The “Editing” of Osho’s Words by the Cabal

I always find it outside of normal logic when commentators and others, most of whom never stepped foot on the Ranch say it was Osho telling Sheela and her cabal  to do “things”.

I dont share this view at all. Telling him to bug his own room, or knock off Amrito, just rubbish.

Here is another example well contoured in Maneesha’s book “Osho the Buddha for the Future” (which is about to be republished. )

Maneesha writes in her book:

“So how, you will wonder, did we reconcile all that Osho is saying about religion and priests versus true religiousness with the fact that we are now ‘Rajneeshees’, of the religion of ‘Rajneeshism’, with a bible called The Book of Rajneeshism and our very own pope, with her papal regalia for special occasions, in the form of Sheela? Osho has reiterated so many times that the last place you can expect to experience God or feel the essence of religiousness is within the confines of a formal religion. Yet that is exactly what Sheela appears to have created – I presume because we were applying for permission for Osho to stay under the category of his being a religious teacher. She wants to substantiate that by having all the trappings of a formal religion. Apparently, our lawyers have advised her that this is not necessary. In fact, it will prove obstructive when it comes to the issue of the separation of church and state.

It’s just a gesture and almost certainly none of us take it seriously. But later I wonder if Sheela used the situation to consolidate her position. For sure many of her strategies to gain and then maintain power have a popish ring about them.

Sheela and the book of Rajneeshism

Perhaps, because Sheela is not listening to him, Osho tries to warn us all through discourses that what we are doing, or allowing to be done, to his vision is the very thing that has been done to masters in the past. Perhaps what usually happens only after the master is dead, Osho is allowing to be played out now, while he is still alive, to watch what our response will be and to guide us.

Does any Christian who has any real understanding of Jesus believe that the pope embodies the precepts of Jesus’ vision? What would Jesus find, and what would he do about it, if he came back to earth today and met the pope in the Vatican?

In any case, one incident in particular illustrates Sheela’s popish behaviour: her editing of Osho’s discourses. By ‘editing’ I don’t mean the kind Devaraj, Devageet and I were doing – adding commas or correcting the English, as he has asked us to.

Unknown to most of us, Sheela actually cuts whole sentences and passages from not one but several discourses. Her rationale is that she is protecting Osho and the commune from unnecessary political or legal repercussions; that Osho is speaking on subjects of which he is ‘meant’ to have no knowledge and is thus incriminating himself.

Later, Osho spells out very clearly that not only are his acknowledged enemies trying to stop him talking, even his disciples wanted to hinder his message. He says he knows exactly what he is saying and is aware of the ramifications. But according to several sannyasins who know Sheela, her attitude towards Osho is that he doesn’t understand much that goes on in the world and it is up to her to protect him and to take care of certain matters without his guidance.

That she sets herself up as protector, one might argue, though misguided, is well intentioned. However, consider the position Sheela puts herself into as protector of Osho and censor of his words. Without his knowledge, advice, or consent, Sheela can, and does, interfere with Osho’s message to his sannyasins and the rest of the world.

From one particular discourse (December 19, 1984), she deletes several pages in which Osho talks about how he envisions certain corporations within the commune functioning. These many separate bodies he sees as necessary to decentralize power and avoid a concentration of power in the hands of just one person.

Now, why should the spiritual head of the commune be endangering his status by talking about how to decentralize and so avoid the abuse of power? To say that the discourse implies Osho is involved in the details of running the commune is analogous to saying that if the pope makes a comment about nuclear warfare he is making bombs! The more likely explanation as to why these passages are removed is that they signify a threat to Sheela personally…

[…] It is here that several passages are deleted. I for one would even dispute whether the phrase ‘other religious affairs’ is Osho’s and not Sheela’s; it does not strike me as a phrase that is characteristic of the way Osho talks. I could be wrong on that score but certainly there is no question that two pages later a phrase of Osho’s has been replaced with one that is not his. Osho has been saying that we should learn from the past and not allow organizations to use us…

Osho discourse in Lao Tzu

‘And if you can see all the possibilities that destroy religion…’ Osho continues, and before they get hold of my religion I am going to finish all these possibilities. Sannyasins can have a totally different organization. That promise you can always remember: I will not leave you under a fascist regime.’ 

But in the written discourse you will find the last phrase reads, ‘I will not leave you in a state of chaos.’

From Ignorance to Innocence, Ch 20, Q 1

Devaraj and Devageet are both present at this discourse, and they remember this particular phrase as originally said. In fact, they remember a good deal of the discourse and are aware, when they see the transcript given to them, that much material has been edited out. Trusting that if it has been omitted it is for a good reason, they ask no further about the matter.

Only some time later I hear that Zeno – who worked in the tape and video department where the initial editing had to be done – does ask about why so many of Osho’s words need to be cut and changed. Subsequently, she is falsely and deliberately diagnosed as having a positive AIDS antibody test and is sent to live with others in a special area set up for those having the syndrome. (This form of incarceration is used as punishment for at least one other sannyasin; apparently, rumour has it, because when asked to be involved in a drug run by one of Sheela’s gang he refused to.)”

“On September 8th we celebrate Mahaparinirvana Day (the day on which we celebrate all those sannyasins, past or present, who have died enlightened). Sheela is absent it is the first ranch celebration day she has missed and returns a few days later. It’s common knowledge that Sheela’s trips away from the commune, ostensibly to visit centres all around the world, have become increasingly frequent and lengthy. On her return from this latest visit she writes a letter to Osho saying that she no longer feels so excited when she comes back to the commune, that she enjoys more when her work takes her to Europe, Australia and elsewhere.

Osho responds to this on the evening of Friday, September 13, 1985 in the press conference in Jesus Grove. As it happens, Sheela is not present; she has a cold. Needless to say, Osho’s response spreads rapidly among those of us who are not present.

‘Perhaps she is not conscious,’ Osho tells the forty or so sannyasins present and this is the situation for all she does not know why she does not feel excited here anymore. It is because I am speaking and she is no longer the central focus. She is no longer a celebrity. When I am speaking to you, she is no longer needed as a mediator to inform you of what I am thinking. Now that I am speaking to the press and to the radio and TV journalists, she has fallen into shadow. And for three and a half years she was in the limelight because I was silent.

‘It may not be clear to her why she does not feel excited coming here and feels happy in Europe. She is still a celebrity in Europe interviews, television shows, radio interviews, newspapers but here all that has disappeared from her life. If you can behave in such foolish, unconscious ways even while I am here, the moment I am gone you will be creating all kinds of politics, fight. Then what is the difference between you and the outside world? Then my whole effort has been a failure. I want you to behave really as a new man.

‘I have given Sheela the message that this is the reason: “So think it over and tell me. If you want me to stop speaking just for your excitement, I can stop speaking.” To me there is no problem in it. In fact, it is a trouble. For five hours a day I am speaking to you, and it is creating unhappiness in her mind. So let her do her show business. I can move into silence. But that indicates that deep down those who have power will not like me to be here alive, because while I am here nobody can have any power trip. They may not be conscious about it; only situations reveal your power trip…’

The Last Testament, Vol 2, Ch 23

How is Sheela going to receive this ‘hit’? We don’t have to wait too long to find out. The following day around 1:45 p.m. I receive a phone call from Mary Catherine who, for the past year or so, has been an editor with The Rajneesh Times. ‘Maneesha, I’m down at Jesus Grove,’ she says breathlessly. ‘I don’t know if you guys are aware of it, but Sheela is planning to leave. I think Osho ought to be told.’ ²

Excerpts from Osho: The Buddha for the Future by Maneesha James


This entry was posted in Discussion. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to The “Editing” of Osho’s Words by the Cabal

  1. Arpana says:


    Only a few were disloyal. I was silent, in isolation, for three and a half years and I had given all the powers to the president of the commune and the people who were running and taking care of the commune. This can give any human mind an opportunity, it is nothing special. Everybody has a will-to-power. I was completely inactive, I was not even meeting sannyasins. So in these three and a half years they tried to harass people who were more intelligent than themselves and might sometime become competitors. So the people who left, left because they were harassed by this small group of twenty people who were holding power, and who had not the intelligence or the competence to do so.

    They harassed the vice chancellor and the chancellor of the university, psychologists, professors, doctors – people who had achieved more growth. They did not tell them to leave, but in an indirect way they harassed them. Some left. They never left me, they never left the commune, but they left this group.

    Once I was out of silence I wanted everything to be done by the best person. The moment I started speaking again, and reports started coming to me that these twenty people had been doing things which were not according to my ideas, those twenty people simply escaped. And all the people who had gone came back immediately. So it was a simple human weakness – when you have power you want more power, and you don’t want anybody to be a competitor in any situation.

    But this was not a big problem. Once I was speaking I thought, those twenty people have left, that does not matter. I have one million sannyasins around the world; what do twenty people mean among one million sannyasins? And those who had left previously immediately returned, so this was not a problem at all. I immediately put the right people in their places, and the commune was running perfectly well. There was no problem; the real problem came from the politicians outside.”

    ‘The Last Testament’, Vol. 4, Chapter 7

    • Ken Kolasinski says:

      So much of this doesn’t make sense…

      “But this was not a big problem. Once I was speaking I thought, those twenty people have left, that does not matter. I have one million sannyasins around the world; what do twenty people mean among one million sannyasins?”

      Then why verbally attack or even acknowledge what had happened? Move on in the enlightened way spoken of, preached of and acted on?

      The damage was done. Just like the teachings…move on.

      Troubles me that it didn’t happen

      • Arpana says:

        That’s because you’re a perfectionist, Ken Kolanski.

        Courtesy of Fritz Perls, via Satchit:

        “I am not in this world to live up to your expectations. And you are not in this world to live up to mine.”

  2. Parmartha says:

    One is not tryng to overdraw attention to the Ranch period, but clearly many who are interested, and maybe over-interested, seem to discount this sort of evidence which is totally clear and very well stated by Maneesha.

    Maneesha and Amrito have continued to make their contributions in successive stages of the commune, and the commune’s recovery from what happened 83/85, including the Poona 2 period which some commentators here seem so fixed on. (Actually, as has been pointed out many times, the present is more interesting than either period).

    The Sheela cabal, which basically consisted, as Osho states, of about 20 people, did some crazy things and forgot Osho.

    The only implication Osho had in all this was his foolishness in appointing Sheela and gang, and then switching off, for whatever reason, for a number of years.

    • satchit says:

      “I always find it outside of normal logic when commentators and others, most of whom never stepped foot on the Ranch say it was Osho telling Sheela and her cabal to do “things”.”

      Certainly Osho told Sheela to do “things”. She was not only his secretary – she was also his disciple.

      We only don’t know what kind of things. Maybe he said sometimes “follow your energy”, or whatever. Osho told Devageet, his dentist, to do things – why should he not have told Sheela to do things?

      Outside of normal logic was Osho, unpredictable, that’s the truth.

      • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

        Right Satchit, we don´t know.
        But we came to know , what happened, isn´t it ?

        And some here ( me included) are very paining about that.
        as far as I can see it, Ma Anand Sheela does not belong to those who are paining; on the contrary it seems.

        And sometimes ( maybe not unlike this case) Psychopaths of this kind get much more media stage than those who are their victims.
        Its a very old story , very very old – also the Christian Myths are telling it, ever and ever again.
        I feel Parmartha´s kind of obsession to bring up old and new topics re ´the cabel´ , dealing with such roots of pain.

        However, point is, at least according to my experience , when dealing in this way with the past and the Trauma
        ( Pain) , it´s getting chronically ´refreshed´ instead of being resolved.

        I clearly share intellectually your statement: “Outside of normal logic was Osho, unpredictable, that’s the truth”.
        But underneath that, my pain about utter misuse and crimes is not disolved.
        That´s at least my truth for quite a very longtime by now – knowing that such truth doesn´t deserve capital letters….
        ( and the latter I don´t know just intellectually but from my heart)

        Joining the chat more than four years ago was /is/ maybe /a possibility to come together with friends, who don´t deny
        ” Shadow-Work”.
        Most of the people I come across ( also sannyasin or ex sannyasin) are successfully denying it.

        Some are denying so eloquentely , or are having on top of that , the one or the other ´Advaita- Speech´, but it doesnt feel at all, when you meet them in the body , that they really embody, what they´re saying.

        It takes time to become more aquainted with some of the contributors here. Sounds probably silly or off the wall in a way, when I say, I am rather even more aquainted with a Shantam Prem, than with you.

        Sorry about that.


        • satchit says:

          “Right Satchit, we don´t know.
          But we came to know what happened, didn’t we?

          And some here (me included) are very paining about that. As far as I can see it, Ma Anand Sheela does not belong to those who are paining; on the contrary, it seems.”

          Yes, we came to know what happened.

          But we don’t know ‘why’ it happened. Without knowing what has been talked between Osho and Sheela we don’t know why it happened.

          I can understand that you have a trauma because of what happened for you on the Ranch. Not everybody who has been there has had a trauma, I think.

          At the end of the day, one is alone responsible for what one does or does not. Blaming others is no help.

          • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

            Other than you, Satchit, I am much less interested to know ´why´ the crimes on the Ranch in Oregon did happen, and unlike Parmartha, I wouldn´t imagine that some of up to now ´closed´ FBI files would really help me in terms of emotional, spiritual digestion of the whole stuff.

            On the one hand, there is and has been enough stuff of this available via interviews, reports and also some of the files, which SN/UK made available to read* and/or see* – and on the other hand (more important for me!), from personally experiencing by being there and by experiencing what happened when trying to communicate when definitely feeling that something went wrong in the collective.

            You are quite right when stating, “Not everybody who has been there has had a trauma.” I watched the most fabuluous creative re-writing or re-telling (story-wise) of some I knew as more than 100% fellow meditation-travellers in the Ranch-time or members of German communes who cast out (at any time, btw) sorrows or critical thinking or personal crises issues one went (or is going) through.

            You, Satchit, know fucking nothing of my traumata – and instead of realising that that is the case, you come up with your kind of pontificating few-liners like: “At the end of the day, one is alone responsible for what one does or does not. Blaming others is no help.”
            That´s right again, Satchit, whatever that may mean by “end of the day”.

            My response has a sharp tone in it, I know. If I would have had the chance to know more in this Chat about you as a sharing individual instead of getting these few-liner responses of yours, my response wouldn´t be that sharp at all.

            ** referring to the various topics or additional posts at SN/UK I´ve been grateful for.

            • satchit says:

              “My response has a sharp tone in it, I know. If I would have had the chance to know more in this Chat about you as a sharing individual instead of getting these few-liner responses of yours, my response wouldn´t be that sharp at all.”

              Ah, if I would fulfil your expectations then you would be nice
              to me. Thanks. Enjoy your sharpness, Madhu.

              Reminds me of this old Fritz Perls prayer: “I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, And you are not in this world to live up to mine.”

              Enough sharing for today.

      • Parmartha says:

        I mean those things that were clearly just invented by Sheela, and those that were criminal. I think she used the ‘defence’ that Osho told her to do many things, but it was not a defence she was prepared to use in her trial.

        There are said to be many recordings that Sheela made of her conversations with Osho, and they are with the FBI, and my legal advisors say they are unlikely to be released until after 50 years.

    • bob says:

      I read Maneesha’s book, ‘Bhagwan: The Buddha For The Future’, from which this thread opens, when it came out, probably the late 1980s. It was actually 3 books, all with similar titles. They were published in quick succession.

      All quite well written, but with an obvious positive spin to the Org’s positions. After all, Maneesha had been an integral cast member since the mid 70s – front row Ma in the Poona 1 discourses, girlfriend of the hot-shot group leaders, editor of the ‘Darshan Diaries’…pulling back reclusively during the Ranch era, and surfacing again in full public celebrity status as the unmistakable “Ok, Maneesha?” reader of sutras and questions in the Poona 2 discourses.

      But, I wonder now, if she actually wrote those books? She has said she did, and her name (Juliet Foreman) is on the books, but other than that, it’s just a matter of believing that one source. The journalistic style is very similar, in fact, to George Meredith’s book, referenced here at SN in the thread earlier.

      But, then too, it’s possible Doc Devaraj didn’t really write that book either. They could all have easily been ghost-written by others in neo-Sannyas org. They all give the same impression – kind of a pseudo-documentary historical-overview type of narrative. This is what really happened, they seduce the reader into believing, in the great drama of Bhagwan and his beloved disciples. Here’s the skinny from us in the Intimate Circle.

      I had the pleasure of meeting Maneesha in the early 90s, when she was invited over to my apartment by my girlfriend, a sannyasin who had been on the Ranch for the whole show’s tenure, ’81-’85. Had some supper and talked afterwards, mostly those two, about the death/dying/hospice stuff they were both involved in at the time.

      Maneesha came across as a very civil, polite, well-bred type in that typical upper-middle class English mould. But, she was not overly verbal, or particularly creative in her talk – an attribute that most writers who can bang out three thick books on a keyboard usually have in spades. She was very alert, and had a definite feminine, somewhat studied, ‘finishing school’ demure charm about herself – no doubt about it – but was this the same person who could be the Plato to Osho’s Aristotle, as he had declared her to be?

      Did the Org have a writing team that cranked out these basically propaganda pieces, and then slapped on some celebrity sannyasin’s icon as the chosen one who had supposedly authored it?

      Look back at history – it happens all the time. There’s no proof that Homer wrote ‘The Iliad’ and ‘The Odyssey’. Or that there was even a guy ‘Homer’ that existed. Did Mathew, Mark, Luke and John write the four gospels of Christianity? No one knows for sure, but someone did. How about W. Shakespeare? The detectives are still trying to find a verifiable link between him and all those 5-star plays.

      And then there’s Sannyasnews, and its curious motley crew of semi-anonymous virtual punters – maybe it’s all just a big Rorschach blot on the computer screen. Will someone spill the beans on their deathbed (and who would believe them anyway)?

      • swamishanti says:

        I read the first thick book, ‘Bhagwan – The Buddha For The Future’ years ago, still got it somewhere, and I had to order the second chunky one, ‘Twelve Days That Shook The World’, from the British Library in London. It is hard to find.

        The third volume I could not get. Perhaps it is easier to find now on the internet.

        All three books are essential reading for anyone interested in the history of sannyas.

        Anyhow, Maneesha doesn’t sleep with all the Ashram therapists in the book, just Paul Lowe (Teertha). They shared a room together directly above Osho’s bedroom in Lao Tzu House.

        Maneesha does mention that she shagged Somendra, but that was in London, when he was Michael Barnett, and before he came to Poona and took sannyas.

        (Apparently, after arriving in Poona and attending his first discourse in the ashram, Bhagwan came over to him and whispered in his ear, “I have been waiting for you. Come to darshan tonight. Good.”).

        The books were written after Osho asked Maneesha to write a historical account of what happened in the US, after so much garbage and propaganda in the US media , particularly the Oregonian, as well as joint efforts at disinformation between ex-sannyasins turned US agents such as Milne.

        • bob says:

          The third book is titled ‘Bhagwan: One Man Against the Whole Ugly Past of Humanity’, published in 2002, and available on Amazon, used, for $500! 512 pages, and covers the “World Tour” time period, according to Maneesha’s website.

          I believe Osho came up with these book titles that his intimate circle disciples wrote at his behest.

      • Parmartha says:

        I still am acquainted with Maneesha and she chooses to meditate regularly with my small Osho group when in London.

        She is 100 per cent reliable. I know she wrote her books, and at present, after meditating with us, she is often going off working on her reworking of her first book.

        Her ‘work’ in the commune when back in Poona 2 was writing those books, and that is all she did then, under Osho’s instructions.

        • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

          Happy to read what you wrote, Parmartha (at 1:48 pm). Reliability has becone a rare flavour, hasn´t it? Or better said, the fragmentations of its meanings.

          Good to have friends while growing, who know how to share.


        • bob says:

          Ok, P, I’ll go for that…and in the absence of any other unknown evidence, we’ll agree that the good lady Maneesha has written those books.

          Also, I made a mistake referring to her as the Plato to Osho’s Aristotle – it was Socrates, not Ari. I get confused sometimes with all these Greek gods and godamn Greeks! Holy spanikopita!

      • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

        “And then there’s Sannyasnews, and its curious motley crew of semi-anonymous virtual punters.”

        Yes Bob, you are one of them.

        Did read your articulate, long response re the content of the thread topic yesterday around midnight. Read it twice and then again.

        “All quite well written, but with an obvious positive spin to the Org’s positions”, you say about Maneesha´s book.

        Felt awkward (is that the right word for feeling strange?) when reading then your accurate memoir of the author (Maneesha) from just once personally meeting her, some more than 25 years ago. And your summary and your conclusions from that.

        I´m (not for the first time) impressed, Bob, by your journalistic style. Found out I wouldn´t like to be rated like that, although in your words it felt so ´squeaky clean´.

        Even though knowing that Sannyasnews is NOT a protected data-hoarding website place, I´d suggest that it might not be a place to visit with an aim and means that someone “spill the beans”, as you put it.

        But who knows?

        Maybe, Bob, we all are ´ghost writers´ here, you included btw, but not in the way of some normal functioning editing businesses.

        ‘Ghosts’ is also a psychological term for undissolved stuff of the past; for things that wants to be heard and listened to, so that ‘they’ can disappear in peace (into nothingness).

        When reading here in SN/UK with such an understanding, reading and sometimes writing too becomes more friendly; that´s at least my experience.

        Not all the time possible though, but it’s worth giving it a try.


        • Levina says:

          Just thinking, Madhu, about the expression, “mind is a hungry ghost”, can never be satisfied, because it itself is empty. Always looking for new ways to be for or against what Is…At the best, it can serve as a finger to the moon. It can express itself as most stupid or most sublime (as we can see here on SN).

          But it is always the same mind (minding God’s business so to say), churning out words ad infinitum, but never coming to a final conclusion, because there is always more, and always better. Imagine SN going on for ever and ever and ever…At some point one has to see these are just words, recycling, no meaning except the meaning I give them…

          But I better stop here, before I also give these empty words in this empty ghost some meaning. I guess in the end the best way to use mind is through paradox, through humour, then it can laugh at itself, which it so desperately wants to do!

          • frank says:

            “But I better stop here…”
            Keep going, Levina, with the mind it`s use it or lose it!

            • Levina says:

              Isn’t it ‘lose it, and then use it’, Frank?

              • frank says:


                Meditators may try to refuse it,
                Spiritual folks may try to eschew it,
                Hustlers my try to confuse it
                Enlightened ones may even abuse it,
                But as long as you still have to choose it
                It`s gotta be ‘use it or lose it’!

  3. Arpana says:

    Interesting article, rather pertinent to ongoing discussions.

    “The desire to fit in is the root of almost all wrongdoing.”

    • Lokesh says:

      Arpana, I sent you a private message.

      As for the subject matter of this thread, I find it all a bit played out. Thirty years down the line and still debating who said or did what. It is so much against the grain of what Osho taught. I don’t want to contribute to such tired and worn out topics.

      Can’t any of you lot come up with something a little more current and alive to discuss? A sorry reflection if you can’t.

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        For me, Lokesh, nothing is more current than the theme of power, in small or large scale, with its acquisition and conservation strategies, with instruments that are increasingly subtle or evolved, or even more rude and cruel.

        Parallel to this, our responsibility as disciples of Osho grows, drawing lessons from past experiences and applying them to the present, I suppose.

        Unless there is no relationship between the era of Reagan and that of Trump.

        • Lokesh says:

          Veet, if I were to declare that the world is round you would do everything you could to prove that is flat.

          You say, “Nothing is more current than the theme of power.” I disagree. In fact, I would say that in Sannyasinlandia that is absolute bollocks. Power is a low energy game board. I am not interested in it at all.

      • Arpana says:

        The boyfriend of a friend of mine died last year at the age of 53, and she is 49. She is already, about six months later, on the receiving end of a load of old bollocks from a few people that she should have got over his death by now.

        People come to terms with past experience at different speeds. Those years don’t weigh on me, but, for example, something happened to me at fifteen, and every so often that phase of my life, a memory, will come to me and I freeze.

        We don’t just learn immediately through immediate experience, we also learn by reflection on our lives.

        At best, these discussions always go beyond the starting point. I always end up reflecting on matters way beyond the starting point by following the interaction here.

      • Arpana says:

        Further to that, Lokesh.
        If you’d been more involved in the Oregon time, maybe you would still be sorting out what happened.

        • Lokesh says:

          Arpana says, “If you’d been more involved in the Oregon time, maybe you would still be sorting out what happened.”

          I am 100% sure that would not be the case for me. Compared to some of the situations I had to pass through during the eighties, the shenanigans that took place on the Ranch were child’s play.

          The Eighties was a terrible decade for me. Almost died from a horrible disease etc. I have learned how to adapt quickly. I do not require 30 years to get over anything. That sounds like real drama queen antics to me.

          • Arpana says:

            I am not even slightly surprised you have just made the claim you have.

            • Lokesh says:

              Arpana, if you actually knew me you would not have raised the matter.

              • Arpana says:

                If you knew me, Lokesh, you would never address me as you do.

              • Arpana says:

                And never forget, Lokesh:
                No man is a prophet in his own land.

                • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                  “No man is a prophet in his own land”.

                  Arpana, this echoes Freud: The ego is not master in its own house; or, wandering a little from the starting point: The child is the father of the man.

                  Osho was not a prophet and USA was not his land, not even India.

                  An intelligent person would have understood in a few minutes that he was going to get into trouble.

                  An intelligent person should always have a personal jet to escape from that which is not his land.

                  The ego is the fastest jet on the ride to nowhere.

                • Arpana says:

                  @Veet francesco

                  That is truly mind bogglin’, Veet Francesco.

            • Lokesh says:

              Who would want to be a prophet? It’s a dying business. Do they still make prophets?

              • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

                Just one of the numerous lyrical options:

                ‘IF PIGS COULD FLY’

                “Why does God refuse to move?

                If pigs could fly they’d fly away and never grace the earth again
                I wait and wait and wait and wait but nothing good happens for me

                I pray to fly but when I die my feet are still flat on the ground
                My brain is good, no legs of wood, but if you could, I think you should

                He ain’t standin’ in my way
                Cause I did nothin’ today
                He ain”t standin’ in my way

                Your ship has crashed, no sign of shore – to sit in your lifeboat – you can do no more
                5 days at sea starved to the core – lifeboat is leaking – a rip in the floor

                But wait, on the horizon – land, land hoe!
                Will you sit there and pray – or will you get up and row?
                The next time you are quick to say “I’m just waitin’ on the Lord”
                Just make sure that you remember where we all have been before,

                All things become one.’ ”

                WHERE’S THIS FROM, PLEASE, Madhu?

                • madhu dagmar frantzen says:

                  Lokesh, “Do ´they´ still make prophets?”, you´re asking.
                  Well, I don´t know, but came to know a tiny little bit, that prophecy is not a dying business but mostly has been a deadly business.

                  Although nowadays (and even in our own rows, so to say) we have the one or the other self-appointed ´Nostradamus´, editing books etc.

                  Guess what mankind is up to today re ´prophecies´ is programming the one or the other ‘Algorithms’ minding the ´prophecy-business´.

                  As time goes by…as one says….

                • swamishanti says:

                  Madhu, it seems you are talking about pigs on the wing:


              • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                Arpana, I tried to quickly think about the story of the Ranch, as an intelligent person would do, who unlike many of us, after 30 years still finds interesting aspects in it.

                • Arpana says:

                  I was considering writing an article about the Ranch only this morning, from the point of view of what we might genuinely learn from what happened.

                  So here’s one:
                  Osho called Reagan names (slightly tongue in cheek).

                  If you call the bigger kids nasty names, they’ll kick your ass.

          • Arpana says:

            Lokesh said:
            “I do not require 30 years to get over anything. That sounds like real drama queen antics to me.”

            (Lokesh means the Ranch or Oregon; although he bangs on endlessly about Poona 1, which was even more than thirty years ago. Constantly name-drops and brags about his life in Poona 1).

            Does this mean your anti-Osho, anti-Sannyas acolytes are not allowed to talk about the Ranch anymore? Because, along with you, they never shut up, have always got far more to say about the Ranch than than us sheep/catholic sannyasins.

            • Lokesh says:

              Arpana, you are confused. What you say about me is not true in this case. Of course, you believe it to be so. Really not my problem. I’m really not sure what your trip with me is based on. I am not interested in what it is you believe you see in me. Once again, that is your problem.

              Yes, I call it a problem because you have somehow become obsessed with the notion that I am some kind of ‘evildoer’ and you are just the knight in shining armour to put me in my place. It’s bullshit.

    • satyadeva says:

      Treasonous garbage, Private Arpana! How do you think the Army could function with seditious ideas like that circulating amongst the ranks, eh, you horrible little apology for a soldier?!

      The promotion that you might have earned from your previous response has been shelved indefinitely.

    • preetam says:

      To fit seems a problem in every commune. It includes the behaviour of people in charge and why they keep distance between their scene and ordinary people. Perhaps it prepares the ground for fascism and source for banking.

      source for banking – WHAT’S THIS, PLEASE, Preetam?

      This behaviour of people – also in the past – is most likely even the source for our banking system.

  4. Deepak says:

    “The only implication Osho had in all this was his foolishness in appointing Sheela and gang, and then switching off, for whatever reason, for a number of years.”

    Wow, Parmantha, if you believe that…you will believe anything. Keep repeating this to yourself 5 times a day, maybe one day you will actually believe it.

    Keep repeating:

    1. Sheela was evil. That’s why Osho chose her out of millions of people, to be his personal secretary.

    2. Osho just went into silence and for 3 1/2 years had no freaking idea what was going on around him. He just switched off his intuition.
    Either that or this was what he was going to tell the FBI.

    3. If Sheela had not done what she did…the peaceful and loving American government would just allow the commune to live in peace and continue to exist. It is HER fault the commune was ultimately destroyed.

    4. What Sheela did was not a counter-reaction to all the harassment from the American government. It was because she was evil for evil’s sake.

    Everything makes sense now. Osho chose Sheela and just put his head in the sand like an ostrich and did not see or hear anything.

    Thanks for clearing it out for me.

    • Parmartha says:

      On your point one, Mr Deepak, you miss entirely. Sheela was chosen by Osho because she was ‘family’ and had had experience, as she claimed, of living in and knowing about America.

      Her husband was American, the second husband, and had enough cash to buy something to start things off. It was a mistake by Osho, but perhaps an understandable one. Are you one of these ridiculous people who think that the state of enlightenment protects people from mistakes?

      By 1983, Osho realised this mistake and gave Hasya and company who were American, access to him other than through Sheela.

      Clearly, as soon as he arrived on the Ranch he complained, ‘where were the trees’, and withdrew except for drive-bys.

      Read Devageet’s book about Osho in the dental chair if you want to know what was one of his main interests whilst living in the middle of a desert.

      Where exactly are you coming from, Deepak? It is not clear to me.

      • sw. veet (francesco) says:

        Parmartha, it seems to me that Deepak is claiming for Sheela the generic extenuating circumstances:
        If she acted with evil or foolishness it is because she reacted to a local population and culture hostile to Osho and his people.

        If there had not been that hostility, she at some point, at most, would have created her commune in Mexico.

        • Parmartha says:

          I don’t know whether you are right, Veet, about Deepak, but had someone American or even European been appointed CE at the time with political experience, even Oregon would have been manageable, though the research before going there would have indicated to go elsewhere.

          It is arguable that neither Osho nor Sheela ‘understood’ western ways, etc. as they had had no real experience of how things work here.

          • satyadeva says:

            This, to me, is spot on.

            • frank says:

              “For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these: “It might have been.’”
              (John Greenleaf Whittier)

              • sw. veet (francesco) says:

                For all arrogant words of tongue and pen, the most arrogant are these: “It must have been as I say.” (Giovanni Fogliaverde, historian)

                • frank says:

                  But, really, it should have all been done a bit better.

                  Dressed in red in a `commune` during the Cold War, doing freaky dancing to Russian gyppo music as an armoured Roller goes past on the redneck Riviera? Crazy!

                  Shoulda been doing line dancing to country and western, organising charity rodeos for the locals, distributing earplugs to the Antelopeans so they didn`t have to listen to animalistic sex noises, setting up a big screen in the Mandir to watch old John Wayne movies, running Logic and Rational Thinking courses out of Rajneesh University and getting some reliable white guy who could handle the West to be Osho`s secretary, like Clint Eastwood or Barry Long.

                  It`s obvious really.

                • satyadeva says:

                  Clint Eastwood might well have been a good choice, especially as he’s been a TM practiser for over 40 years!

                • frank says:

                  Yes, that was a pretty powerful mantra he got…


  5. Parmartha says:

    As far as I can see, this article is just saying what happened in convincing detail.

    It should be seen with that type of objectivity.

    Factional groups, like the “let’s make an ashram/memorial for Osho in Koregaon Park” simply look to blacken anything from anyone who might oppose them in that, whilst clearly this is an objective record of what happened and should be treated as such.

  6. frank says:

    It seems that all the players in the game are unable or unwilling to contribute any further evidence that might actually establish ‘what really happened’, ‘how much Osho ordered’ etc.

    And further frustrated efforts (as they seem bound to be) at enquiry into the matter are in danger of playing into the hands of the people to whom the continued fuzzing is beneficial.

    In the case of serial killers like the moors murderers, they hang onto any last vestige of info about their crimes, like where the bodies are buried, in order to exercise and prolong their last hold on a feeling of power over the other people in the story. Can`t help thinking Sheela is doing something similar. Maybe the feds too.

    The only other possibilities are sensational deathbed confessions (why would you believe them?) or waiting patiently for the bugging tapes to be released in 2036.

    Everyone will continue to have their own pet version which will tally with whatever is thrown up by their unconscious/imagination/ fantasy/needs/wants/preferences when they look at the Rorschach blot of the story in front of them.

    Beyond that, it`s case closed, most probably, although it will no doubt continue in a Jack-the-Ripper type story way for years to come, with endless TV programs with “shocking new theories” about who really dunnit, that never come to much….

    • Arpana says:

      “the Rorschach blot of the story in front of them” – Frank nails it.

    • Arpana says:

      The ultimate Zen story.

      • satchit says:

        Or a koan:

        What’s the sound of a commune dissolving ? Plop !

        • Arpana says:


          More like this than plop: (*≧▽≦)ノシ))

          ANYONE KNOW WHAT (*≧▽≦)ノシ)) MEANS, PLEASE?

          • frank says:

            I still say that the solution to this whodunit will never be found except in theories that fit the prejudice that one already has.

            Another approach would be to apply what the poet Keats termed “negative capability” which is “the ability to accept uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason” – and see where it takes you.

            • frank says:

              Does that make any sense?
              It starts with this.

            • Arpana says:

              “Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win, by fearing to attempt.”

              William Shakespeare, from ‘Measure For Measure’

              • frank says:

                It`s not news to those who are in the know.
                But a very high up member of the Nine Unknown Men of Ashoka, the Mystery school that Osho talked about in ‘I am the Gate’, recently confided in me that, from their occult viewpoint, the Hiram key to understanding the truth of the Ranch saga was seeded into the Akashic Records in such a way that it is easy to miss, other than for extremely advanced,(level 33 and higher-chakra) initiates through secret teachings contained in Osho`s favourite movies:

                ‘Zorba the Greek’
                Crazy, larger-than-life, amoral, small town guy sweet-talks rich, spiritually-minded westerners into living with him and paying for his mad schemes, which include playing pranks on the Church, dyeing his hair, getting wrecked, chasing widows, winding up the locals, and culminate in his biggest and craziest doomed project, which ends in total collapse and bankruptcy, with everyone running for their lives.

                Outspoken commander of army who belives in reincarnation makes incredible advances due to his charismatic aura, audacious tactics, massive self-confidence and his uncanny ability of eliciting unswerving loyalty from his troops. He takes Germany by storm, taking town after town, but his uncompromising attitude gets him into trouble with the higher-ups who sabotage him and his advance eventually stalls when he runs out of fuel.

                ‘Woodstock the movie’
                Thousands of freaks dance around wildly, shake, get down and get their rocks off in a soul sacrifice and freak-out with a little help from their friends out in the country while God appears on stage and pronounces it`s a new dawn…

                ‘The Ten Commandments’
                A prophetically bearded religious leader frees his chosen people from tyranny and leads them into the desert in search of the Promised Land.
                God makes stupendous pronouncements on tablets, classic scenes of de Nile, and the chosen people never make it to the Promised Land and 40 years later, end up lost, still wandering around, wondering what happened.

                • Arpana says:

                  Have you read what the Akashic Records say about you?

                • bob says:

                  Frank, amazing insights, but you forgot one…

                  ‘The Godfather–Parts 1, 2, & 3′
                  An innocent rural boy arrives in America to escape big troubles in his corrupt mafia homeland, settles in the New York area. Soon finds the New World is just as corrupt as the old one, and starts using the tactics of the enemy to create his power base, developing an ultra loyal “family” who engage in criminal activities to fund their enterprises: prostitution, booze production during the 30s prohibition era, money laundering, strong-arm extortion tactics.

                  The godfather Vito gets shot on one of his rare drives out of the family compound, and it’s war – “us against them” – to the mats, fear, paranoia, violent strategies are hatched.

                  Good son Michael tries to be the clean “new man” in all this dirty business, but gets sucked into the drama. Ends up taking over as the new godfather, and goes west, to Las Vegas and Reno, desert oases (prostitution, drugs, booze, instant marriages, gambling) to go legal.

                  Doesn’t work out – more violence, lies, in-family jealousies, problems with the politicians who baulk at being bought off. Michael has his own brother killed, and former loyal friends turn State’s evidence against him at congressional hearings. Goes to meet with Hyman Roth, the Jew who helped bankroll Vito back in the day, but ends up killing him – “just business, nothing personal.”

                  The family continues to disintegrate–Michael gets divorced, goes back to the old country, has remorse and confesses to a red-robed cardinal in a private therapy session, cries a little, thinks he’s absolved of his sins. Goes back to Vito’s old Sicilian village to watch his son in an opera about treachery and violence.

                  The audience applauds, but Michael’s daughter is murdered on the post-play steps of the theatre.

                  The aging godfather Michael dies alone in one of the mafia compounds, falling off a chair from a heart attack apparently.

                  Post-performance notes:

                  The Godfather films go on to win Oscars across the board, though the players were mostly young unknown actors and actresses. It was considered to be an entertaining and concise overview of American culture: power, religion, capitalism, family loyalties, corruption – all captured on film for never-ending profits and entertainment.

                  The producers hit the jackpot: Al Ruddy won an Oscar, and his wife, Francoise, who provided the funding, became the president of the Osho neo-Sannyas movement in Oregon and India.

                  Marlon Brando had his faltering career revitalised, won an Oscar for playing Vito Corleone, and died in 2005. His private Tahitian atoll has just recently been transformed into the Brando Resort, a business enterprise open for for anyone wanting some “recharging of their batteries” in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

                  The director, Francis Ford Coppola, who, btw, also wrote the screenplay for ‘Patton’, continues to be seen at film festivals with the surviving cast members of his trilogy – now in their late 60s and 70s – reminiscing about when they made the movies. Will probably make it to the Director’s-Cut DVD.

  7. shantam prem says:

    It is sacred job of the followers to always ignore human behaviour of their masters. This primitive conditioning is root cause why religions end up story books Matrial.

    Sannyas is one such tiny religion.

    story books Matrial? WHAT DO YOU MEAN, PLEASE, Shantam?

    • Lokesh says:

      He means story book material.

      • shantam prem says:

        Yes, Lokesh, this is what I mean, All the lifelong work of Osho, and more than that, His people´s contribution, is reduced to story book material.

        That is why Church of Osho destroyed all the archives of Rajneesh Times, Osho Times, because they know very well, Osho was at his masterly best when microphone was before.

        • Parmartha says:

          What nonsense is this, Shantam?

          Osho’s words have all been preserved for posterity by those you constantly attack.

          The Sheela cabal were the only ones who destroyed his words as indicated in the article which you seem to have not read.

          • shantam prem says:

            I can share a link of complete Hindi talk given in 1986 in Mumbai which has not been part of the published book and even the audio was withdrawn after a certain while.

            I don’t think Existence speaks all the time through this or that great orator of spirituality-related subjects.

            Present management has gone even one step ahead to tame the ox and turn it into a bull.

  8. shantam prem says:

    There is a photo of Rajneeshism booklet.
    Had Sheela created it without her master knowing?

    • Parmartha says:

      She would have explained within the context of Osho having a claim to be a religious leader in the USA, and thereby having the correct status for immigration.

      For sure he did tell Hasya to burn it, and I went to the burning myself AT THE CREMATION GROUNDS, in 1985, and can give testimony (as you sometimes seem to be a barrister in these matters.)
      (as I believe you once were a trainee barrister) !).

  9. Arpana says:

    Unfortunately, you wont know this is about you!!!!

    ‘The Dunning-Kruger Song’, from ‘The Incompetence Opera’.

  10. shantam prem says:

    If Sannyasnews collective have some point blank questions about “Evil” lady, I can mail her for video interview. She lives 90 minutes train distance from Freiburg.

    I mean, how many more years one need to discuss that past which has no future?

    • Parmartha says:

      Sheela has been asked some obvious questions which the Netflix people failed to ask her. She has never replied to SN.

      However, she has replied to some others with denial and refusing to stay on the question.

      A good barrister would make mincemeat of her, Shantam, but I don’t think you would make a good prosecuting barrister…

      The other difficult thing is she refuses to show any remorse. Even in the Netflix thing she sort of agrees that the Dalles town was poisoned by her cabal, but then says it is one of those things that simply happen. Extraordinary.

      I have no agenda to say that Sheela was “evil”, by the way, Shantam. Once again, your mind seeks over-simplifications, and ‘them and us’ situations, which are a nonsense to the complicated ways of truth.

  11. satchit says:

    What’s the problem in Sheela changing a few words?
    Did he not say himself that words are not important, only fingers pointing to the moon? Only silence is relevant.
    People easily make a drama out of everything.

    And was it not that he was not really interested in the commune?
    Did he not say that the City of Rajneesh is nothing compared to his enlightenment?
    And was he not more interested in expensive watches or Rollers than in the functioning of the commune?

    If he would have been interested in the commune it would have been easy for him to interfere.

    • satyadeva says:

      “What’s the problem in Sheela changing a few words?”

      It wasn’t just “a few words”, Satchit, apparently her interference included wiping out at least one entire discourse. Once people start doing that, simply to suit their own preferences and personal motives, the rot can set in – as it did for the sayings of Jesus and, I expect, Mohammed, for example, ending up in the sort of ‘religious’ bullshine we’ve become accustomed to.

      You might think this is a relatively minor transgression (if indeed you regard it as a mistake) but it shows how her fear of losing her power overrode her sense of responsibility for preserving the purity of Osho’s public teachings, making her self-ish concerns more important than Osho (and the best interests of his people). Which was the slippery slope she slid down – and which she’s never actually stepped off, it seems.

      Yes, he said “the City of Rajneesh is nothing compared to his enlightenment” – AFTER the whole Ranch thing had exploded and was already doomed.

      “And was he not more interested in expensive watches or Rollers than in the functioning of the commune?”

      Who knows? A rather specious comparison.

      “If he would have been interested in the commune it would have been easy for him to interfere.”

      I doubt he simply wasn’t at all interested in the commune. Although he didn’t like the environment, despite the clean air being good for his health, and he let his appointees get on with it, I find it hard to believe he wouldn’t have preferred the Ranch to have succeeded and become a centre of attraction, “an example for the world”, as was the original idea – despite not being ‘attached’ to this outcome.

      And of course he did “interfere”, albeit only when it became clear that Sheela’s was a malign influence and that his ‘confrontational’ policy had failed. Why did he appoint “the Hollywood Set”, do you think?

      • satchit says:

        SD writes:
        “And of course he did “interfere”, albeit only when it became clear that Sheela’s was a malign influence and that his ‘confrontational’ policy had failed.”

        ” “His” confrontational policy”? A Freudian slip.

        My feeling is also that her confrontational policy was ordered or at least encouraged by Him.

        • satyadeva says:

          So for once we agree on something then, Satchit.

          No “Freudian slip” with “he”, btw, it’s pretty clear that’s what Osho wanted her to do, to fight for their rights, confront perceived injustice, persecution. But I guess ‘their’ would do as well.

    • shantam prem says:

      Satchit, Rajneeshpuram was not a commune, Osho Commune International, Jabalpur was a commune.

      Late Osho went on giving directions till the last.

      Maybe you have no idea where is Jabalpur and where is Pune.

  12. swamishanti says:

    “People’s interest in Rolls Royces shows their mind”:

  13. madhu dagmar frantzen says:

    @ Swamishanti (“Madhu, it seems you are talking about pigs on the wing”)

    No, Swamishanti, we don´t share the same taste re that matter. I found the lyrics @ ´Tourniquet-Psycho Surgery Lyrics/Genius Lyrics´ on the net, while looking for the idiom “if pigs could fly”…and it seemed to be appropriate for the time being in the early morning today.