Is there anything, just anything, you could review re this thread topic beyond or besides a financial ( aka ´power´) transactional viewpoint?

(Did thoroughly read your your yesterday´s contribution telling us about your 4 or 5 years maintaining personal efforts (website on yahoo) which I knew nothing of – so far; maybe others here did (?), when I feel some heavy sarcasm going on..).

Anyway – would you mind to share some re my first question, please?
Even then, when such could be obsolete for you, the latter – as a statement – would be better to hear from your side instead of on my side imagining or murky fantasising….

Madhu

And then I remembered that I answered your post about Lennon again at 8:21pm last night.

Obviously the problem is Osho, who takes all those devices seriously.

*cardias: The anatomical term for defining the upper orifice of communication between the esophagus and the stomach, below the diaphragm.

Still, whatever your experience, it proves nothing except that it wasn’t for you. Just as not every single meditation method or therapy (or Master) suits everyone (far from it, in fact) – and neither is everything any Master says relevant to everyone, including his/her own disciples/followers/”friends”. As you yourself confirm with your recent highly critical remarks about Osho’s statements on John Lennon.

For many, Osho was the founder of spiritual fun park for adults only. Now memories are left of Indian Elvis Presley of spiritual industry who seems to be more at ease when microphone was before Him.

Sometimes it is no harm to take actions of the master a bit seriously and sincerely, and with pinch of salt!

It is something big, at least relatively speaking…

The focus of this thread is: The name ‘Osho’ was chosen out of the Zen discourses that Osho was solely speaking on in his final year or two. ‘Osho’ was the reverent name (‘Heshang’ in China, pronounced ‘Osho’ in Japan) used by Zen disciples (in China) for their Zen master. Why was this changed to the William James “oceanic” derivation, as a conscious rewriting of its history?

Easy answer, I would say. The business administrators of the Osho legacy, i.e., OFI, the Resort, did not want the main character in their new religion to be associated with just “one” of the many past spiritual movements of the world. That would constrain the propagation of the movement.

Osho spoke on a vast array of historical spiritual ideas and people involved with those ideas. To in some way have future seekers think that he was ‘just’ a Zen master in the long lineage of that sect, would be a limiting factor that reduces the interest of new adherents and participants. To hook it to something “oceanic” – the W. James connection of the word -would make it more universal, and more profitable.

Also, there may be a legal, trademark reason hooked in. OFI wants to trademark the word ‘Osho’, but that word has been used by the Zen centres for centuries, and is still in current use in Japan. That would be like trying to trademark ‘Mevlana, ‘Bhagwan’, or even ‘Father’ used for a Christian priest in contemporary times. Or ‘Pope’.