Osho as the Spiritual Friend

Nitya Prem reflects on the changing relationship between Osho and his sannyasins.

Perhaps it would be good if we sannyasins talked about how we have related to Osho over the years, because it hasn’t always been the same. Osho once said there was no relationship between him and his sannyasins, that it was one-sided and only from their side. Yet he talked quite a few times in discourses about the master-disciple relationship. He created this great distance, as if he had gone through stages of evolution that we had no knowledge of.

But one day, during the World Tour, he changed direction: he no longer cast himself as the master but instead talked about being the spiritual friend. He said this about it:

“The distinction between a disciple and a friend has two sides to it. First, from the side of the master it has happened. I don’t have any disciples anymore. You can relax.

From the disciples’ side it is going differently for different people. A few are relaxed — the transformation has taken place. A few are getting to be relaxed; a few are thinking to relax.

A few are unwillingly accepting the idea because to be a disciple was better: the master was responsible. Now the whole responsibility is thrown on you — and nobody wants to be responsible. Everybody wants to get rid of responsibility. There are a few who have not even heard it. They have listened to me, but it has not reached to their hearts. They still remain disciples.” (Osho, ‘Light on the Path’)

Later on, when he was giving the ‘Beyond Psychology’ lectures, someone asked a question about it, and he said it was for the therapists and the people who wanted to feel themselves as his equals. Certainly for Indian followers I think it must have come as a shock. Even for westerners, who had struggled to get used to having a Master, it was a big change to now be told ‘it’s all about spiritual friends.’

In a way, Osho was always more my “spiritual friend” than anything else. I rarely saw him as a Master, it never felt quite right although I managed to be quite surrendered a few times. It was a relationship of the heart, as he said, and nothing more was needed. For me he was a beloved, not that different from a parent or other family. So for me to see Osho change the relationship like that seemed just an acknowledgement of what had always been so.

It seems more appropriate to see that Osho is the spiritual friend to many, than for him and the sannyasins to try and carry on more traditional master-disciple roles, which were often used by more traditional gurus in small groups. What Osho tried was something different, closer to what the Buddha did with his public sermons and teachings, not really the traditional Indian model of the guru.

In the end I don’t think it truly matters, whether one wishes to see Osho as the Master or as the guru or as a spiritual friend, for those who loved him. He was there to shine his wisdom on us, and through his books and discourses he still does.

How did you relate to Osho?

 


This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

153 Responses to Osho as the Spiritual Friend

  1. swamishanti says:

    I think Osho first mentioned that he was a ‘friend’ sometime in Rajneeshpuram.

    During the World Tour, Vivek (Nirvano), asked Osho a question about this:

    Question 1:
    BELOVED OSHO,
    FOR SOME TIME NOW YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT YOU ARE OUR FRIEND AND WE ARE FRIENDS. I’M HAVING DIFFICULTY IN TRULY GETTING IT.
    OSHO, TO ME YOU ARE MY MOST BELOVED MASTER. PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE I AM MISSING.

    The question is from Vivek.
    I can understand her difficulty.
    The same will be the difficulty of all those who have come close to me, loved me, received me in their hearts as a master.

    I have been saying that I am your friend, and you are my friend for a very strange reason that may not be obvious to you. There was another question from Milarepa — why are a few sannyasins feeling very resentful towards you, angry with you?

    This has been an historical thing, that amongst disciples there are always a few who are accidental. The wind was blowing this way and they arrived. They saw a tremendous energy in the disciples, and they became greedy. But it was not a search for truth, it was not a search for love; it was simple greed. They also wanted to be spiritually powerful.

    They became sannyasins, they became disciples, but the distance between me and them remained the same. They could never become my intimate people. They could never become my people. Even though they were with me, deep down they were resentful, angry. I wanted them to drop their resentfulness, to drop their anger. It was not my problem, it was their problem, and I wanted to help them in every possible way.

    It was for this simple reason that I had said, “I am your friend, you are my friend.” Those who were not really with me were immensely happy that now their status and my status was the same.
    These were the people that I wanted to get rid of as peacefully, as lovingly as possible.

    So I can understand Vivek’s difficulty. She has been for sixteen years with me. When she came she was only twenty years old; now she is thirty-six, almost twice the age. And all these sixteen years, day in, day out, she has been taking care of me with as much love as possible, with a deep devotion. It is difficult for her to think of herself as being a friend. It would not be a gain to her, it would be a loss. Those who have understood the joy and the celebration of being a disciple, of being in love with a master, will all feel the same: that to be a friend is nothing compared to it; everything is lost. To be a friend becomes formal.

    So those who were really with me have been shaken, hurt, and those who were not really with me have been tremendously happy. Just by me calling you my friend, you do not achieve the state in which I am. If it was so easy I would have called the whole world my friend, and they all would have come to the same state.

    Milarepa’s question is concerned with it. After the American government destroyed the commune, illegally but systematically — it was a criminal act against human consciousness and its evolution — people had to leave the commune. Now, a few of these people are feeling resentful; that simply means they were around me for a certain reason.

    But, Vivek, you need not be worried about it. Those who love me, those who know me, know perfectly well that I am their master, and they have traveled a long way with me, in devotion and love. And of course, it is impossible for them at any moment — even if they become enlightened — to call me a friend. That will be simply ungratefulness.

    And I know that is the situation of many hearts — but only those hearts who have learned to love a master.
    All those egoist people were pretending to be disciples. I did not want to hurt them, so the best, the graceful way was that I declared: you are my friends, and I give you total freedom. And they accepted immediately, joyously, not knowing what they were accepting. They were free… they met me; now they are again free, in the same position.
    They have lost something, but they think their egos have gained something. Whenever the ego gains, you are the loser.

    As far as reality is concerned, those who were real disciples are still disciples — even if they become enlightened, they will not lose their disciplehood. In fact, they have attained to the ultimate of disciplehood. Their gratitude and their love towards the master is not less but more than ever.

    Osho: ‘Beyond Psychology’ #24 ‘Whenever the ego gains, you are the loser.’

    • Nityaprem says:

      Here Osho is saying to Vivek, it’s fine, you can still see me as the master. I can see that he would say that, to her and to the other close disciples who were present. But at the same time it’s a bit of a double message, when he wants to tell some disciples that he is just the spiritual friend.

      There is an argument for saying, on the spiritual path it is good to be able to surrender. At the same time, life has taught me, people who want to portray themselves as your master shouldn’t be trusted. It is definitely one reason why I am more comfortable with Osho as the spiritual friend.

  2. Lokesh says:

    NP refers to Osho’s World Tour. I regard the ‘World Tour’ idea as a remarkable piece of spin. It makes it sound like Osho went on a relaxed global sojourn spreading the word when in reality his world tour was not something he chose. It was imposed on him because he was persona non grata in many countries and denied entry visas all over the world. The American air force tailed him as he bounced around the globe like a ball bearing in a pinball machine. How nuts is that? People in high places saw him as a threat. Hardly surprising, taking into account that the majority of those people were utterly stupid.

    Throughout this period, the old boy kept his cool and did what he was skilled at, delivering discourses and affecting his people in a positive way. Osho returned to India, not because he wanted to but because it was one of the only remaining options open to him.

    As was often the case, Osho changed his tune to suit his circumstances. Before the Ranch, Osho described America as the place where Zen would flower. After the Ranch fiasco, he watered that down a bit. “I love America. I love the people of America, I love the land of America, but I certainly hate the American government, the bureaucracy. It is the most fascist government on the earth today, pretending to be democratic. It is deceiving the whole world, and it is deceiving its own people. I would like this government to go down the drain.”

    No wonder he was forced to go on a world tour.

    • dominic says:

      Without your reality checks, Lokesh, SN would be drifting into La La land in a sea of spin amongst the faithful.
      As you say he “changed his tune to suit his circumstances.”

      After the debacle in Oregon, he went for a rebrand, a marketing strategy to break from the past, changing the name to Osho and changing the message to “friend” from “master”, even a short dabbling with people wearing normal clothes.

      Calling America “fascist” was the pot calling the kettle black, precisely what was created on the Ranch under his watch.

      Religious freedom is a big deal in America, it’s the first amendment. Most of the usual suspects from the East have found a home there, and they weren’t goody-goody either: TM, Buddhist groups, Hindu groups, Hare Krishnas, 3HO etc, with many communes formed.

      Understandably, domestic terrorism and all the other shenanigans was just a step too far for the authorities, and they wanted rid of him. The memory of the Jonestown mass murder-suicide, in November ’78, couldn’t have been too far from people’s minds.

    • Nityaprem says:

      You’re not entirely wrong, Lokesh, the idea of the ‘World Tour’ was a bit of a euphemism for a very unsettled time where Osho was forced to move from country to country.

      But Osho wasn’t entirely wrong about the US government either, they pursued him like they’ve seldom pursued anyone except maybe Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. They exerted influence all over the globe to get governments to keep their countries closed to him, for very little reason, they were never able to convict him of a crime. And along the way, a lot of countries who thought they were independent found out that actually they were so dependent on American loans and aid that they had no choice but to toe the line.

      Still, if you read some of the books that came out of that period, like ‘Beyond Psychology’ and ‘Beyond Enlightenment’, they were pretty interesting.

  3. swamishanti says:

    Dominic wrote:

    “After the debacle in Oregon, he went for a rebrand, a marketing strategy to break from the past, changing the name to Osho and changing the message to “friend” from “master”, even a short dabbling with people wearing normal clothes.”

    Perhaps Dominic is developing dementia or has forgotten the facts. Or been replaced by an AI clone.

    Osho didn’t change his name from Bhagwan to Osho until 1989, when he had been settled back in India for over three years.

    And at first it was ‘Osho Rajneesh’. I still have old Poona Two ashram tapes of his talks from the early ‘90s with pretty multicoloured labels with his photo and ‘Osho Rajneesh’ written over the blacked out old name of ‘Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh’.

    All visitors to Osho centres certainly know who ‘Osho Rajneesh’ is and, ‘Osho Rajneesh’ is a commonly used term to describe Osho in India, where there are millions of fans.
    In fact, quite a few Indian parents have named their children ‘Rajneesh’ after Osho.

    “Calling America “fascist” was the pot calling the kettle black, precisely what was created on the Ranch under his watch.”

    Rajneehpuram became a fascist state under Sheela, and this was encouraged for a while by Osho, but it is clear that after he broke his public silence and began speaking in 1984, Osho was encouraging people to rise up against the regime. He also told sannyasins that he ‘would never leave them under a fascist regime’, during a talk shortly after he began speaking again in 1984, the tape of that particular discourse quickly hidden by Sheela’s management and destroyed, as multiple witnesses will testify. A couple of weeks later, after rumours grew in the commune that one of Osho’s talks had been censored, the management produced a transcript of the discourse, which was redacted and had several passages and sentences removed including the “fascist regime” part.

    Sheela was uncomfortable when Osho started speaking again because she knew that Osho talking again would mean the end of her hold on power. And with Osho speaking, she began to spend more and more time abroad where she could enjoy celebrity status, and eventually grew fed up with the Ranch and Osho and left in 1985, taking with her $50 million salted away in a Swiss bank account. She was never a surrendered disciple.

    Osho called the US government fascist while he was still in Oregon and strongly provoked the right-wing Christian fundamentalists. He also said he was an anarchist in one of the talks in 1985.

    “Religious freedom is a big deal in America, it’s the first amendment. Most of the usual suspects from the East have found a home there, and they weren’t goody-goody either: TM, Buddhist groups, Hindu groups, Hare Krishnas, 3HO etc, with many communes formed. “

    These are all conventional religious groups, with all the regular brainwashing that comes with the package, completely unthreatening to the establishment. Quite different to Osho.

    “Understandably, domestic terrorism and all the other shenanigans was just a step too far for the authorities, and they wanted rid of him.”

    No, they wanted rid of him as soon as they got there, in fact there are files which demonstrate that the US government was concerned about it as soon as they heard of Osho’s visa application in 1981.

    • dominic says:

      The faith militant (aka Swamishanti) says,

      “Osho didn’t change his name from Bhagwan to Osho until 1989, when he had been settled back in India for over three years.
      And at first it was ‘Osho Rajneesh’”

      It may have taken a little time, with all the the rebranding and logistics that would have been necessary on books, marketing, etc.
      I posit that it wouldn’t have happened without the Ranch.

      “Rajneehpuram became a fascist state under Sheela, and this was encouraged for a while by Osho”

      So you’re agreeing with me.
      Encouraged and under his watch, the buck stops there.

      “Osho called the US government fascist while he was still in Oregon and strongly provoked the right wing Christian fundamentalists. He also said he was an anarchist in one of the talks in 1985.”

      Going to another country, and provoking and insulting your hosts and their traditions, is a pretty dumb move, I would say. You reap what you sow.

      “These are all goody goody conventional religious groups”

      Only superficially, within their bubbles there was/is plenty of devilry with sexual abuse, paedophilia, drugs, murder, armed guards, money-making, lawsuits etc
      They just played the game a bit better, putting Sheela in charge was just too much of a liability.

      As far as A1 cloning goes, I think the future looks bright for Shanti. A self-realized biological Osho xenobot to surrender to, and a virtual commune filled only with the faithful, seems to be on the cards in the near future!

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2021/11/29/ai-just-designed-the-worlds-first-robot-organism-that-can-make-babies/

      • Nityaprem says:

        Dominic said, “Going to another country, and provoking and insulting your hosts and their traditions, is a pretty dumb move, I would say. You reap what you sow.”

        Quite correct, Dominic.

        • swamishanti says:

          He did provoke – as he had done in India.

          But in the US a Christian anti-cult group – yes, they had long forgotten that they were also labelled a cult and persecuted (in days gone by) was fighting against the presence of the City.

          And conservative Christian fundamentalists in the Reagan Government were keen to get Osho out. Not the mention the director of the CIA, William Casey, a religious Roman Catholic who had strong connections to Cardinal Ratzinger and the Vatican, who was said to be keen to get Osho deported.

          Those were not the same type of Christians who had written to the US government in support of Osho in 1983.

          Surrounded by bigoted Christians it wasn’t surprising that he went over the top on Christianity when he started speaking again, as well as hammering the politicians as he always did.

      • satchit says:

        Dominic, you sound like an onlooker, who judges from the outside.

        I guess you never did take Sannyas.
        Is it so?

        • dominic says:

          Satchit, you’ve tried Sannyas, Zen, Advaita and many other things no doubt, but have you tried…

          https://youtu.be/O1JZ8Ri7OHc

          • satchit says:

            I asked you.

            Seems you are a coward.

            A simple “No, I have never been but I talk a lot about it” would be enough.

            • dominic says:

              Satchit, you sound like someone hiding behind passive aggressive questions.
              Is it so?

              “Seems you are a coward.”

              Out comes the aggression behind your question. I don’t bother answering such loaded, insincere questions that don’t interest me.
              Seems you are a coward.
              Instead of bothering to argue a point, and never writing more than one or two short lines, while feeding off others’ output, you attempt veiled but transparent personal attacks, as your way of disagreeing.

              • satchit says:

                Oh, now he is not only a coward but a parrot too!

                Dom, don’t you think there is a difference if one is part
                of a movement or one only talks intellectually from a distance about a movement?

              • satchit says:

                Dom, you surprise me, seems you are not only a coward, but a parrot too!

                Don’t you think the view is different if one is part of a movement or not?

                • dominic says:

                  “Don’t you think the view is different if one is part of a movement or not?”

                  In your case, Satchit, you will still be bird-brained, only now you look in the mirror infatuated with yourself.

            • Lokesh says:

              One of the reasons I rarely respond to Satchit’s trite comments is that, over time, he has proved himself to be a conceited man who can easily turn quite nasty as his reaction to this comment will probably reveal. Bird shit for brains.

              • satchit says:

                But, Luke, over time you must know that I don’t talk with frustrated Ex-sannyasins!

                • dominic says:

                  “you must know that I don’t talk”

                  We know that!
                  It’s called ‘squawking’ – making a discordant noise, flying around aimlessly, with lots of preening, perching on pirates, and soiling your bird cage.

  4. dominic says:

    “Perhaps it would be good if we sannyasins…”

    Perhaps it would be good if we looked at this antiquated model of Sannyas, that some dinosaurs- ‘Sannyasinauri’- from the Cretinaceous era are still roaring about!

    There are a plethora of evolutionary quotes from Osho, too many to mention, except to say, that by his lights the ‘true’ Sannyasins are the outlaws who don’t proclaim it, turning it into an egoic identity and club membership.

    Feel free, dinos, to stamp your paws, waggle your claws, make your rawrs and disagree, it’s more fun that way!
    Ok, a couple of quotes from a list of hundreds…

    “A sannyasin need not be officially one. Any seeker, anyone in search of truth is a sannyasin. And a sannyasin need not be mine. A sannyasin is not a follower, but at the most a fellow traveler. If you are seeking and searching for the truth, the meaning and significance of life, it is enough.”

    “My effort is to take away all traditions, orthodoxies, superstitions, beliefs, from your mind so that you can attain a state of no-mind…the ultimate state of silence, where not even a thought moves. Not even a ripple in the lake of your consciousness…And the whole thing has to be done by you. I am not saying that “Just follow me. I am the saviour. I will save you.” All that is crap. Nobody can save you, except yourself. And the spiritual independence is the only independence worth calling independence.”

    https://neosannyas.org/osho-on-neo-sannyas/

    • Nityaprem says:

      Very funny, “sannyasinauri from the cretinaceous period”. I like it, can I be a Sannyasinaurus Rex?

      But it’s true that Osho talked a lot about sannyas and what it meant, the ‘friend’ episode was only the most visible of many. Interesting link too, Dominic, it will take me a while to read through all of those quotes.

      • dominic says:

        “can I be a Sannyasinaurus Rex?”
        Of course you can, you need a big heart, small brain, a large p*n*s, and an extraordinary ability to celebrate, even when the shit hits the fan and you’re surrounded by FBI agents.

        • Nityaprem says:

          That’s me out then, I have quite a large brain and a 146 IQ. Although these days the mind is remarkably empty.

          Tell me, are Sannyasinauri feathered dinosaurs?

          • dominic says:

            Just fake it till you make it!
            Large brain, small mind is perfect, you are highly gifted, 146 IQ is 0.13% of the population. The reverse (small brain, large mind) is a little unfortunate.

            I was going to say the main ‘entry’ requirement and gold standard for Sannyasinauri initiation, is a large p*n*s to help with all the dates you’ll be making, which as a tall dutch man is probably a given, but thought better of it.

            Do you have feathers then? Not to worry we’re not on Zoom, with your IQ you’re can’t be feather-brained . . . apparently. Just ignore all the comments on SN to the contrary.
            A lot of Dinos did have feathers and then morphed into little tweety birds.

            Hope that helps

    • Lokesh says:

      Yes, quite so, Dominic. I have to agree with your above comment. I don’t see the stuckosauri as dinosaurs because they behave more like creepy crawlies.

      • dominic says:

        Fair point, I may have bigged them up too much!

        The itsy-bitsy Satchitacanus Nanotritus will try and sting you, for no apparent reason, best keep some insect repellent nearby.

        Their ancestors though, the Megastuckosauri, were gigantic, fanatical and deadly, and still exist in some parts of the world.

  5. dominic says:

    SN is a bit of a ghost town, with slim pickings on a few stragglers worth antagonising.

    Women are almost unheard of here, perhaps we need more Osho weight loss and Osho celebrity gossip.

    These days the ‘New Man’ has a vaginoplasty and gets pregnant.

    Are these signs of the end times approaching?

  6. Lokesh says:

    Strangely, over 6,000 visitors have checked out the SN site during the past month. Mind you, this might have to do with Satchit’s fan base in the Amazon jungle, where millions of parrots squawk all day and night owls hoot at the finger pointing at the moon in June.

  7. Lokesh says:

    I can smell frankincense rising off SN. Has there been an exorcism?

  8. Lokesh says:

    I…I…I think we might be becoming…erm…famous. Over 8,000 visits today. Will we receive royalties?

  9. Nityaprem says:

    “Truth is greater than all the parts joined together. It is not just the sum of the parts, it is greater than the parts. A melody is not just the sum of all the notes, of all the sounds…I am speaking to you: you can dissect my words, they will all be found in a dictionary, but you won’t find me in a dictionary.”
    (Osho, ‘The Mustard Seed’)

  10. satchit says:

    “How did you relate to Osho?”

    It is not a question of the past, it is always of the present.

    Today lives no dinosaur.

    • Nityaprem says:

      So, do you relate to him through books, Satchit? Do you read Osho’s words, or listen to his discourses, and which series?

      Or do you feel his presence “working on you”? The people who feel they are sensitive enough to be mediums seem to report this.

      Reading Osho’s discourses is a bit like reliving that part of history, a lot of topics of the day come up, like the Third World War, which people today don’t think about so much anymore but in the 1980s was still in people’s minds.

      The war in Ukraine seems to be a bit of a throwback, a big armed conflict on Europe’s doorstep in a time where people had hoped the world’s leaders had moved beyond such a thing.

      • satchit says:

        When I am in the mood then I read something in his books.
        Often inspiration happens.

        Lately it was “Fighting Cocks” from ‘When The Shoe Fits’.

        Basically it is a kind of mirroring what happens beyond words.
        Like you watch the sunset.

        We live in a world of change, so certainly war happens, peace happens.
        Yin – Yang.

  11. satchit says:

    Hmm, there is a changeless in all of us, call it ‘soul’. Meeting a master this soul is triggered.

    The soul is the silence in the storm, in the changing.

    Oh, now, they will call me ‘parrot’ again!

    Ha ha.

  12. Lokesh says:

    The problem that Satchit’s comments pose for SN is that they will put any discerning reader off commenting on this site.

    Take me as an example. When I wish to have a break from work, SN is one of my top five sites to visit. I’ve enjoyed this site for years. Unfortunately, most of my favourite commenters no longer bother posting here, and I can understand why.

    As soon as I read one of Satchit’s cliched and uninspired statements, I groan inwardly and wonder how someone can be so dumbed down as to post such utter shite. I don’t feel I am alone in feeling and thinking this. In a nutshell, it puts me off.

    I’m not very social at the moment, but I still hang out with friends from time to time, and the common denominator among my friends is that they are all either intelligent, running on a positive vibe, or are coming from the heart. I do not view Satchit as being host to any of those human characteristics.

    If I were to ask Satchit anything it would be the following: How can you continue to write such trite nonsense when it has been made abundantly clear to you that your comments just don’t cut the mustard?

    • satchit says:

      Thanks for you comments, Lokesh.
      They are very welcome.

      I even celebrate them.
      The argument that people don’t come because of me is funny.

      Fact is that SS already said that sannyasins don’t come because of you.
      So he has the copyright, you are only parroting him.

      It is what is.

    • dominic says:

      To be fair, like many other great Zen Masters, I think Satchit’s nonsensical, seemingly meaningless and mindless lines are designed to provoke ‘Kensho’ (sudden enlightenment) by breaking normal brain functioning and making you as as empty-headed as as he is.

      In fact, I anticipate his sayings of pure thoughtlessness becoming another feather-brained SN bestseller, ‘Zen And the Art Of Parrot Droppings – A Complete Idiot’s Guide.’

  13. dominic says:

    NP re-imagines Osho as a “spiritual friend”.

    Well, I can’t call him my master, I’m not a dog.
    I can’t call him my Guru, I’m not into that s**te anymore.
    I can’t call him my friend, I never knew him as a person.
    For that reason I can’t call him a “spiritual friend” either.

    I can’t call him a ‘Presence’, that’s all ‘woo’ to me.
    In the same way Buddha, Jesus, Krishna or any Gods or Gurus aren’t a ‘presence’ in my life.
    That’s all just devotional projection, imo.

    It can be fun and I can adapt to my surroundings, get swept away and enjoy the devotional side of life, for which all these people and images are symbolic containers, but I don’t take it too seriously.

    When I go inside, I just feel a Presence, that needs no name or form or tribute or allegiance.
    So what would I call Osho?
    Maybe the modern term works – a ‘spiritual influencer’.

    If you think he’s your ‘spiritual friend’ or ‘family member’, I might smile, but inwardly I would have to substitute that with ‘imaginary spiritual friend or family member’.
    I would consider it a construction in your brain imbued with projection and emotion, the same way people imagine Jesus in their lives.

    I don’t want to diss people doing that, it has its place, but it’s not real to me, not at the essential level.

    • Nityaprem says:

      People’s experiences of the inner world vary widely, Dominic. What’s true for me may not be true for you, and vice versa.

      • dominic says:

        Yes, experiences vary, but that which lights up experience, in which all experience happens, the coming and going of ‘spiritual friends’ and the contents of your mind, is one.
        There is only one Being refracting itself through apparently separate forms, but the bottom line is awareness, and that is universal and the same.
        That is your true, unchanging, ever-present, spiritual friend.

        Isn’t this talk of a “spiritual friend” repurposed from Buddhism where it’s a big deal, “the whole of spiritual life”, mostly a male-oriented spiritual life?
        It can refer either to a teacher/student relationship or a peer relationship, I believe, kalyana mitra.
        I remember Sangharakshita of the FWBO being big on this, it served his gay grooming of young, vulnerable men well.

        In any case, in Buddha’s time and beyond, populations were small and relationships in monastic communities were up close, personal, and tribal, hardly the case today in large, impersonal movements relying mostly on videos and books, more than personal contact.

        So calling a celebrity guru, with a big following, who doesn’t know you from Adam, a friend and family member, is imo, a starry-eyed stretch, but hey, what’s in a name, if it makes you happy?

        Nevertheless,like you, I also am inspired by Osho’s words of wisdom etc., so much so that I may contradict myself tomorrow!

        • Nityaprem says:

          Perhaps it is a bit of a stretch to call Osho a “friend and a family member” but his discourses were aimed at all of us, the people sitting in front of him in the Buddha Hall. You could say we know him through his words, because he didn’t have time to be with us individually.

          Maybe in my case the birth of this feeling was down to being one of just a few kids at the Ranch. It was a special experience growing up in that, but at the same time also one which had quite a bit of aloneness. The whole thing of not being with your family but the entire Sannyasin group being a family to you didn’t entirely work. Lots of loose family ties are not a substitute for a few close ones.

          But I do recall my father occasionally smuggling a Danish to me out of the kitchen, and giving me a little pocket money in the form of these little cards with which I could buy ice creams. We weren’t rich or anything, but I still saw him every few days or so.

          Back in the Poona 1 days when Osho still gave darshans you could still have the feeling that he made time for you as a person, sitting a few feet away from him at the Chuang Tzu auditorium. Certainly my father still has the darshan book in which his meetings with Osho are chronicled.

          • dominic says:

            Someone deleted my post again.
            I can repost, mod, if necessary.

            MOD:
            Yes, please repost, Dominic, that post had only just been published and it’s not at ‘Trash’.

            • swamishanti says:

              Indeed, the site is being monitored by Christian anti-cult groups who love the negativity, CIA, different types of idiots.

              Many posts have been altered, deleted, even one of Parmartha’s replies to me from 2018 was deleted. SD doesn’t know who it is.

              • satyadeva says:

                SD can’t possibly know exactly who it is, Shanti.

                What evidence do you have for these confidently expressed statements about “Christian anti-cult groups who love the negativity, CIA, different types of idiots.”?

                Sounds rather too suspicious, verging on the paranoid. Especially as this is an ‘unofficial’ site, with a handful of regular contributors, not run by any major Sannyas organisation, toeing no particular ‘party line’. (Perhaps that’s partly what you yourself don’t like about SN, which could even be a reason for suspecting you of interfering with others’ posts – shock/horror!).

                Besides, you exaggerate the extent of the interference, as out of the thousands of posts published at SN, what would constitute “many”? Dozens? Scores? Hundreds? Thousands? Let’s be realistic, I don’t think that “many” have been harmed, nowhere near so in fact.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Not at all paranoid, SD.

                  As you yourself are most aware, just recently we have had incidents where your own comments were being altered as they went through, as well as several of Veet Francesco.
                  Those edits didn`t show up on the logs otherwise you would know who it was.

                  True, most posts have not been altered apart from some of your own moderation and sub-editing, but I have become aware over the last couple of years, from looking at older threads, that several comments I made, as well as comments of others, have disappeared from the site.

                  One of Parmartha`s replies to me has disappeared, highly critical of a Roman Catholic ‘anti-cult’ writer who was rubbing his hands with glee to find the clueluess ex-sannyasins who dominate sannyasnews, and using links for his own internet propaganda anti-Osho mission, although highly distorting parts as well as misunderstanding many things.

                  A comment which exposed innacuracies in Hugh Milne`s book, a book ghostwritten, supported and disseminated by the CIA, has disappeared.

                  I recently pointed out that a comment from a poster who appeared right after ‘WWC’, when there were lots of hits on this site and interest in Osho in the media, who made a completely absurd and false claim that Reagan had decided to `let Osho off` when he was in jail, and in fact there was lots of evidence that Osho was involved in Sheela`s crimes. That comment I noticed was altered. The poster was Prem Bubbie aka J.C Pennie, writing under a new name, a disenchanted ex-sannyasin who Dharmen banned. Years ago, sannyasins on the site used to accuse him of working for the CIA.

                  That comment has been put in Lokesh`s book, and shows up when anyone checks up the preview on Amazon. Lokesh did not want to add my comment on that thread into his book, wh ere I pointed out that comment was bullshit.

                  And other comments have disappeared.

                  “Especially as this is an ‘unofficial’ site, with a handful of regular contributors, not run by any major Sannyas organisation, toeing no particular ‘party line’.”

                  Yet I am also not following any particular `party line`. Is there a `party line`? If so, what might it be?

                  Those who are fanatical about making a religion out of no-religion, in Pune, taking all His pictures down, changing what was always written as ‘Him’ into ‘him’, intentionally not showing certain later videos and deliberately removing Osho’s entry from the vids, or those Indians who have a wish to hide Sheela`s crimes and believe she is a hero for attempting to assasinate those Westerners who lived close to him who they blame for giving him too many drugs?

                  When he himself specifically chose those people and was asking for those drugs? And even decided to publish the fact that he was experimenting with drugs in a book complete with photos ala Gurdjieff.

                  MOD:

                  Strangely, I don’t recall other comments of mine being altered, but maybe that’s my 75 year-old memory playing tricks.

                  We’ll soon be taking expert advice as to whether it’s possible to ensure such violations don’t happen again. Although from what I’ve heard before, the site may well be too far gone for that to be feasible.

                  It does seem a good idea for all contributors to copy their posts in case of such attacks.

                  However, whatever might have happened to some posts the fact remains that the overwhelming majority have remained intact, as when first published.

                • swamishanti says:

                  How can you ‘not remember’ your comments being altered, SD, you mentioned it just last week wasn’t it, when @Veet Francesco also mentioned that his comments were coming out with bits that he had not written?

                  You don’t remember writing that? That was after I mentioned that I had noticed comments had been edited and some disappeared.

                • satyadeva says:

                  No, Shanti, I don’t remember that. Perhaps you can produce the relevant text?

                  But I do know that two of my critical remarks about you have been removed in the last two days, re your own occasional interference with others’ texts.

                  SHANTI:
                  Well, I do have some editing capacity, like yourself, which I managed to obtain from Jitendra only because I realised that Frank and Lokesh, as well as other members of ‘the collective’, had been given them by Parmartha, but I rarely use them.

                  SD:
                  Points of info, Shanti:
                  You, like the other two, were allowed to post without prior moderation, but that facility does not include the right to sub-edit or cancel others’ posts. You are not a fellow-editor, you’re just another contributor. To think otherwise is just unwarranted self-importance.

                  SHANTI:
                  Ok, but Lokesh often trashes, edits his posts, and Jitendra did offer me the position of editor. Also, I have occasionally trashed my own posts, like Lokesh often does, yet you have restored them back onto the page again. And then I had to delete them again, and you have never complained about that.

                  SD:
                  Shanti, you don’t seem to know the facts. Jitendra (now Clive) wasn’t aware that I’d accepted the role after Parmartha had asked me to take over shortly before he passed away. He was involved in the tech side of SN until a year or so ago, did a most valuable job out of a good-hearted wish to help, but had no input into other matters, and in fact, had very little interest in SN or indeed, in Sannyas.

                  SHANTI:
                  So the official editor of the site, Jitendra(Clive), offered me the position, and didn’t even know that you were the editor, although you have always claimed to be just a ‘moderator’. Doesn’t seem very likely.

                  SD:
                  Look, Shanti, you’re an ousider, you imagine what suits you, so you can justify your wish to interfere.

                  Clive has never been involved with the role of editor, for a while after Parmartha passed away he, as the tech guy, was a ‘caretaker’ of the site, and the official site owner, but with no input into articles etc. Ask him if you really want this clarified.

                  As for what I call myself, I’ve generally referred to myself as ‘Acting Editor’ or moderator. But so what? The facts are as above.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Have just noticed that the regular contributor, Veet Francesco, has completely disappeared from SN. His comments have dsappeared, and he is no longer in the list of contributors.

                  Veet posted just recently that some of his comments had been altered, and you, SD, commented that yours had also been.

                  Has he been taken out by a drone strike? He was critical of the general continuous negativity towards Osho from the main contributors of the site, Lokesh and Dominic, who are also incidentally, those most interested in writing in it.

                • satyadeva says:

                  This site is not secure, it’s vulnerable, and there’s not a lot that can be done about it, apparently.

                  My view is that both you and Veet are unable to cope with anything that contradicts whatever might be your beliefs and values re Sannyas and Osho, and thus possibly due to feeling somehow threatened you produce contributions that are far less creative, articulate, thought-provoking and entertaining than those of Lokesh and Dominic (who, btw, both come across as 100% sincere and committed in their own individual quests, which is also why they’re well worth reading). But there again, the Devil has always produced the best tunes….

                • swamishanti says:

                  Yes not secure, indeed.
                  Government agency manipulation.

                  And I know where your loyalties towards Lokesh lie and what might have helped produce that, but I won’t bother going into that right now.

                  But what Veet Francesco was doing was refreshing, he was challenging the orthodoxy on SN, the negativity towards Osho from the main contributors on the platform, ex-sannyasins and their hostility and immaturity. And he was also wondering about possible sponsoring of those contributors from government agencies.

                  All his comments have now been removed from the site?!

                • satyadeva says:

                  “Yes, not secure, indeed.
                  Government agency manipulation.”

                  You too easily let your imagination run away with you, Shanti. This site has been increasingly run-down for years since Dharmen, who looked after the tech side, passed away in 2017, and Clive (Jitendra) retired from an occasional tech support role a year or two ago.

                  Similarly, your praise of Veet for “wondering about possible sponsoring of those contributors from government agencies”, which, frankly, is just such obviously baseless nonsense it’s barely worth arguing about. But you and he have your beliefs and obsessions which unfortunately lead you into perpetrating such blatant untruths.

                  As for Veet’s criticisms of “the main contributors on the platform, ex-sannyasins and their hostility and immaturity”, you appear to conveniently turn a blind eye to these very qualities only too apparent in the posts of the critic himself!

                • satchit says:

                  @ SD

                  Fact is, Shanti, did cancel my post where he was mentioned.
                  He even changes the text of others’ profiles.

                  Maybe he does it because he thinks it’s Osho’s will….

                • satchit says:

                  Can also be that Shanti has removed
                  Veet’s comments!?

                  Playing games?

                • swamishanti says:

                  satchit says:
                  13 June, 2023 at 12:06 pm
                  “ Can also be that Shanti has removed
                  Veet’s comments!?

                  Playing games?”

                  No, Sachit, it would not be possible for me to do that. I just have a simple text editor, like several other long-time contributors, I don’t have the capacity or knowledge to change or alter the website graphics or completely remove a contributor, as what I have just today noticed has happened to Veet Francesco. And no, I don’t “change the text of people’s profiles” as you wrote.
                  I able to trash my comments like Lokesh and SD are.

                • satyadeva says:

                  But Shanti, in the past you’ve not only altered your own posts, you’ve taken out others’ posts as well, or moved them to another place.

                  And I strongly suspect you deleted parts of two recent texts of mine, where I criticised you.

                  SHANTI:
                  Well, in 2020 I was offered the ownership of the site from Jitendra (Clive) and would have become the technical editor, although I turned that down. Last year instructions on ‘how to moderate’ popped up one day in my admin bar when I opened up my browser. At the time I presumed that was coming from Clive.

                  I have had my own posts edited and changed and disallowed by you for years, and so have many others. So perhaps that is your karma. I have deleted others posts occasionally, once or twice, just because they were abusive or they were intended to provoke an argument which I didn’t have the energy or time for. And just once in Veet’s case, when he replied to a one of my longer discussions I had previously finished a week earlier, I deleted his comment, because I needed to have a break, but I did put his comment back a few days later and replied. But I did notify Veet on the caravanserai page, perhaps he didn’t notice that.
                  Best if we discuss this by email, I think.

                  SD:
                  So now you’ve deleted my considered response, Shanti, again demonstrating you have no concept of boundaries, imagining normal conditions that apply to make online discussion sites function adequately shouldn’t apply to you.

                  And do you have any idea at all what a moderator’s job involves? Sub-editing, changing and disallowing posts when appropriate (which hasn’t been often at all, by the way, but you do have a propensity to exaggerate). Your derogatory remarks are pure bullshine, typified by “perhaps that is your karma” – laughably inappropriate, pseudo-spiritual crap!

                  The basic point is that you’ve abused the privileged access you were granted, turning it into permission to interfere with and even delete others’ contributions.

                  SHANTI:

                  When you wrote i deleted your response just now, I don’t think you are referring to action by me.

                  Also, I have occasionally trashed my own posts, like Lokesh often does, yet you have restored them back onto the page again. And then I had to delete them again, and you have never complained about that.

                  As you must know, there is a comment log with which you can compare the revisions and the history of comments.

                  I have been watching what was going on in the moderation box for years, even when I was not writing on the site, which I worked out how it access on the site, and I could see that a lot of the comments were actually ending up in the bin, that was when Dharmen was in charge of the moderation. And only a few certain writers were allowed to bypass moderation, and encouraged to write, one of those was Lokesh. If I am honest, my first experience of how moderation can be abused from from Dharmen.

                  I think you have been a little too lax with some of the comments which were abusive, especially the one I just deleted recently of Dominic’s which caused this aggro. I had also noticed that someone was occasionally adding things into my comments, which I had to edit out, and at the time I thought that was you messing around, until a couple of days ago when you told me , by email that it was not you.

                  But , I have my editing privileges, I leave the moderation entirely to you.

                • swamishanti says:

                  SD said:
                  ” “Yes, not secure, indeed.
                  Government agency manipulation.”
                  You too easily let your imagination run away with you, Shanti. This site has been increasingly run-down for years since Dharmen, who looked after the tech side, passed away in 2017, and Clive (Jitendra) retired from an occasional tech support role a year or two ago.

                  Similarly, your praise of Veet for “wondering about possible sponsoring of those contributors from government agencies”, which, frankly, is just such obviously baseless nonsense it’s barely worth arguing about. But you and he have your beliefs and obsessions which unfortunately lead you into perpetrating such blatant untruths.”

                  SHANTI:
                  No, nothing to do with imagination, SD, I have witnessed very real manipulation of the internet over the last five years or so, especially where everything concerning Osho is concerned.

                  And I have evidence that even graphics have been altered. And others I have corresponded with online have also witnessed this tampering too. Online anti-Osho propagandists are being protected by powerful forces.

                  Comments defending Osho are hidden, there is definitely a plot against Osho online. No doubt.
                  Veet’s suspicions are quite valid, the media is a most important and powerful tool for governments, and SN is of course, a form of the media.

                  SD:
                  Shanti, I’ve no idea what’s going on elsewhere and I’m not wasting my time bothering about any of it.
                  It’s very simple: I repeat, this site’s condition is not due to “government agency manipulation” but to having no ongoing tech care for a year or more, np upgrades etc. etc. In fact, Clive has warned me about Word Press upgrades, saying it’s too complex, the site’s too far gone.

                  And if you actually believe that “government agencies” are sponsoring contributors to SN then your judgment needs a radical overhaul.

                  SHANTI: No, SD, I didn’t say that I actually believe that “government agencies” are sponsoring contributors to SN.

                  But, the altering of your and Veet’s comments, which you yourself observed and mentioned just last week, and the sudden deletion of all of Veets material including his profile, is the work of a government intelligence agency. That also happened after I mentioned that I noticed that several comments had been edited and some deleted.

                  They are able to work and edit underneath, without leaving any trace. Even if they are just messing around.
                  SD:
                  “No, SD, I didn’t say that I actually believe that “government agencies” are sponsoring contributors to SN.”
                  Shanti, you implied your agreement with this obvious nonsense, or at least a suggestion that it might deserve to be considered, by adding this suggestion from Veet shortly after praising him for his “refreshing” comments, “challenging the orthodoxy on SN”.

                  SHANTI: Well, SD, you forgot here that you suggested something very similar to another contributor , an American who used to post here under several names, was banned once by Dharmen, and then kept coming back under different names. That was ‘Prem Bubbie’, aka ‘Dean Carter’, ‘Honeysuckle Rose’, and ‘Babaslesvana’. Someone who kept bringing up stories of drugs and prostitution, and mentioning Hugh Milne. You yourself suggested to him that you suspected that may be working for the CIA. And, by the way, people are employed by the government intelligence agencies, to post links and troll forums. This is a perfectly normal practice, as some of the top secret files leaked by Edward Snowden reveal.
                  Perhaps then, your memory needs a ‘radical overhaul’.

              • Nityaprem says:

                A post of mine just disappeared…

                I asked why SannyasNews doesn’t use regular internet forum software. There are many free implementations of a forum which do not rely on WordPress and are far less flaky and more secure.

                I’d suggest having a look at Vanilla (https://open.vanillaforums.com/).

                MOD:
                Yes, I wondered where that one had gone.

                Thanks for this, NP. I have next to no knowledge of these things and would have to rely on another or others to set this up. I’m not sure if Clive would be interested in helping but I’ll ask him what he thinks.

                Are you sure it would be free?

                • swamishanti says:

                  The same forces/people who have been editing and removing people’s comments here, in this case removing Veet’s entire account which I don’t think has ever happened before, will still be active whatever format you use.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  Well the software is free, as is another good software called Flarum. The hosting and moving old posts across might cost money (or even be impossible), it depends on what you wish to do. It’s worth discussing though with whoever owns the site now.

        • Nityaprem says:

          For me, the idea of a spiritual friend is someone who is not just a friend, but also someone on the spiritual path. Someone with whom you can share the extraordinary things that sometimes happen in meditation. Yes, there is a bit of Buddhist background, but that isn’t primarily how I see it.

          My uncle H. fell in this category — he was also a buddhist, and a poet, and someone you could talk to easily. He was easygoing and a good guy, unfortunately he passed away through cancer a couple of years ago.

          • dominic says:

            Just to be contrarian, NP, “being on a spiritual path” or “spiritual friend” can sound a bit grand and exclusionary.
            I’ll just take ‘friend’, ‘Life’ and ‘everything is my guru’, that’s enough for me.

            I’ve met ‘spiritual folk’ I wouldn’t have truck with and ‘ordinary folk’ I have more chemistry or heart connection with, even if they’re not knowingly on a ‘spiritual path’.
            Admittedly nice, when they both align.

            • Nityaprem says:

              Exactly — “nice when they align”.

              Because then you have a friend you could talk to about spiritual matters. And thats one of the things that made the commune special, that everyone you met (more or less) was a sannyasin and had that background, and the friends that you made were of that sort.

              • dominic says:

                Yes, NP, the commune brought about a shared experience, as have other groups that I’ve been involved with, spiritual or otherwise, and it’s nice to share commonality with people.

                Today, the commune is gone. I don’t know anyone who still goes to Poona, and last time I visited, I didn’t think I’d go back, it didn’t feel like home anymore.

                To some extent, the commune papered over the cracks and differences between people. Now that it’s gone, those differences, sometimes alienating, have become more apparent.

                You see it here, in people’s understandings and beliefs, when we are not living under the shadow of Osho or any commune groupthink, and are free to express.

                For example, I have found myself poles apart at times on hot topics like politics, vaccines, cultural issues etc., with other sannyasins, and realised what different worldviews we had.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Dominic:

                  “You see it here, in people’s understandings and beliefs, when we are not living under the shadow of Osho or any commune groupthink, and are free to express.”

                  That shows that sadly, you felt that you were ‘living under the shadow of Osho’ , whilst he was in the body, and not free to express your opinions.

                  You felt you did not gain anything, there was no heart connection, hence the bitterness, lack of gratitude.

                  Now you are older you feel you are ‘thinking for yourself’. But, perhaps you must have been just young and naive and not had the maturity to think for yourself when you there. It’s only natural that some will think that way. I will not be there to catch you when the new batch of reincarnated sannyasins hatch.

                  I recommend the movie ‘Room’.

                  I watched it recently. I won’t spoil the plotline, but, the ‘Room’ could be seen as the cultish mindset of the society, which Osho helped so many out of.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  Interesting post…

                  Dominic said, “To some extent, the commune papered over the cracks and differences between people. Now that it’s gone, those differences, sometimes alienating, have become more apparent.”

                  I think it’s more that everyone was thinking about what Osho was saying, and that that was how it appeared that people were in a ‘groupthink’. But in a way that is part of the natural human condition — if you watch the BBC 6 O’clock News every day, that will also shape your mind, and you will end up in a groupthink about that.

                  So it’s a choice of how you wish to be conditioned. If you’re in a commune where outside influences are less, you can maybe hold onto a spiritual way of life. Outside, you will take on the shadings of various types of media you consume.

                  It’s the same with Veet Francesco. The various opinions he held could well have come from an internet media bubble, a tiny groupthink of people who ended up getting caught by the ideas of some far-out-there thinkers.

                  The last decade of my life has shown me that it is much easier to hear your own authentic inner voice once you have taken a step away from the media. And in a way I find Osho’s words comforting because it’s very easy to forget them.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Good post, NP.

                • swamishanti says:

                  NP wrote:

                  “It’s the same with Veet Francesco. The various opinions he held could well have come from an internet media bubble, a tiny groupthink of people who ended up getting caught by the ideas of some far-out-there thinkers. “

                  “The various opinions he held..?”

                  Is he dead now? Killed by a precision drone strike?

                  All of his comment have been removed as well as his profile. He was a sannyasin challenging what he and many others perceive as continued negativity towards Osho and Sannyas on this site, which has been here for years. And could easily be described as an “internet group bubble”.

                  And which has had the effect of vary few contributors who actually trust Osho ever writing here anymore.

                  Now his comments have completely disappeared.

                  A lot of his views would be widely accepted by many sannyasins who are grateful to Osho.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  @swamishanti

                  Not all of Veet Francesco’s comments have disappeared, if you look under the previous article what he posted there is still present.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Yes, because someone has restored them. They definitely weren’t there when I looked this morning. Not just his profile, all his posts were removed.

                  They are easily able to do that, mess around with graphics, and content on platforms, exactly the same thing happened to someone on Qour recently. They removed all his content and then restored it after some hassle.

                  REPLY FROM Klaus Rettich:
                  For me, Veet’s comments have been visible from day 1 of my own deletion of my comments; and day 1 of Veet’s exit.

                  Besides, I do not care whether my past comments are still there or not.

                  It is this crappy tone – and worse from Veet – that got me leaving: these are opinions,perceptions. And imv, not facts. So everyone can be wrong with regard to underlying
                  facts (which more often than not might not be known – yet – or not knowable at all).

                  No zealotry. Clarity, fun, humour, self-reflecting. And a bit casual would be nice.

                  Cheers,

                  Klaus

                • dominic says:

                  Shanti says,
                  “You felt you did not gain anything, there was no heart connection, hence the bitterness, lack of gratitude.”

                  Shanti has a totalistic cultic mindset, it’s all either black or white, and then oozes his own “general negativity” at those who have a more sober, nuanced approach and don’t conform to his worldview.

                  You will find such people in any high control group, cult, religion or political ideology, and given the chance would do bad things in the name of ‘the cause’.
                  It shows a lack of respect, basic morality and belief in liberal values like free speech.

                  His other postings, robots, songs with salacious lyrics, etc. show a general lack of sensitivity and appropriateness, and a low vibrational consciousness.
                  He’s a bit rough and immature really.

                  He wilfully misinterprets my words and colours them with his own aggressive energy.
                  I can’t be bothered discussing with him, and wonder why he doesn’t just join a more pedestrian, kiss-ass, fanatical wing of the Osho world.

                  He is untrustworthy; as I said, he lacks a moral compass, and must not have any rights to edit or delete others’ posts.

                • dominic says:

                  NP says,
                  “So it’s a choice of how you wish to be conditioned. If you’re in a commune where outside influences are less, you can maybe hold onto a spiritual way of life. Outside, you will take on the shadings of various types of media you consume.”

                  The point of conditioning is that it is largely unconscious, until the alarm bells start ringing and the red flags appear.

                  There is perhaps potentially no greater conditioning than a religious or so-called “spiritual way of life” or political ideologies which are like religions.
                  Do you not think there is also conditioning in Osho world or Buddhist bubbles?
                  Don’t all insular groups think they are special and the bee’s knees?

                  The power dynamic in Osho world was very hierarchical, from Osho to all the centre leaders, co-ordinators, therapists etc.
                  Very efficient in getting things done in some ways, when things are going well, but when they’re not you get people doing crazy stuff they probably wouldn’t have in a normal life, as well as very little disclosure.

                  You can withdraw into a ‘spiritual world’ and feel superior about it, but that’s just more ego and division.
                  There has never been more wisdom and information available as there is today.
                  Avoiding it all just shows a lack of curiosity or interest.
                  Nor do I believe that all ‘truth’ is relative, a bit of a post-modern fantasy. Does a man become a woman if he wears a dress and says he is, or is he delusional?

                  Gathering information, experience and critical thinking as well as ‘intuition’ are both needed, as well as discussion and an open mind.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  Dominic wrote: “You can withdraw into a ‘spiritual world’ and feel superior about it, but that’s just more ego and division.”

                  Part of the spiritual path is reducing the ego, that’s an enduring challenge to people’s insight into themselves. I don’t think that choosing a spiritual life automatically leads to more ego, in fact I think the risks are greater in the business world or in politics.

                  It’s also a question of what you bring out of your ‘spiritual world’…they are not different, there is only one unified world. If you can bring people in touch with the spiritual you are doing good work.

                  Dominic wrote: “There has never been more wisdom and information available as there is today.
                  Avoiding it all just shows a lack of curiosity or interest.”

                  I agree the internet is a wonderful thing, but it also spreads plenty of rubbish and mental traps for the unwary. I partake of it with care and avoid cynicism and excessive skepticism.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Dominic, 14 June, 2023, at 9:19 am:

                  “You will find such people in any high control group, cult, religion or political ideology, and given the chance would do bad things in the name of ‘the cause’. ??

                  It shows a lack of respect, basic morality and belief in liberal values like free speech.

                  His other postings, robots, songs with salacious lyrics, etc. show a general lack of sensitivity and appropriateness, and a low vibrational consciousness.
                  He’s a bit rough and immature really.

                  He wilfully misinterprets my words and colours them with his own aggressive energy.
                  I can’t be bothered discussing with him, and wonder why he doesn’t just join a more pedestrian, kiss-ass, fanatical wing of the Osho world.”

                  Aha! I find it amusing how you perceive me. Perhaps you sometimes take what I write too seriously.

                  “I can’t be bothered discussing with him, and wonder why he doesn’t just join a more pedestrian, kiss-ass, fanatical wing of the Osho world.”

                  I also can’t be bothered discussing with you much, as you have been quite agressive with your ‘anti-cult’ zeal here.

                  “He is untrustworthy; as I said, he lacks a moral compass, and must not have any rights to edit or delete others’ posts.”

                  Your general idea is that sannyasins are a ‘cult’, have a cult mentality. Your posts have often been aggressive towards sannyasins and Osho in general.

                  For me, the relationship with Osho is a love affair. That doesn’t mean I am an ass-kisser. In fact, some sannyasins will be unhappy with some of my own views on Osho.

                  It has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of ‘cult mentality’, as you perceive. Most lovers of Osho don’t post here often because of this kind of attitude of the contributors, that “ it was a con, we don’t trust him, sannyasins are delusional or gullible, it’s better to ‘kill the Buddha’, I feel that I have done that and imagine I am superior to others, except I want to stay on an Osho site all the time and criticise him.” Which means you haven’t killed him at all you just want to kill him.

                  You have come here to enjoy attacking Sannyas.

                  On a ‘sannyas’ site, if you come with that attitude you have to expect argument and debate.

                  I was offered the ownership of the site in 2020 from Clive (Jitendra), and I turned that down.

                  If I had taken it on I would have put a bit of energy into writing articles on Sannyas and Osho, and hopefully, that would have attracted more sannyasins, but with your attitude you would have disliked those articles because to you those people, previously or presently in a ‘sannyas’ lifestyle, were/are in a cult.

                  As the owner of the site I would have been the technical editor. Quite a few of your posts are quite aggressive and some would have ended up in the bin.

                  I am not the moderator of this site and will not be doing that, or editing or deleting your posts, that is SD’s job. But I’ve felt he has been sometimes a little lax with the moderation.

                  MOD:
                  Points of info, Shanti:
                  If you had dared to implement such an editorial policy, it would have diverged so much from the ethos laid down by the three people who created SN that it would have lost the support of most, if not all of the regular contributors.

                  And you place far too much self-important emphasis upon Clive’s offer, failing to bear in mind how desperate he was to be rid of the burden of owning the site in which, like Sannyas itself, he had little or no interest. Apart from asking you, he tried to unload the financial responsibility by asking several people, who either couldn’t afford it or who weren’t interested.

                  The fact is you rejected the offer but a few years later are now using it to try to demonstrate ‘superior credentials’, to make your views appear to have additional weight, credibility. The reality is actually you have no more and no less right to a view than anyone else, you only think you do.

                  SHANTI:
                  I know that you dislike the idea now because I have criticised the site, but if I had accepted it at the time you would have gone along with it.

                  As far as “it would have diverged so much from the ethos laid down by the three people who created SN that it would have lost the support of most, if not all of the regular contributors.”

                  Actually, not so, SD. I have some similar views as one of the founders of this site, Paritosh, who first invited me onto the site, as well as Pamartha. And there did used to be many more contributors when the site was first founded.

                  Yes, I am well aware that Clive wanted to get rid of the site, and have such idea of self-importance of the offer , which I turned down, as you imagine.

                  SD:
                  I certainly would not have gone along with the idea of you owning the site if it had meant you claiming a veto on editorial and moderation practices. I suspect that might well have been the death of free speech and essentially, of the unique quality of this site. I certainly wouldn’t have hung around.

                  As for your second paragraph, well, Shanti, it’s so easy to declare this now long after these two co-founders have departed (easy to kid oneself as well). In fact, having known Parmartha well for decades I know you and he were/are poles apart in your views. Pari too, although I didn’t know him well.

                  Of course there were many more contributors at that time, when SN was a breath of fresh air, with Pari and Parmartha especially having many ‘live’ connections in Sannyas whom they could call upon for articles and comments. All that, plus a lot more no-holds-barred disputes, by the way, compared to which the site now is akin to a nursery school (lol).

                  Have you yourself anything more stimulating to contribute other than claims and complaints? If so, let’s be having it!

                  SHANTI:

                  “ I suspect that might well have been the death of free speech and essentially, of the unique quality of this site.”

                  No, I never suggested anything about not having free speech. On the contrary, if I had been the editor I probably would have tried to make the site more appealing and more welcoming to more sannyasins, as it used to be, which would have meant more free speech.
                  And many of groups of sannyasins who have been put off from writing on the site, the Nepali’s, Delhi sannyasins, Bombay Tantrics , all India sannyasins, the Mexicans, Resort sympathists, UK sannyasins, Europeans, South Americans, North Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Russians, Australians, etc, etc, would have been welcomed again.

                  I appreciated a lot of what Parmartha had to write on the site, although, not agreeing of course with all of his views.
                  Now, I realise he was keen to promote Lokesh’s views, some of which are quite unpopular with a lot of sannyasins to put it mildly. But, Lokesh enjoys that. But, you may well misinterpret what some of my ‘views’ actually are.

                  As far as Pari was concerned, he did once suggest that I check the site out, that was in an exchange by letters, before everyone used to use emails, back at the end of 2000, after I purchased a couple of books he was selling, but as per my own understanding, after reading his various articles on this site and his book, he certainly would not have supported the view, that has been echoed on this site quite a lot mainly since he died, that Osho didn’t use devices or that sannyasins are gullible, deluded, ‘fantasists’, etc. Even if he was willing to tolerate such views amongst others.

                • satyadeva says:

                  “On a ‘sannyas’ site, if you come with that attitude you have to expect argument and debate.”

                  Shanti, “argument and debate” seems to be exactly what you disapprove of here, are threatened or at times disgusted by.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  Swamishanti, I think you’re being a bit unfair to Dominic. His comments towards you were critical, but sometimes it’s a good thing to take criticism on board and examine if it might not be true.

                • swamishanti says:

                  NP, I found what Dominic wrote funny. Can not see anything in it that applies to me.

                • swamishanti says:

                  @Klaus in reply to my comment on 13 June, 2023 at 6:40 pm

                  You have activated the Tosser detection system!:
                  https://youtu.be/5ns0LSrIrRE

                  I know what I wrote about Veet’s disappearing comments sounds unlikely but I did witness that. And I have witnessed that on other platforms too. And I have some screenshots that prove that.

                  There is some manipulation on the internet, where Osho is concerned, it is still important to some that he is put down as much as possible, including some large Christian anti-Osho writers who use links to this site, and just recently it has come to light that some comments have been deleted and edited from this site over the years, and whoever has done this has been hidden from the edit log.

                  I would advise people to check their comments once in a while after posting.

                  SD: you wrote “ Shanti, “argument and debate” seems to be exactly what you disapprove of here, are threatened or at times disgusted by.” . No, not disapprove of at all, but the constant repetition of ‘oh, it was all a con, I don’t trust him anymore, sannyasins who trust are delusional or gullible…’ this has become the standard line for many years and it is why the site is unpopular with thousands of sannyasins but popular with Roman Catholic anti-cult demons.

            • Nityaprem says:

              Dominic said, “I’ll just take ‘friend’, ‘Life’ and ‘everything is my guru’, that’s enough for me.”

              An admirable aim. But when you say “everything is my guru” you take on board a lot of crap, the world at large is not very spiritually advanced. You could say, my inner guru filters the input from the world at large, and that’s a very spiritually advanced practice, but then it depends how good your contact is with your inner guru.

              I remember reading a bit where Papaji talked about this, and he said contact with a physical guru was necessary for most people. Although you have to see what Papaji left behind, all those almost-guru types like Mooji, Ganga Mira and Andrew Cohen.

              • dominic says:

                Well, yes, a guru would say that, although Buddha, Osho, Ramana had no guru, and many others.
                There’s no formula really, everyone has to follow their intuition.

                Once you’ve got the message, and it’s a simple one, then it’s up to you. Of course, it’s lovely to be in that ambience of community and teacher, if so moved, and I’m grateful I got to experience that.

                You can also get hooked on the group vibe, instant community (dopamine, oxytocin release) or be expecting to get zapped or get some final understanding, but that’s just more seeking.

                I regularly go online for inspiration, and that seems to satisfy, but the live satsang scene in London, which was once very active, has withered away.

                It’s probably also an age thing. You do the rounds, and after a while realise it’s up to you, you do have to sharpen up your inner guru, and be your own hero, and that life as guru comes with a lot of crap, it always did and so did Sannyas.

                I could always visit Sadhguru, here in a few days, who has copied a lot from Osho, but that would just be er…sad.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  You’re right to say that many of the greats had no guru, but a lot of people from the 1970s did end up with gurus like Osho. So perhaps there is another path, for those who are not so great but who recognise the great when they see them.

                  With Buddha, once he reached his enlightenment he talked about his past lives. There is a series of stories about this called the Jataka Tales, and it seems in a past life he met another buddha who put him on the path.

                  The mind does seem to have an ability to produce dreams based on what it has seen. If you immerse yourself in spiritual works, those things start to appear more to you. So it makes sense to me that we would seek to find more works of a high spiritual calibre.

                  Until you encounter someone like U.G. who says “you have already got it, let go of the search, and don’t follow me.”!

                  But I think being immersed in the spiritual is better than being stuck in the sane, scientific world. I used to be quite into games, and this encouraged a mind filled with attempting to analyse and optimise things. Not a good habit on the spiritual path, I’ve come to realise. It is better to direct one’s intelligence in other ways.

                • dominic says:

                  NP, I can agree with U.G.

                  All this talk of a “spiritual path”, past lives, spiritual heroes from the past and their stories, and the rest, can be interesting up to a point, but can also keep you locked into endless seeking and fascination, and a kind of woozy romantic ‘spiritualised’ dream state, with your head in the clouds.

                  Deeper in, there is only really the eternal now, where all the words, stories, identities have to be let go of and forgotten, and you can just relax into the background of all experience, where you are already home, and nothing needs to be added.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  It depends who you believe,; I came across a wonderful Sufi story which Arpana had left for me a year ago on the Caravanserai, this one:

                  https://justpaste.it/3h6ez

                  At the end of that story, Mojud ends up working for a grocer and “finds that his touch is healing people, and that his understanding of the mysteries is deepening all the time.”

                  So that is also a place where the mystical path can take you, if you trust existence and the story is to be believed.

                  U.G.’s statement on the other hand unwinds the tension of the search, it takes you back towards the natural state and knocks you out of a spiritualized frame of mind. I don’t think there is a clear “better path” here, some individuals are better off following the call of the spiritual.

                  There is something very harsh about U.G. which I don’t really like, in his search he hasn’t found love. That’s why although I can see something that might be true in his words I am not tempted to apply his teaching.

                • Nityaprem says:

                  I think in a way they are not contradictory, the Sufi story about Mojud and the U.G. quote.

                  Mojud as presented in the story isn’t really a seeker, he has no search to stop. He just follows the way that is indicated to him and trusts.

                  Hohum.

  14. Nityaprem says:

    I was doing the Nataraj meditation this morning, I noticed while doing the dancing how stiff and tense I was. It’s a good meditation for regaining fluency.

    Do you still do Osho’s meditations from time to time?

    • swamishanti says:

      Yeah, I enjoyed Nataraj. Haven’t practised it for 25 years. Great old school music from Deuter.

      • swamishanti says:

        Here’s a little tune to bounce around to this afternoon.
        Aphex Twin. Heliosphan:

        https://youtu.be/0Z4cLmbw6q0

      • Nityaprem says:

        I was just reading some posts on another forum about Osho’s meditations, and there it was said that the active meditations worked on the body-mind complex, that it was basically impossible to separate body and mind and so the music and what you do with the body steer the mind into new spaces.

        For me it has opened some new doors, the Nataraj seems to encourage fluency and remove blockages. I noticed stiffness in my dancing, and a kind of explosiveness in places, and a series of drastic changes. Looking at what I did, afterwards, shows me that in places I was stressed and frustrated.

        • swamishanti says:

          Yes, it is a good active meditation. Really, rave music also can do the same thing.

          And for all ancient people’s, primitive tribals made space for music and dance.

          MOD:
          Please clarify the last sentence, Shanti, it doesn’t make sense.

          • swamishanti says:

            Actually, it does make sense.

            “And for all ancient peoples, primitive tribals made space for music and dance.”

            IE: music and dance was a big part of life for all ancient tribal peoples.

            As a djembe drummer, as well as someone who plays didgeridoo, I know this.

            MOD:
            It’s still not well expressed, Shanti, AND TWO ABERRANT APOSTROPHES FROM THE ABOVE POST HAVE HAD TO BE SURGICALLY REMOVED HERE IN THE OFFICE.

            • swamishanti says:

              Well, perhaps my grasp of language is better than yours. It makes sense to me.

              Anyhow, I have emailed you about this bizarre situation: I wrote that I noticed that several comments have been deleted from the site, as well as edited, something that I have pointed out to you before by email.

              The political motivation for hiding or editing those particular comments is obvious.

              Now Veet Francesco’s account has been completely removed.
              And I am being accused of the one doing this!

              Please read my email.

              • satyadeva says:

                I’ve read your email and replied to it, Shanti.

                If this site is being attacked as you say there’s no way of knowing who’s responsible. We’ll just carry on here or see if the site can move to a location away from our outdated Word Press base.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Great! So now you can promote your view that sannyasins are delusional, gullible, brainwashed, and anyone who claims connection with Osho is a fantasist, in a cult.

                  And remove privileges from other writers who argue otherwise. Until they stop writing. You got rid of Aparna and Veet, now get rid of me!

                  MOD:
                  No one’s getting rid of you, Shanti, you’re still welcome to contribute here.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Total lies and delusions born of rage that you’re no longer ‘special’ here.

                  I’ve just about had enough after far too much of the day having been taken up with such garbage. I’m going to seriously consider closing down this site as there’s very little pleasure and zero joy from days like this.

                • swamishanti says:

                  Yes, I can tell you’re in a bad mood. Which explains your irrational behaviour of altering my settings and accusing me of editing when it was actually me who exposed that someone has been deleting and editing certain comments here, just recently, and just today noticed that Veet’s account has been completely erased.

                  I have already discussed the editing and hiding of comments before with you by email.

                  It you think that it was me who was messing around with your and Veet’s comments, you are badly mistaken.

                  Best we email tomorrow, I think you are clearly not in a good space today for whatever reason.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Shanti, apart from your past form in unauthorised interfering with others’ posts, including deletions, today you deleted my critical comment of around 8 lines below your post of 2.38pm. Frankly, that in itself is enough to disqualify you from the free access you’ve enjoyed.
                  `

                • swamishanti says:

                  No, I didn’t do that actually, SD. What I did was expose that someone else with admin had deleted certain comments, including a comment which had criticism and some pointing out of some of the innacuracies in Hugh Milne’s book , as well as one of Parmartha’s replies to me, where he strongly criticised the strange anti-cult guy who has been hanging around on this site and tries to mix Roman Catholic beliefs with Advaita – as I had already explained to you via email. As well as some of the old forum topics which have had several people’s comments removed.

                • satyadeva says:

                  This is in response to what exactly, Shanti? Please provide time of the relevant post, I can’t remember every single one.

                  And I don’t intend to devote a large part of tomorrow to this matter. There’s already been more than enough to spoil much of today.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Shanti, if no contributor to SN is responsible for these violations then nothing can be done about it except to move to another place. And if, as you predict, that would incur similar attacks then there’s no point in further discussion as nothing can be done.

                  Keep calm and carry on.

              • satchit says:

                Veet made the decision to go by himself, he said “ciao”.

                If you miss his comments, you can still read them in the previous article.

                Maybe he deleted the comments by himself…

                Blaming others is not very enlightened.

                • swamishanti says:

                  His comments on the last thread were hidden when I looked this morning.
                  Not just his profile from the contributors.
                  Now some of the comments have been restored.

                  I have seen this happen on other platforms, too.

          • Nityaprem says:

            However, rave music gives a very different way of dancing, more jumping and hopping.

            I liked the Nataraj for dancing because it is fluent, it encourages that.

  15. Lokesh says:

    The spiritual friend says…
    “That is the simple secret of happiness. Whatever you are doing, don’t let past move your mind; don’t let future disturb you. Because the past is no more, and the future is not yet. To live in the memories, to live in the imagination, is to live in the non-existential. And when you are living in the non-existential, you are missing that which is existential. Naturally you will be miserable, because you will miss your whole life.”

  16. Lokesh says:

    Good post from Dominic about conditioning.

    Sannyas always had its programmes and conditioning and there is much evidence to support this, or am I saying this because I’m not surrendered enough? I am sure you get the picture.

    There are times we need to get with the programme for our own benefit. In Sannyas World problems arise when old sannyas programmes are no longer needed, but a certain type of dogmatic person will cling to them. Why? There are numerous reasons. So identified with the programmes have they become they view them as an integral part of themselves etc. Even though certain conditioning is obsolete in relation to why the conditioning was initially implemented, some will cling to it for a reinforced sense of identity and so forth

    Problems arise when, for instance, someone points out that somebody is stuck with something that no longer serves them. If you are the one doing the pointing you can be viewed as an anti-this or that. Or perhaps viewed as a traitor who has betrayed the master who introduced the conditioning when he deemed it necessary for one reason or another, good or bad. Plenty of evidence of that on SN.

    It can be quite puzzling to see someone who is completely stuck with programmes that are today no longer beneficial, even to the point of being harmful. Yet, if you say that to them they cannot see it, to the extent they even become self-righteous about their stuckness.

    Dominic’s post reminded me of one of my favourite Timothy Leary quotes:

    “Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening, terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness; chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.”

    • simond says:

      I can’t add anymore to your post, Lokesh – a great summary of the issue.

    • Nityaprem says:

      Lokesh, you might call still being into Osho being “stuck” but for someone else it might be the most wonderful door. In the end we do have to move past all conditioning, at which point you will see all these different sources of habits as being motivating factors in your life, things which led you on your path.

      I think it was Nisargadatta who said the whole universe has contributed to making you who you are. It couldn’t be any way other than how it is. Not one person or one book or one grain of sand could have been out of place.

      Osho’s phrase “to trust in existence” I thought was particularly beautiful, because it is so indicative of how sannyasins came to him. People just left their homes, booked a flight to Bombay and came, often with few other plans.

    • Lokesh says:

      NP says, “Lokesh, you might call still being into Osho being “stuck” but for someone else it might be the most wonderful door.”

      I said no such thing and that you interpret my words in that way says more about you than it does about me. Perhaps you could point out where you imagined I said that and I will give an appropriate response.

  17. Lokesh says:

    Thanks for being honest, NP.
    I think we are all probably guilty of misconceiving and misconstruing what others say from time to time.

    In this case, I suspect that it might have something to do with people repeatedly saying that I am in some way anti-Osho on this site and you being influenced by their words.

    I’m not anti-Osho. I am anti-zealot. In other words, I am against people who hijack Osho’s name and use it as a banner under which they can promote their own personal beliefs, which often run contrary to what Osho actually taught. One of their main tactics is the repetition of lies, an old trick that Adolf Hitler was very fond of employing. “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.”

    • Nityaprem says:

      So let’s talk about ‘The Guru Papers’———. I vaguely recall you recommended me to read it when I first arrived. I read it, and came across some things that may have been aimed at Osho, and a lot of other things about gurus that weren’t. Would you still recommend all sannyasins to read that book?

      • Lokesh says:

        NP asks, “Would you still recommend all sannyasins to read that book?”
        I would recommend the book to certain sannyasins but not all of them.

        I have owned two copies, lent them and they were not returned. I used the book to help form and clarify ideas for my own writing. Having read the book several times there was only one reference to a guru that might well have been Osho. It referred to a guru who became allergic to his disciples…sniffing tests etc.

        You say that you came across “some” things that may have been aimed at Osho. Okay. seeing as how you bring the subject up, could you please write a list of at least three things that might have been aimed at Osho. I am not clear what you are referring to.

        The book is basically about authoritarian masks in society. Osho was certainly an authoritarian figure on certain levels.

        • Nityaprem says:

          The authoritarian vs. non-authoritarian doesn’t bother me very much, I usually just withdraw from situations where it becomes an issue. You don’t have to bother with society, it is a generalized projection of a mass of individuals. I find the one-one, individual connection to be much more worthwhile.

          What does bother me is trust versus doubt and skepticism. I’ve found myself more and more falling into the habit of doubt; it was a part of my science-based education, and I find it a hindrance on the path. I’ve been working on being less skeptical, less doubtful, and I’ve found that to be good for me.

          Skepticism is an aggressive attitude, it posits an immediate reaction of disbelief and saying no to things. Osho several times talked about saying yes, about acceptance. And I think acceptance leads more easily to clear vision, while disbelief and searching for the negative in things leads you to a gradual souring and unhappiness.

          Doubt, security, planning, a desire for ease and luxury, all of these things go together to lead you onto a path of ambition, and away from trust. It depends what you find valuable in life, whether you just want to execute a plan to reach retirement, or whether you want to really live.

          • Lokesh says:

            Okay, NP, that is all very well, but you are not addressing my question so I will repeat it.

            You say that you came across “some” things that may have been aimed at Osho. Okay. seeing as how you bring the subject up, could you please write a list of at least three things that might have been aimed at Osho. I am not clear what you are referring to.

            And your response to is say, ‘”I read the book about a year ago, so I am going by the impression I had of it at the time. I don’t feel motivated to peruse it for the exact instances.”
            There is a pattern in your comments. You speculate and then write as if it were fact and occasionally write in some ‘might have beens’ and ‘maybes’.

            As far as ‘The Guru Papers’ go, there are no specific criticisms aimed at Osho directly, one comment that was surely about Osho and a lot of oblique comments that can be applied to many mainstream gurus. As a conclusion I see that the impressions you had at the time are in fact not impressions but rather projections. Not only do you do that with books you did it with me very recently.
            I can only conclude that you have been brainwashed by Satchit.

            • Nityaprem says:

              I read the book about a year ago, so I am going by the impression I had of it at the time. I don’t feel motivated to peruse it for the exact instances.

              But it is a book that is often cited by anti-cult operators to “bring people to their senses”, which I don’t think particularly applies to the sannyas movement.

              • dominic says:

                Completely correct, NP!
                Absolutely no possibility of any cultic elements in the Sannyas movement.
                Anyone who says so is totally unconscious and negative, is working for the Christian CIA industrial complex, and needs feeding to the lions!
                Yahoo!

                https://youtu.be/5Ge9cebaVNg

                • Nityaprem says:

                  You could leave at any time, there was no attempt made to stop you. People did. So I would say it was a movement of like-minded souls and not a cult.

                  Of course the mainstream media love to make judgments and call it a cult, but they like to call any new religious movement a cult.

                • Lokesh says:

                  “Relax,” said the night man
                  “We are programmed to receive
                  You can check out any time you like
                  But you can never leave.”

                • Nityaprem says:

                  I had to go and listen on YouTube…love that song, it has great guitar solos…

                  https://youtu.be/09839DpTctU

                • Lokesh says:

                  And she said,
                  “We are all just prisoners here
                  Of our own device.”

                  Obviously a non-sannyasin or she would have said “an Osho device”.

                • dominic says:

                  NP says, “You could leave at any time.”

                  You mean I could leave? Phew, that’s a relief!
                  It’s a low bar, but definitely, maybe, probably, nothing cultish about it.

                  These folks can’t be in a cult then, I’m sure they can leave?

                • Nityaprem says:

                  I dunno whether they are a cult, Dominic, they just seem to be hyper-suggestible and into practising falling over.

                  A lot of real cults do a lot of stuff to keep you from leaving, that’s why I used that as an easy identifier.

                  But Osho didn’t need to keep people with him, there were always more who were attracted to him.

                • satchit says:

                  Yes, NP, you are free to leave in the outside world.

                  But are you free to leave in the inside world, in the brain?

                • dominic says:

                  NP, I think the important thing after apprenticeship is to find some “hyper-suggestible…like-minded souls” and start one’s own cult!
                  Why let everyone else have all the fun?

                  Just add lots of sex, group bonding, a mystical quest, doomsday scenarios, a good pitch, and anyone leaving is ghosted. Then you’re away.

                  I’m starting mine in the traditional way….

                • Nityaprem says:

                  I think having your own cult would rather get in the way of things.

                • dominic says:

                  “But are you free to leave in the inside world, in the brain?”

                  Quite right, Satchit, you have to free your mind from the bullets of conditioning.

    • satchit says:

      “I am anti-zealot.”

      My impression is you are zealously against zealots.

      Osho taught different, even contradictory things.

      And you promote very much your belief that people should go on and drop Osho and Sannyas because it’s stuff from the past. Sounds very much zealously in my ears what you do.

      It’s everybody’s freedom to deal differently with Osho.
      Seems you have problems to accept diversity.

      • dominic says:

        Satchit celebrating diversity!
        Well, it is pride month, where we celebrate taking the innie up the outie and the outie up the innie.

        Hopefully, Satchit’s plea is for tolerance and not because he’s an Anti-antizealot zealot!
        Trouble with zealots, usually a militant faith, is they want to shut you up, vilify you, get you cancelled, ghosted, doxed, or worse (history anyone?).
        I guess they are really insecure underneath about what they believe.

        Anyway, this month only, a special 40% discount on ‘Osho Contradictions’ subscriptions.
        Make him say what you want him to say, about Sannyas or anything.
        Bring victory (and smugness) to your domestic and online spiritual life. Every claim has a counter claim.
        You’re covered, Osho’s covered, everybody happy!
        My new AI assistant is ready to do battle for you.

  18. Nityaprem says:

    Dominic said, “There is perhaps potentially no greater conditioning than a religious or so-called “spiritual way of life” or political ideologies which are like religions. Do you not think there is also conditioning in Osho world or Buddhist bubbles? Don’t all insular groups think they are special and the bee’s knees?”

    I don’t know “all insular groups” and certainly don’t feel qualified to judge them. I can speak of the communities I have known. I’ve known several sets of sannyasins living in small groups, and one group of Buddhists around a Buddhist temple, where the effects of shared knowledge and attitudes created a bit of an us-and-them bubble… I don’t think it’s necessarily a feeling of superiority though, I think it depends on specific features of the ideology that people believe in.

    As long as people also believe in freedom and diversity, I don’t think there is anything wrong with having a set of specific beliefs. More to the point, I don’t think it can be prevented, although the society would like to create lots of little cogs for the ‘work machine’ which are close to interchangeable.

    Doubt and disbelief is helpful to society’s programme, which moves away from individual people’s freedom to move and believe as they like.

  19. Lokesh says:

    PC Arpana has been spotted by SN’s CCTV, snooping around the hallowed streets of SN. Speculation is rife as to what the dreaded PC is up to. Is he planning a much-anticipated comeback? Is he gathering evidence in the hope of prosecuting evildoers? Or is he just at a loose end with nothing better to do?

    Only time will tell.

  20. Lokesh says:

    Shanti, why don’t you just go ahead and write an article for SN, if you think it will attract more sannyasins to the site? What is stopping you from doing that? I do not see any obstacles in your way right now. So, let’s see what you can come up with.

    MOD:
    Well said. Come on, Shanti, you’re more than welcome, the floor’s open!

  21. Lokesh says:

    The SN River seems to be running dry. If nobody else gets it together to write a new article, I will knock something out, hoping it might inject a little more life into the site.
    If anyone else is considering writing an article, please let me know, so I do not waste my time. Thanks.

  22. Nityaprem says:

    Dominic said: “Quite right, Satchit, you have to free your mind from the bullets of conditioning.”

    I’ve often wondered about freedom from conditioning. The thing about conditioning is it’s not so easy to spot. It generally carries you along in its grasp of habits which form the patterns of your life, and you only notice what was a conditioned habit by the time you are already leaving it behind. Except that sometimes you encounter people with very different habits, and by examining the contrast you get an insight into your own patterns.

    I suppose you could follow the idea of “freedom from the known” and view everything as a pattern, inquiring where things come from and why you are attached to it. A thorough person could examine everything from his sleep, his clothes, his breakfast, his work…but untangling all that would take a while.

    The thing is also once you have identified all your conditioned patterns, how do you know that you’ve actually disposed of them?

    • satchit says:

      Conditioning means you react always in the same way, you are predictable. If you surprise yourself, you get slowly rid of conditioning.

      You cannot “free your mind”. The mind freeing the mind does not function, because the mind interprets it as something wrong with you, which is not true.

      By understanding, growing and deconditioning happens.

  23. Lokesh says:

    A parrot was heard to say, “Conditioning means you react always in the same way, you are predictable.”

    Of course, a parrot has been conditioned to parrot what it hears and, in this case, the parrot heard some utter nonsense and parroted it.

    As we all know, there are plenty of people running around who have been conditioned not to react always in the same way and can be highly unpredictable. In some cases dangerously unpredictable, to the point that they need locking up.

Leave a Reply