometimes not at all.

      Takes intention and what we used to call “effortless-effort”.
      “Ego”, you say, “always ready to change clothes.”


      Mine – and yours included too – do so.
      Mine is just now putting on a response ´costume´.

      Kids outside are playing ´move-it´ – with their roller blades equipment.
      It´s warm outside; my window´s open, and on my short trip to fetch some veggies and have a beer in a beer garden*, I´ve seen the buds on the branches of the huge chestnut trees like a promise soon to unfold their big five-finger leaves and the the beauty of the blossoming, one does not know yet if pink or white. But they re gonna be big (one calls them ´candles’, as you are German, you know that).
      We just have to wait.

      *´Katie´, the waitress in the garden, didn´t like to serve me, and honestly showed up with that – finally decided to ask for my wishes (I´m not at all a regular there)…some faint resemblance of a ´smile´ I got, when I gave a generous tip….

      • satchit says:

        “If you are not a priestess BOT you will know that too; and maybe now denying it in full blast arrogance, you often come along here with with one of your favourite few-liners.”

        Madhu, you often give me the impression that you have problems with male energy.

        Arrogance? Sannyasins did often think they are the chosen few, saviours of mankind, the new man coming. This I call arrogance. Not much humility.

        The result is some WWC-spectacle*, people can watch.

        *WWC-spectacle – ‘Wild Wild Country’

  7. shantam prem says:

    It is nice prose. I hope writer gives the name and face to his words.
    Also, I would like to know from the writer, have you earned some extra brownies by being loner on the path?

    There are people who never try again after the abortion. Someone in the couple even goes for vasectomy not to have the bad experience again. Majority tries again and leave behind children and grandchildren. There cannot be one size fits for all solutions.

    Moreover, the man who has seen his vision city being crushed did not withdraw in forest, and created again a kind of global village from the ashes of the past.

    Anyway, the style of prose is very much influenced by the prevailing western understanding about life. It has to be. One cannot live on the incompatible values. Neo-Sannyas and West do not fit. Once the architect died, building collapsed!

  8. shantam prem says:

    Let me say it bluntly, Bhagwan has to be blamed also for giving green light to a city very much sounding Indian in the most developed country very much rooted in Christian echoes. The wise master, well-read master, creates blunder by being over-ambitious and Secretary gets all the blame.

    Do we want to prove Cosmic Intelligence can get hacked by the whims of any Enlightened being, be it ABC or XYZ?


    • shantam prem says:

      What I want to say is Cosmic Intelligence favours no one and forgives no one´s mistakes. There is no immunity for anyone from the laws of life.

      If it is not so, it will be very easy to destroy the chaotic yet very orderly system comprising of vast, vast, unfathomable universe.

  9. Arpana says:

    Part of the reason people still mull over and explore and discuss what happened at the Ranch is because it was such a foundational time in our Sannyas lives, as individuals and collectively:

    If someone took Sannyas in 1974 they were only eight or nine Sannyas years old when all that was going on. For those people who took Sannyas during that time they were babies.
    For those of us who took Sannyas at the end of the 70s, we were still very much in the formative years of coming to grips with being involved with Osho and Sannyas; and forget not in those days that meant wearing the mala and red clothes, and using the strange names we had to accommodate to, and that was challenging. (Well, obviously not to the special people who post here who were above such things).

    The past is a treasure trove to be explored from which we may learn, meditation being very helpful in such endeavours; but on the other hand, the past is threatening to those who don’t meditate, to whom it becomes a black morass that they may drown in.

    Who doesn’t reflect on the past sometimes? (Well, obviously there are people who post here who were above such things, but I’m talking about normal, everyday human beings, who reflect on their lives and try and make sense of what’s gone on).

    In my view, everything that happened during those times happened because of meditation, not despite meditation, intensified by all the massive triggering that was going on. And obviously that doesn’t apply to the special people who are involved with Sannyas News, just us ordinary chaps and lasses.

    • sw. veet (francesco) says:

      Do not throw yourself down, Arpana, if this time the special people of SN will not send you a cheque in pounds; as soon as we have an Italian national bank I will send you one with my signature, in lire.

      • Arpana says:

        Should be:
        You can invite me to Italy instead of sending me lira.

        • sw. veet (francesco) says:

          I would gladly do it, Arpana, as soon as I have my own place worthy for a guest like you. If Parmartha also comes we will already be 3, at that point I could not even invite Lokesh, Shantam and Frank (& friends).

          But at that point how not to ask the girls to join the manly group? Then Kavita, Madhu and Tan (& friends).

          But…before, in order not to appear boringly nostalgic, we have to ask Satyadeva what is the minimum number of sannyasins that constitutes a club, with related mechanisms of identification and arrogance.

          • satyadeva says:

            Mmmm, what a fascinating question, Veet…one that might take many hours to provide an adequate answer – but sorry, I have better things to do.

            Now you have the requisite tools for an analysis, why not see for yourself, in real life rather than mere theory (if you’re really that interested)?

            • sw. veet (francesco) says:

              I joke, Satyadeva, you too would be on my list, with all my heart.

              I wonder if your condemnation of the alternative social model proposed in the communes of Osho is due to aspects like needing ‘vital space’, invasions or promiscuity; if then you have the same criticism about co-housing, which challenges, on a reduced scale, the traditional family convention too.

              • satyadeva says:

                I don’t have much of an opinion about all that, Veet, primarily because it’s outside my experience. Like anything else, if it works for some people then fine. If it doesn’t work for others, fine too. Experience is what counts, not theories.

                • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                  Satyadeva, when you spoke in an apodictic* tone of an arrogant club it sounds that you expressed more a judgment than a theory supported by experiences, because experiences still have to be organized through theories.

                  In case you may have met a Japanese woman, even at the Ranch, perhaps the same woman you met in Tuscany would still be a gratuitous opinion to conclude that you are persecuted by an Asian woman…eventually, in these cases the family constellation does miracles.

                  *apodictic – beyond dispute

                • satyadeva says:

                  No need to over-complicate things, Veet, I’ve been in and around ‘sannyas circles’ (going around in circles, some might say) for around 45 years so I do speak from some experience.

                  And “persecuted by an Asian woman”? – that’s your imagination working overtime!

    • satyadeva says:

      “In my view, everything that happened during those times happened because of meditation, not despite meditation, intensified by all the massive triggering that was going on.”

      I don’t understand this point. What exactly do you mean here, Arpana? Especially as formal meditation was very much second to the work at the Ranch, wasn’t it?

  10. sw. veet (francesco) says:

    Wow, 45 years!
    And you have not lost hope yet, if you go on to stay among the Osho addicts, “once arrogant, always arrogant”.

Leave a Reply