Touching the Feet of the Guru
More Sub-continental Nonsense
An SN Editorial
The Pope bowing down
SN shares the view that there is no place for bowing down and touching the feet of another. For a start it seems unhygenic in the modern age – look at the Pontiff in this picture kissing the feet of the poor – what on earth is he risking! No one is higher or lower, rather every human being is unique and individual. Human beings are all extremely varied – much more so than is generally acknowledged. If anything, everyone should be bowed down to, but that is just impractical.
Osho himself was against any such bowing down. He himself never touched the feet of anyone even in his childhood.
However we learn that the “Osho World” New Delhi group and their facilitators are promoting this strange medieval practice.
It appears they have not read the Hindi Osho Book ‘Trisha Gayee Ek Boond Se’. In this book a question was asked of Osho, as to why he himself stopped people touching his own feet. Here is a (loose) translation of an extract from that book.
Osho says:
“One friend has asked, why I have refused to allow my feet to be touched?
“I refuse because if you will touch any one’s feet, then you will deprive yourself of touching the feet of the whole of existence. There are other imprints which symbolically exist everywhere. The moon and the stars have imprint enough, flowers and butterflies have great imprint.
The respect should be towards that which has a boundless spread. There is no need to bow with folded hands towards a particular person.
This is not because bowing down is bad. Bowing down is excellent. The man who does not know how to bow down has not developed. But if you intend to bow down, then bow down from a place from where you will never have to get up.
If you bow down to my feet, after a minute you will have to stand up and the matter is finished. You bowed down, made unnecessary effort and then stood up. There is no essence in it; there is no meaning in it.
But I say that there is the universe, to which one can bow down forever, and never have to get up.
It is not true that I myself have refused to bow down; I have simply refused to bow down to the feet of another. Don’t fall into a misunderstanding that I have refused to bow down. I have refused unnecessary bowing down (to someone’s feet). What is the meaning of bowing down to the feet of any person?
When some such (so called) great person dies, they make a stone statue of him and even then start bowing down to the statue. This is crazy.
If you are so stubborn in your desire to touch my feet, then the only thing I can do – is that you touch my feet and then I touch your feet. But then the whole thing will become immensely troublesome, it would be a mindless inconvenience ”
(The Original of this is in Hindi)
These foot-touchers need an upgrade from the Middle Ages – they can kiss my ass!
Btw, in what context are the “Oshoworld New Delhi group and their facilitators”, as you say, “promoting this practice”?
I understand from networkers who travel to India, etc. that group leaders under the Osho World banner do not discourage such practices, even to their good selves!
“Osho himself was against any such bowing down. He himself never touched the feet of anyone even in his childhood.”
In the sense of being deferential to a religious figure, it may be correct that Osho “never touched the feet of anyone.”
However, as an absolute statement it is not correct that Osho never touched the feet of anyone. Osho used to visit his paternal grandfather, Hazari Lal, who Osho called Baba, on a farm outside of Gadarwara. Osho often went to visit and massaged his paternal grandfather’s feet. Massaging feet is touching feet.
Not in my book. Massaging is totally different to bowing down! Are you looking to let ‘Osho World’ off the hook?!
I don’t see any problem if the act is mutual .
Good point.
Except if two people try to touch each other’s feet at the same time, they will bang their heads together!
Ignore him, Kavita. Typical Frank pedantry.
Pedantry?
I was thinking more Commedia Dell`Arte.
Cool down! Everybody!
This is coming up in me as a response to those who – quite often – passed that over to me.
Time of cultural perpetrating, invading, domesticating and colonizing is over! Especially to ´address ´a ‘sub-continental inferiority’. Time to realize, not only intellectually, how deeply interconnected we all are, and shame is, that we obviously ´need´ war-times to really get it.
As far as an invitation to the issue of the thread is concerned, I feel that pretty much all is said in these lines:
“This is not because bowing down is bad. Bowing down is excellent. The man who does not know how to bow down has not developed. But if you intend to bow down, then bow down from a place from where you will never have to get up.”
And as far as my limited experience is concerned, I like to add:
If you only once have experienced that ´bowing down´ is happening and that´s not you ´doing´ it, there will be a measure inside to differ the false from the true.
And that will be very uncomfortable from time to time, better said, most of the time. And at rare moments, extasy, as these moments are unforgettable. A happening in the true sense of the word.
From my subcontinental breakfast coffee table….
Yours sincerely,
Madhu
Bowing down could be said to contain a degree of obsequiousness! Osho was born in the wrong continent and at the wrong time! It is self-evident what he meant.
Well, it is interesting…not sure when that quote is from but I think it was either in 1979 or 1980 that we went through a time (several months anyway) when darshan consisted of touching his feet, followed by him touching our third-eye.
It was actually an amazing experience. I remember feeling this amazing ball of energy around his feet – it almost seemed like the hands squeaked as I pushed them through that energy ball to touch his feet. Perhaps it’s just another contradiction of which we know there are many.
I was in Poona in 1979, don’t remember that at all. Do remember the third- eye treatment but not bowing down.
I remember being in an early darshan in late 1974 with just about a dozen disciples. Osho hurriedly raised up the Indians who were trying to touch his feet, and gently seemed to disapprove.
At the time you mention it was called ‘Energy Darshan’. I went to a number of these as I was a worker in the ashram at the time, and it was accorded to us to receive these once a month.
Something amazing could be transmitted if one was open. I remember only that Osho applied his finger to the third eye, and one fell back into the arms of the darshan ladies helping him. The effect was not only within the darshan, it could stay with one the whole night afterwards. BUT it is noticeable that Osho chose to discontinue the energy darshans after quite a short time.
It may be that those culturally attuned also grabbed his feet. I never saw it, but maybe I was not looking for it.
Hell would have frozen over before I would have bowed down to anyone before I took Sannyas, and when I met him I didn’t so much bow down as couldn’t stand up.
Wasn’t an ‘I am less than you’ space. In part, he was sitting and blah blah blah blah blah.
I couldn’t stand in front of him. That will have to do.
One photo speaks thousand times better than the words.
Here is one….
Can’t see the rest of Osho’s body and face here, and the discomfiture I myself saw when this individual bowing down behaviour happened.
However, I accept that Osho was often paradoxical and the answers he gave to one disciple might easily contradict those given to another, which would explain the quote at the head of the string.
Whether you, Shantam, actually accept that Osho was paradoxical – well, I very much doubt it. Fundamentalists find that very difficult.
Again, the western baboons show their utter ignorance of the holy religions of mighty Bhorat, which have flourished for many yugas!
Touching the feet has been part of mighty Bhorat for thousands of years and the perverted, liberal, left-wing, mind-obsessed, homosexual-loving baboons of Sannyas News wish to insult our mighty tradition and install the depraved western practices such as Valentines day instead!
In Bhorat we have had many holy practices of which the West understands very little! The representatives of Delhiworld have made it clear here on Sannyasnews that Vivek’s death was a clear case of holy Sati, thus placing the events of 1989 in a clear Bharati perspective!
Also, in a certain part of Nepal it was customary to lick the buttocks of a senior in order to gain favours and to further the evolution of religion – a practice recently revived by the holy Swami Arun on Narendra Modi!
See how the nefarious practices of the West have infected our mighty India!
Only a few days ago, Delhi politician Kejriwal hugged his wife at his victory announcement! What next? Modi riding bareback with his chief minister for the cameras at the next presidential inauguration? Or homosexuals and women running riot in the streets?
No! The touching of feet is sacred and must be preserved at all costs!
And if the feet have been walking the dusty streets and are caked with holy cowdung and other holy effluents then so much the better for the spiritual advancement and karma of the aspirant!
We must repel the depraved gora who have desecrated our mighty Samadhi and drunk alcohol and urinated in it! They must be ethically cleansed!
We must ensure that these cowboys do not turn the highest of the holy of Bhorat – a veritable Meru mountain – and replace it with brokeback mountain!
Yahoo!
Hari Om!
Quite so, Bhorat Yogi!
As it is written in holy Gita:
“From Bombay to Bangalore
All the Hindus know the score.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwg7uyy9g2c
Having seen Osho close up in 1974 dealing with the bowing down, graciously but firmly, I sincerely believe that he did not like it, and thought it demeaned those who did. It was not the sort of relationship he wanted with disciples.
Yes, of course there were occasions like celebrations when there were overwhelming numbers at the ashram wanting their ten seconds of acknowledgement, and he surrendered to such guruism, but I am convinced he would have been much happier without it and his own words on the subject support that.
But leaving Osho out of it, it is certainly my own opinion that any form of prostration betokens obsequiousness, and totally fails to take into account that all human beings are made of the same stuff. Wrong century, man.
Just a thought, but is it possible that for a lot of the Indians who came to him, it was a completely reflex, meaningless, centuries-old gesture, but when westerners did it the gesture came from the heart.
(The remarks are not even vaguely intended as some kind of negative side-swipe at Indians. We’ve all got our culture-bound trips going on).
I’ve an idea that Osho may have said something about that.
Not sure.
” “I always yearn to be here, but why, on seeing you, am I filled with awe?”
That’s how it should be. If you are not filled with awe, then your coming to me is pointless. If you don’t feel like praying, if you don’t feel like bowing down, surrendering, then you have not come to me. Physically, you may be here; spiritually, we exist far apart.”
Osho.
The Beloved, Vol 1
Chapter #2
Chapter title: I am just a midwife
Yet one more paradox of Osho’s life and being: he clearly was disobedient as a young man to the culturally accepted ‘manners’ of his day, touching the guru’s feet, and he did have a few teachers whom he respected and sat, at least at the feet of.
I, for one, identify with this rebelliousness.
That’s about sincere yes and sincere no, and he talks about that as well ʅ（´◔౪◔）ʃ.
“People are touchy – they don’t want criticism, they don’t want somebody to say to them to do this; they don’t want somebody to say to them not to do that. And these people think they cannot surrender because they are very powerful. They are just ill, neurotic.
Only a powerful man or woman can surrender – weaklings, never. Because in surrender they think their weakness will be known to the whole world. They know they are weak, they know their inferiority complex, so they cannot bow down. It is difficult for them, because bowing down will be accepting that they are inferior. Only a superior person can bow down; inferior persons can never bow down. They cannot respect anybody because they don’t respect themselves.
They don’t know what respect is, and they are always afraid of surrender because surrender means weakness to them.”
Osho.
The Beloved, Vol 2
Chapter #4
Chapter title: Remember To Stop In The Middle
“When you come to a living Master, deep down something in you wants to bow down. It is not that you are going to do a certain formality — if you are doing, it is meaningless. But something really down in your spirit, deep in your spirit, deep in your center, wants to bow down. Then bowing to a Master is no more ritualistic. It is alive, it is meaningful, it is not an empty gesture.
But you can just go on bowing down to anybody, because you have been taught to bow down, then it is useless. Try to see the difference. When something is born into you out of your spontaneity, then it is true. When you have to do something as a duty, it is untrue. `Duty’ is a dirty word. If something is born out of love, good. If something is born out of duty, avoid it, never do it, because that is dangerous. If you learn the ways of duty too much, you will forget the ways of love. Duty is against love. Duty is a false substitute for love.”
Osho.
The Divine Melody
Chapter #1
Chapter title: God is dwelling everywhere
Yes, Arps,
I of course totally accept that there is a cultural thing going on. It is definitely the done thing in India and Hinduism to bow down to the guru’s feet.
And perhaps Osho behaved ambivalently, given he was also an Indian, and brought up there. But clearly, when asked directly by an Indian disciple about the practice he gave a pretty encounterish answer.
I would love the chance to kneel at his feet again, and I’m not going to go into the details of what writing that is making me feel.
Namaste, Parmartha Swami.
People are just brainwashed by their religion.
Have you ever had a `discussion` with a muslim or a jew about so-called circumcision or MGM?
It’s about as much use as trying to get a Jehovah’s witness to dance naked round a flaming dead goat`s head with you!
People will argue vehemently for the ‘religious’ right of some guy they never met chopping the end of their own dick off without asking them when they were too young to disagree!
Ok, lobbing yourself at someone`s feet,you will have to admit, is more fun than some guy going at your willy with a rusty knife.
But still, I wouldn`t expect a result there.
Osho even speaking about not touching feet was pretty radical from his background.
And where are the hindus or neo-hindu sannyasins giving credence to what he said?
Like I say…don`t expect a result!
It`s pretty normal behaviour in India.
I`ve even had it done to me…That gives you an idea about how wacko, unconscious and loopy the characters doing it are!
‘Its about as much use as trying to get a Jehovahs witness to dance naked round a flaming dead goat`s head with you!’
The things you’ve got up to Frank.
What on earth occasioned you to be trying to get a Jehovah’s witness to dance naked round a flaming dead goat’s head with you?
Pure lust.
Would expect nothing less.
Why didn’t you try something a bit less rad?
My memory is something like in this picture.
Parmartha: “Are you looking to let ‘Osho World’ off the hook?!”
Parmartha, I am sorry I do not understand your question. Nor do I understand what it even means to “bow down to Existence”…Sounds like a way to avoid any bowing at all. Although it is a beautiful metaphor.
If bowing happens, I flow with it. I have no problem with bowing. During the Gachamis I bowed to buddha, dharma and sangha. Specifically, I bowed to Osho, I bowed to the truth of Osho’s teachings, and I bowed to Osho’s sangha. I literally bowed and placed my head on the floor of Buddha Hall. Felt great.
I found the Gauchamis cultish, and was very pleased when they were discontinued.
Osho World encourages bowing down, as I understand it from those in India, even to group and centre leaders. Also, they have this thing about kissing the marble where Osho used to lecture, etc., which of course is being denied them as Osho International controls what goes on in the ashram. All nonsense as far as I am concerned.
I detested the Gauchamis, but I also flipped in and out of freaking out about going to discourse, becasue that felt like going to church every morning.
I didn’t see it at the time, mind you, but it occurs to me it was putting me in touch with my anti-christian baggage, my hatred of religion.
Who knows if that is what those things were in part about? Maybe.
I forgot to write that the Gauchamis were like christian praying, which I could barely even acknowledge then, as I judged myself then for having a bad attitude, and it seems obvious now they were pressing my buttons about Xristianity.
It is interesting that the Gauchamis were introduced under Sheela, and abandoned when she left. Sheela banned independent thinking as well.
You may have found it inspiring to place your head on the cold marble of Buddha Hall.
Contrary wise, I remind you of Osho’s words:
“But if you intend to bow down, then bow down from a place from where you will never have to get up.”
Now that I really find inspiring, and thought-provoking.
Ahhha, those delightful marble-kissers…they give a whole new dimension to the weird land or devotion. If the master is gone, let’s go bow and kiss the marble where he stood instead!! Long live the Samadhi!!
Nice to see your name again, Anthony, after so many years!
I guess to some extent it is a matter of taste. If some people want to suck marble, such is life! I dislike champagne, others love it.
There certainly was plenty of room for devotional behaviour when Osho was alive, and seemingly even more now!
The problem with devotees is that they are narrow-minded, and want to inflict their ways on everyone else. Tolerance is not part of their make-up!
They need to be kept in their place and know the boundaries, otherwise they want to ‘take over’!
There are many discourses where many thousands of disciples are seen “bowing down” to Osho.
According to reports, Osho observed those who did not bow down and called them “old goats”.
(MOD: SOME EDITING)
Well if you are talking about the Gauchami period, then of course that was Sheela’s idea. Did you like some of her other ideas, like poisoning the Dalles salad bars?
As for the “Old Goats” reference, well, you would have to source that. I was around in that period and I heard of the camels of Sante Fe, but this did not apply to whether they bowed down or not!
Once Osho left the body, western mind jumped over and mauled down his creation like hungry beast.
(MOD: SOME EDITING)
Once Osho left the body, Shantam booby mind jumped over and mauled down his creation like hungry beast.
For you, Parmartha:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLZbzA2f0Co
Yes, Chetna, precisely the period post-1972, which the quote at the head of the string comes from which condemns supplication.
The appreciation of Osho includes being fully aware of his deliberately contradictory statements and actions. For me, they were deliberate in that they forced the disciple to think for himself !
“The appreciation of Osho includes being fully aware of his deliberately contradictory statements and actions. For me, they were deliberate in that they forced the disciple to think for himself!”
Such an important comment.
Absolutely comes a time it is impossible to avoid taking a decision for ourselves, and living with and learning from the consequences.
He once said, “I give you back yourselves.”
Yahoo.
And another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u7CSE7iu8I
I find it quite funny that you think that people didn’t bow down to Osho…I think he could not handle it physically any longer at some point, so stopped.
In England you offer out of respect a cup of tea and in India they bow down. A little respect towards ancient traditions won’t harm and there is no need of calling it all a cult.
Also, it does seem that in the East they rarely bow down their egos anyway, it is more like a yoga practice…
So who cares?
Most of the people that were bowing down here in the video had left the movement by 1975 – after he started talking about things like tantra which they did not like!
When I first met him in December, 1974 certainly Indians who were in the darshans bowed down and tried to touch his feet, but he certainly did not seem to particularly like it at close quarters.
I am not denying that many Indians treated Osho as a ‘guru’ in the normal sense, but many of them left him as soon as they realised he was not like a normal guru.
Thank you – some interesting facts I didn’t know about.
I am so glad it´s YOU who came up with these old vids and your around comment, you who has some respectability here in the chat.
When I first saw some of them in the eighties, I remember that I cried, as just the camera is exposing ever so much, isn´t it? Also the exhaustion of a Being and a Soul in a Body.
Also it is clearly to be seen, how unique anybody is, isn´t it?
As times go by…
Also, I gathered courage to share with Arpana and Parmartha too, what is my daily experience:
That as long as I am allergic to some habits, that has to do with me, very rarely with the other. And my list of allergies is long.
Thank you for coming in, Chetna.
Madhu
Bowing down at someone’s feet is not only an ancient tradition and a highly symbolic act, it is also a perfectly natural thing to do, if the situation warrants it.
I took great joy in bowing down at Osho’s feet (well manicured tootsies…WMTs] on many occassions. Osho never objected to it and occasionally chuckled quietly. Once in a while some Indian sannyasin would get carried away and grab hold of his ankles, with much accompanying howling and tears. Osho would gently get rid of them, obviously and quite understandably uncomfortable with the situation.
During this particular period in my life I was deeply in love with the whole Indian guru trip. Very romantic and a wee bit naïve also. Osho fulfilled the role of all-knowing wise guy to the max. He was a real pro. I played my humble sadhak role not too badly either.
At the core of the guru/disciple scenario lies surrender. Bowing down at a guru’s feet is symbolic of surrender. The most juicy message a guru can deliver to induce surrender is that it is the real expressway to enlightenment. Osho did that and at the time I chose to believe him.
Unless you have passed through such a process there is no way that you can understand how powerful it is, the massive emotional impact that happens upon bowing down at a master’s feet. It is also very addictive. So much so, many remain with it for the remainder of their lives, without entertaining the notion that what is happening is transitory and not the end game, which is to become a master in one’s own right.
So there I was, bowing down at Osho’s WMTs. I also used to place my head on the marble podium after he split the scene. I felt energised. I was not fully aware at the time of the great power of imagination, which can deliver us into many absurdities and subtle forms of bondage. In retrospect, it was good for me. I was saying, hey, man, I dig where you are at. Show me, guide me, teach me how to get it. Osho complied to a certain extent and I learned my lessons well.
Upon meeting what I would call other enlightened people I don’t really recall touching anyone’s feet. I suppose I grew out of it. Would I do it again? I daresay I would if the situation warranted it, but I kind of doubt that will happen. Life is full of surprises and one never knows what the future holds. So far, so good.
There’s little point in me making any comments on Sannyas News these days Lokesh always says everything better than I ever could.
I bow to thee, old man!
Parmartha said: “The appreciation of Osho includes being fully aware of his deliberately contradictory statements and actions. For me, they were deliberate in that they forced the disciple to think for himself! ”
Parmartha, Osho did not fundamentally contradict himself. What you take to be “contradictory statements” are superficial and tactical.
Some people believe that Osho can be quoted against himself, because he in supposedly so contradictory. Then it should be possible to produce Osho quotes supporting bowing down to gurus. I don’t think anyone will find any such statement. If contradictory statements on bowing can be found, it is because bowing is basically not central to Osho’s message.
Osho was completely consistent on things that mattered. One can easily find insignificant contradictions in words, but taken as a whole Osho’s message is “a single message from the roots to the flower.” This is my experience: the apparent contradictions dissolved one day, and what remained was a wordless truth.
“My old books are immensely important.
Unless you understand them, you will not be able to understand me.
But remember, it is a constant flow and change,
so don’t be bothered with inconsistencies, contradictions.
If you go on, soon you will be able to find the truth.
And once the truth is revealed,
all contradictions and inconsistencies dissolve.
Then you can see, crystal-clear,
that it is a single message from the roots to the flower.
It is a single organism.”
– Osho, From the False to the Truth #11
Maybe you have not read the string thoroughly, Samarpan? Arpana came up with some Osho text which did support bowing down.
All commentators I have read acknowledge Osho’s contradictions. Many explain them by saying he was directing his answers to different people at different stages of their growth. Sounds a reasonable point to me.
It also seems reasonable on another level to say that contradictions are a good teaching device. They do lead people to think for themselves, and thinking for oneself might well be seen as a core component of being ‘master’ of oneself – Osho’s final goal for his disciples.
Of course ‘the words’ were meant as bait, but Osho did encourage all of us to go beyond the words. There the law of contradiction does not hold.
Nonetheless, to say that all of Osho’s contradictions are “superficial and tactical” seems rather defensive to me, and mistaken. I wonder why you need to undermine Osho’s contradictions?
Because the notion of a pre-ordained or understood prefixed contradiction would be then held as definitive (mind) thus preventing enquiry in establishing its veracity or not, leading to the notional equitability of exclusive polarities which remain antagonistic and unreconcileable (form). Thus leading to compromise or artificial or strategic synthesis without dissolution. Form over content. You cannot ride two horses or support two football teams – there’s no authenticity.
It’s not what you are non-attached to (the plethora of contradicting thought), it’s what does not attach itself to you and leaves you alone…schhhhussshhh.
(Don’t all write in at once, I’m tied up at the moment, page 675 of ‘Fifty Shades of Contradictory Grey’).
Too much importance is placed on Osho’s words. When taking into consideration the man has been dead for over two decades that is understandable, especially for newcomers who are new to Osho. Anyone who had real contact with Osho’s presence will know that it spoke of deep silence. Silence was his real message, for it is only in silence one becomes aware of presence, one’s own, the universal, that which says everything worthwhile knowing. I very rarely read anything written, or rather spoken by Osho.
My mother was fond of one quote in particular, which she said to me a few times:
“Wise men leave behind in books what they can’t take with them.”
All those words are useless unless they guide you to silence and if you hang on to the words you will also have to let go of them one day soon. Instead of reading Osho’s words you do better to become aquainted with silence. Silence holds no contradictions whatsoever.
“All commentators I have read acknowledge Osho’s contradictions. Many explain them by saying he was directing his answers to different people at different stages of their growth. Sounds a reasonable point to me.”
Yes, it does sound reasonable. I just went a little further, did my own research, exercised independent thinking, discovered a deeper thread of consistency, and broke with the herd of commentators who saw contradictions.
Afterwards, years later, I discovered that Osho himself said: “Don’t be bothered with inconsistencies, contradictions.” Osho confirmed that his work is “a single message from the roots to the flower.”
Research. An intellectual game.
If you know this existentially, why are you here?
Why are you trying to win?
You are not on a higher plane than anyone else here.
Banta Singh came to village with the news, “Leader in the city has died.”
Swami Santa Satori contradicted him by saying, “It cannot be. I can show you the letter of appreciation he wrote me just last year. It was even in the newspapers.”
It happens when seekers behave like pundits, quoting pages after pages, and most often out of context, out of reality.
Befooling whom?
MOD: WHAT SPECIFICALLY DOES THIS RELATE TO, SHANTAM?
This relates to the tendency to use Osho´s quotations abruptly and out of context. This relates to the efforts to turn mysterious into a kind of military drill. Left-right-left, left-right-left, and everything else is out of the way!
Your last string was about the jungle around Osho´s house. This string with strong personal opinions is a way to create an English garden.
Is it an ISIS command, “Bow down to Existence only?”
This relates to Shantambooby posting pompous mindfarts in an attempt to manipulate Sannyas News regulars to kiss his arse.
Reflexology chart for feet required.
Must include zone areas for surrender, transcending, contradiction, union, dissolution of separation, self-recognition, core mirroring, salvation, liberation and a-tonement.
Purchaser can’t currently get up or speak as partner is devoted ‘fifty-shades of greyist’. Genuine offers only by email. Safeword: Schhhhhhushhhhh.
It is also worth remembering there are meditations of Osho where one has to bow down, like in Mahamudra or Prayer Meditation. To me, it feels that this is also one of the tools for inner transformation that does not suit all but does have a place.
Sometimes when I touch upon the unknown I bow down on my own to nothing in particular, it just feels as a best expression of gratitude. I love it, but it comes rarely and not to anything or anyone in particular. Maybe I even bow down to my own presence.
It feels beautiful to put that ego aside and become vulnerable to something greater than me/ego…I feel that’s why some people still bow down to Osho in whichever form that it is. If it feels right for them, who are you to stop them? They are doing the most non-violent act.
Unfortunately, if we go back to the article, this bowing down is used by those who think they are as great as Osho and are gurus indeed…A bit of a circle really…Everyone wants to be important!
Good reminder about the meditations, Chetna.
Re Your phrase “who are you to stop them?”
Maybe here there is a misunderstanding. Speaking for myself, I would never “stop” anyone doing what they want to do. But if you read this string carefully there are clearly those here who would bring back the gauchamis as an imperative, and have us genuflecting to the centre and group leaders of Osho World.
I think it is a good thing if everyone who loves Osho, in the many ways he can be loved, knows that he himself never bowed down to anyone!
Touching the feet of the elders or wise was part of Indian social make-up. It is more ancient than imported products like Valentine´s Day and Christmas.
Someone like me at the age of 52 is observing the shift in the values.
When in India, I still touch the feet of the elders (10 years-plus), but cannot expect 20, 30 years younger than me will do the same. I also don´t expect.
Times are changing, social norms too, especially in urban India.
And the results are obvious too. India is not any more that sensitive land.
The vibes in India are losing the melody. The shift is obvious, as from the days of Osho Ashram to Osho Resorts; miles-long concrete but no depth.
I also remember, between 15 till 20 I was very fussy about touching the feet. My grandmother and mother will whisper, “Guests are coming, don´t hesitate to touch the feet.” When I questioned, the answer was always, “Blessings of the elders go long way.”
In a country where daily struggle of life is too rough, oiling of the blessings keep the people moving.
Later on, after coming in contact with Osho and becoming Swami, my back did not have the rigidness. More than the desire for blessings, it was a feeling to see instant results, elders felt at ease, they did not show antagonism towards Osho. They could see, their boy is still the same, even a bit more easy.
In many ways isn’t this debate meaningless? Osho is dead (I prefer to make it clear that he died, rather than “left his body”).
All those wanting to relive the old days and wallow in old memories are acting precisely against his teaching (he asked us to live in the moment, didn’t he?).
As to the Indian tradition of bowing to elders, masters and holy objects…Well, that’s their thing, not mine. Osho himself sent out confusing messages about this cultural heritage, enjoying the adulation in one moment, and ridiculing it later.
The ultimate message he gave us was to become masters of our self, and not to adulate anyone, including him.
This post is more about you trying to align yourself with the resident
‘King of the castle’,
King of the castle in your view anyway.
Absolutely correct, Arpana. I know who is the King and who isn’t!
Gosh, Rev. You’ve managed to get your head even further up.
Who would have thought it possible?
However far up I seem to go, Arpana, I always find you there.
OoOoWWH!!
“Osho is dead (I prefer to make it clear that he died, rather than “left his body”).”
Simond, what is the opinion of your dad or mom regarding Jesus´s resurrection?
If ultimate message of Osho was, “Not 69 but rimming is the way”, would you follow that way?
Become a master of oneself…Load of nonsense!
Don’t understand this post.
Can you give attention to making your meanings more clear, Shantam?
Nothing seems to follow from anything else. If you are free-associating, then please stop that practice here at SN. It just confuses people and takes space from the string.
Also, please read the replies people try to give to your posts and converse rather than ignoring them or not reading them.
After the emotional outburst, I try to make it clear.
People who dare to say Osho has died 25 years ago, get constipation to say, “Jesus died 2000 years ago, Buddha died 2500 years ago and so on.”
Few people leave their impressions in such a way, a kind of longing, they get posthumous glory. Osho may have died or left the body, matter of the fact is as per the notes of the people, “He wants not to be addressed in the past tense.”
“He wants not to be addressed in the past tense.”
Osho came away with that towards the end of his life. He was not a well man. Perhaps that is something not to be taken too seriously, like making it a law. Personally, I think it’s bullshit. As Osho once said to me, nothing is more ridiculous than being concerned how people will think about you when you are dead. He was right (past tense).
It’s also possible to see it not as utilitarian but as metaphorical and symbolic: the present tense or present continuous (used often in India) as in ‘Osho experiencing, being you, now’. Re-framing.
All that one refers to is done now, this becomes more significant when entering language use for inducing associative change. Poetic.
Plays are always enacted in the present, though they may have been written hundreds of years ago. Scripture or script for ad-libbing?
Life exists as one big see-saw, yo-yo-ing utterly out of time. That may become more reassuring as one runs out of it.
I doubt that there is an answer as to whether bowing down is, in itself, right or wrong, good or bad for you. Like anything really…
What of kissing? It can be a sign of affection or, as in the case of Judas Iscariot, a sign of betrayal.
Bowing can be putting onesself in tune with Existence or it can be undignified and dehumanising grovelling ordained by archaic nonsense in the name of social control masquerading as `holy`…
If you are waiting for the answer or authorisation from a dead guy with a beard who habitually contradicted himself on the matter…
Well, good luck with that one….
Take a bow , Frank…
http://www.lacasadinando.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Giangurgolo_maschera_calabrese_della_commedia_dellarte.jpg
“Osho is dead (I prefer to make it clear that he died, rather than “left his body”).”
In a way, Simond, this sentence is quite something. In my opinion, one string dedicated to such thoughts is very essential.
Why humanity does not allow few people to die? What is the interest not just to keep their memory alive, but centuries-long pretension, “Sir, takes care of files up in the sky”?
The whole ‘left the body’ thing is Sannyas-speak. Yes, having watched people die, something definitely leaves the body. To call it ‘you’ is a misconception. What we call ‘I’ is basically something constructed from birth in this world, and belonging to this world it must one day return to the earth.
That ‘I’ is not immortal and upon the breakdown of the human form, death, ‘I’ does not leave the body or go anywhere. So all this ‘have a good journey’ idea is romantic nonsense.
That which is eternal has no personality as such, but the possibility of merging with that is what the whole spiritual search is about.
One can experience death before the actual breakdown of the body. That is why wise guys like Jesus say, ‘Unless you die and are reborn again you will not enter my kingdom of God’. He wasn’t bullshiting when he said that, he was telling the simple truth.
Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that in death the body leaves ‘you’, rather than ‘you’ leave the body? (‘You’ here meaning the being behind the person, personality, etc.).
I see a lot of people arguing against the act of bowing down… but the very title of this article is:
“Bow Down such that you never have to get up” (Osho).
So you have to bow down so intensely that you never get up… you are always bowing down to Existence, in humbleness at this miracle.
How did this turn into an argument AGAINST bowing down? How did you put words into Osho’s mouth that he is against bowing down?
Read the passage again:
“If you bow down to my feet, after a minute you will have to stand up and the matter is finished. You bowed down, made unnecessary effort and then stood up. There is no essence in it; there is no meaning in it.
But I say that there is the universe, to which one can bow down forever, and never have to get up.”
He is saying that just bowing down to someone’s feet is a formality. You bow down for a few seconds…and then it is finished. It’s a small formality.
What he says next is:
You have to bow down to Existence so totally, so intensely…that you never get up. Your ego is always in a state of surrender…you are always bowing down to Existence.
He is simply saying:
Bowing down to someone is too small. You have to bow down to Existence all the time, such that ‘you’ never get up…only surrender remains.
How did this turn into an argument against bowing down? I am astonished how you turned this Osho quote as an argument against bowing down.
You must have a very arrogant ego to fear even the act of bowing down. What’s the worst that can happen to you? Try it! So what if you bow down to a guru? What’s the worst that can happen to you? Hurt pride?
Well, to bow or not to bow, that is the question…
“To bow down to Existence all the time” – sounds wonderful, spiritually impeccable, impeccably spiritual…
But does anyone have a clue what it really means, ie what it actually entails doing and being, in down-to-earth, practical terms, living one’s ordinary daily life? You know, in every single situation:
The mundane difficulties, like computer malfunctions (anyone for ‘computer rage’?!), bad weather ruining a much-anticipated outdoor leisure activity, being late thanks to heavy traffic etc. etc.;
And also the particularly tricky ones, like heavy family arguments, relationship crises, being left by a lover for another, being cripplingly short of money, severe illness, emotional difficulties/personal issues causing significant incapacity to cope with life, facing others’ damning judgments, being the victim of injustice or torture, homelessness, losing one’s job, the discomforts and ailments of old age, chronic loneliness, being very badly let down, losing a substantial amount of money, and so on – not merely holidays or weekend walks in beautiful countryside, or temporary sojourns in exotic ashrams etc., not the comparatively banal ‘love, life, laughter’ stuff.
And if so, rather than holding it as a lovely idea, a spiritually desirable ideal, has anyone actually tried ‘doing/being’ it, ie living it, here and now, moment-to-moment, as it were?
You’re right, Prem, that compared to that lot, the ‘not-so-nice’ part of Existence’s ‘rich tapestry’, the issue of ‘to bow or not to bow’ to a guru is more than somewhat trivial, a matter of outer form, formality. But also, unless one is very clear about what ‘bowing down to Existence’ actually entails, then merely quoting this aesthetically pleasing phrase doesn’t amount to much.
Do you remember the phrase ‘Say yes to everything.’ (Or was that just me?).
Affected me in a big way at the time, to my benefit.
Was a big help to me in learning to trust my own decision making.
Never think about the phrase now.
Bowing down is a place and time-sensitive notion, that some people pick up, some don’t.
Pass through or not.
Never meant a lot to me.
Say yes to everything did for a time.
We pick up on things. Work with them. The ‘thing’ runs its course.
Sometimes getting into something is the best way to find out the ‘something’ wasn’t worth bothering with.
I like that, Arpana. As you say, we are often drawn to a phrase or a concept or a way of doing that serves its purpose, and is unique to us.
Your example of saying “Yes” is a great expression of this.
I still occasionally use the word “stop” to remind me of the moment. It’s a conscious way to bring me back to “nothing”. To stop the mind and its thoughts for a moment. It reminds me of the constant in me. Never changing and always there. And then I go back to whatever I was doing. Refreshed.
That’s big of you. Thanks.
Was just mulling over going to live in London for a couple of years, at the end of 1983, and I knew I was playing out a ‘grass is greener’ trip, but had always had a thing about living in London, so I gave into the number.
Well, I got there and realised pretty quickly I had lived what I called the London life in Birmingham, before I took Sannyas; but also got my feet on the ground about where I was going in my life, and never looked back, because I had let go into that trip.
This also enabled me to get the ‘grass is greener in London’ out of my system existentially, rather than intellectually. (I am reminded of Alice through the Looking Glass, and going backwards to go forwards).
Just a suggestion, Arpana, that you say Yes a little more on this forum; if you reacted less to some of the comments posted by Shantam Prem and others… you allowed more and fought less?
You get caught up in enjoying the friction of No to some of the comments that others post, which makes you appear less open than you could be.
Let Shantam Prem rave. If you react, you won’t see if he ever has something real to say.
Behind it, I suggest, is a fear of losing yourself in the chaos of unreason. You are too keen to ‘know’ yourself and to judge.
Slow down and let it all in. No one can hurt you?
“Let Shantam Prem rave. If you react, you won’t see if he ever has something real to say.”!
Shantam booby has nothing to say worth bothering with. This is a known fact, Rev.
You know I’m not exactly Shantam’s biggest fan, Arps, but I think very occasionally he does contribute something worthwhile, e.g. his recent post about his own experience ‘bowing’ etc. in India, growing up and later.
Why not deliberately choose to set aside this fixed attitude and see what happens? Most probably, nothing – but you never know, Existence can be full of surprises (if you ‘bow down’ to It enough, of course)….
Ok, old chap.Seeing as how you put it like that.
Ah, but Arpana, what exactly is a “known fact?”
Facts come and go. The closer you look at any fact you care to mention, the more the fact becomes hazy and uncertain.
Even scientists recognise this more and more.
“Known fact” is an expression Shantam has used regularly, Rev.
In conjunction with remarks such as “Osho being an Indian hurts the pride of all western sannyasins”, or another of his gems: “no western sannyasin has ever handled a potato”, and more.
I hope that helps your holier-than-thouness.
Good questions, Satyadeva.
Arpana below, provides a simple answer. Saying Yes.
As to bowing and all that jazz, I’m sure you know already that such acts don’t solve all the problems that you have listed.
Such problems are worked out daily, as I’m sure you are doing. But the simple reminder to say Yes to it all, and to know that everything that is offered to you in this life has a truer and deeper purpose, has helped me.
I have no trump with bowing, it’s not part of our tradition here, but if it acts as a reminder to be grateful to Existence and to know that all is good, let them carry on.
The danger is, of course, like prayer, that it just becomes a social activity: Who can bow the most, the furthest and with the most authentic ‘look’?
Saying yes to everything – as Maurice Chevalier and Hermione Gingold sang, in ‘Gigi’, “Ah, yes, I remember it well” *…
No doubt, Simond, you recall that injunction of BL, “Do not judge the situation”. Similar, but perhaps a subtle difference, in that you’re not actively adding something, a “yes”, just cutting out the judge, the one who wants it his way, the annoyed, frustrated, this is terrible, stupid – why me? why now? self-centred complainer.
Easy enough, of course, in theory…far, far harder in practice, as it means consciously overcoming one’s emotionally-charged self, the very essence of selfishness.
Yesterday, I impressed a friend by passing on a remark of the Dalai Lama, when he was asked what the best, the most fulfilling thing in life was: “Overcoming difficulties” was his simple response. I find it hard to argue with that.
(*http://youtu.be/sISWPzEqHLQ)
Say yes to the judge and get it out of your system.
If you mean becoming more conscious of ‘the judge’, seeing how it operates and works to resist so many situations, causing much unnecessary tension and stress, then fine, couldn’t agree more.
But having seen all that, surely the intelligent thing is to see the point about giving it up rather than continuing to wilfully indulge it – with inevitable suffering?
Back to say yes to everything.
Meaning what exactly, in this context?
I’ve been saying yes to my no to ++++++++++++. You intervened in such a manner I then said yes to my yes to you.
The worst may yet come.
To bow to a guru is to raise him to a pedestal, which may feed the ego of the guru and disciple alike. The disciple loves the special status he feels, in having surrendered his ego. Which creates more ego..
Much of the history of India is polluted by the special status of the guru. Just how many stupid religions have come out of the country, whilst the poor and uneducated suffer in their millions?
What exactly has bowing to your elders and betters and gurus achieved?
Prem enquires, “What’s the worst that can happen to you? Hurt pride?”
Ehm…er, no. Hurt pride is not the worst thing that can happen. Short-circuiting one’s critical faculties is much worse, in my opinion at least.
What a strong energy wave here in the ´caravanserai´ to this issue,
this morning.
Seeing Prem as a kind of midwife, then being taken over by a quite Shakespearean approach of ´Be or not to be´, and a heavy load of uncomfortables (facts to face) Satyadeva reminds us all of. Rightly so, I would say.
However, what does it mean, “critical faculties”, these days, Lokesh, in ´Information Technical Age´? And having the latter, or being ´short-circuited´ of the latter, that is an issue unto itself, I feel.
Never to be such easy to judge upon from a keyboard. Somewhere.
(MOD: PLEASE EXPLAIN, MADHU)
Quite new challenge nowadays concerning ´critical faculties´, isn´t it?
Madhu
“Quite new challenge nowadays concerning ´critical faculties´, isn´t it?”
Not really. In relation to bowing down to authoritarian figures the situation has remained unchanged for centuries and has nothing to do with ´Information Technical Age´. It has to do with our ability to judge what is healthy for us, good for for us, the right thing to do etc.
Madhu judges that, “Never to be such easy to judge upon from a keyboard. Somewhere.” I have not the faintest idea what this implies. Perhaps Madhu would care to enlighten us.
When I go to church for silent sitting and sleeping as I used to do at Osho´s Samadhi, many times I bow down.
After reading this article, as a sannyasin I am feeling doubtful, as I bow down sometimes before Mary´s statue.
What is the prescribed format written in Osho Sharia?
El Chudo enquires, “What is the prescribed format written in Osho Sharia?”
Keep your chuddies on or risk impalement.
Thus spoke the Khalifa!
“Madhu judges that, “Never to be such easy to judge upon from a keyboard. Somewhere.” I have not the faintest idea what this implies. Perhaps Madhu would care to enlighten us.”
Lokesh,
the way you are addressing me in these lines in the third-person, ‘de-personalized as a contributor’, so to say, is a way it´s often done here with people whom one has decided to be more a mental vegetable or in a coma, just to chit-chat with buddies about them, not with them. Showing contempt.
If you get ready to relate to the human female being I am, we can exchange.
Otherwise, that just sheds some light, just some, on the point I was trying to make.
Madhu
Madhu, why not simply explain what you mean by saying, “Never to be such easy to judge upon from a keyboard. Somewhere” in a language that is comprehensible to the man in the street?
Instead of writing more statements like, “the way you are addressing me in these lines in the third-person, ‘de-personalized as a contributor’, so to say, is a way it´s often done here with people whom one has decided to be more a mental vegetable or in a coma, just to chit-chat with buddies about them, not with them”, which is also pretty vague, as I see it.
There is nothing contemptable in asking someone to explain what they mean, but so over-sensitive are you that you take it ss such.
Dear Madhu,
I think the point Lokesh is making is that your posts aren’t always very clear.
I recognise that English is not your first language, which makes it more difficult for you. Have you ever considered using a translation app., from your native language (German?) to English? I have no idea if they are successful or not. Why not try it out?
In addition, you are deeply subjective and sensitive in your thinking. The points you offer are occasionally so personal and unique that your meaning is not always easy to understand.
Can you attempt to re-read what you have written? Try and imagine whether the reader who is reading what you have written for the first time will understand. You might wish to use simpler language or try and be more direct and less subjective.
It is an art to write and some are better than others. But the points you make are always heartfelt and they are valuable. I appreciate your desire to share, living alone as you do. We all wish to be ‘heard’.
Re Prem’s post earlier:
Erudite, Prem, but still misses.
Don’t forget the question in examining the answer.
The question was to Osho (in the early 70s):
“One friend has asked, why I have refused to allow my feet to be touched?”
Osho did not answer every question put to him by any means. I can attest to that! So, at the time, when he was getting rid of the Hindus, Sikhs and Jains, clearly this was a significant question!
In addition, worth noting that all the early biographies say that Osho was rebellious, and never touched anyone’s feet, and never really had gurus at all. Just two or three people who he respected and sat with.
Worth noting both these points, Prem, before you rush to judgement.
Frankly, I doubt whether anyone here gives a toss whether people bow down or not. Certainly not me. But I do object to those who would make it sort of a compulsory part of the ‘new Sannyas religion’ evident in Nepal and Delhi, and therefore acting as disguised bullies of whatever they deign to be the new Sannyas movement.