I don’t understand any of it much, although I like the reference to Krishnamurti as a roe deer!

After passing few lives as human beings and learning the tricks of the trade of being human, they felt, enough is enough, time to find a guru and meditate.

As it is said, ‘When disicple is ready, Guru appears.’ I am sure it is said about the Living guru and not guru in a book or a video.

Anyway, these four are on the way. One of them shows quite an interest in politics. Another one is missing a woman. One takes his robe off only while showering and another has developed a business.

In their heart of the heart, all are thinking, “What kind of idiots are the others?”

Sorry, but I don’t understand your last point about the whole “movie” being “conceptual”.

I like your reference to the circus Osho created. It served a great purpose. As I see it, through the profound glamour of the man, through his ‘shakti’, through the mythology of the ‘master’, he attracted many people. He acted as beautiful introduction to the teachings of a mystic, and even more importantly, showed me the importance of love.

And it was Osho who helped me with the longer process of how to integrate the teaching into daily western life.

There have always been ordinary mystics, particularly in Sufism, people who drove, and one suspects, drive taxis, or just tend cows, etc. Just ordinary (looking) people, but who preferred to remain sort of annonymous. I think this was to make sure that they were surrounded only by genuine and able seekers. I would not see it as a ‘modern’ phenonmenon.

Osho was different in this regard, and seemed to like the circus around him for the most part, and clearly ‘announced’ himself. Equally valid way of reaching people, I would say. He soon ‘tested’ many, and many left, so those left behind arguably were those he wanted.

You seem to be interested in Osho’s message, and presumably the message of others with whom you have been involved after him. This is the only real point of disagreement as I see it. Could you be open to the idea, couched in a western way, that ‘the whole Osho movie was/is not conceptual’?

Thanks for your post, it’s good to connect after so many years.

I might quibble with the Vedic references, but only because I ‘see’ the man, Osho, and prefer to look behind the myth. It is the message, rather than the energy I prefer to focus on, and what for me is the lasting legacy.

In today’s world, with so much confusion about spirtuality, I like my teachers to be as ordinary as possible; that way the tendency to mythologise and put on a pedestal is lessened.

But hey, I can’t argue with you!