Big up yourself and give it up for all the primates at SN:
The most relevant, intelligent,
eloquent, elegant,
excellent, eminent
reverent celebrants
of personal development
in da Buddha`hood.
Yo!

Yes, some new blood is needed on SN. As for Osho topics, having gone through so many in the last months everything has been pretty much covered on that level.

Perhaps a Facebook page would garner more interest. Easy enough to set up. I could put some energy into that.

Meanwhile, here is a new CD cover for Swami G’s and Tan Tan Tanit’s next release. Just have to compose the music for it.

Some new tunes here. Check out ‘Hey Joe’. You can check out tunes here. https://soundcloud.com/luke-mitchell

‘Bee Hive’ is a good track we played around with a couple of years ago…life affirmative…great keys.

I can’t help but feel that, of late, there are very few new commentators and very little demand for further debates around Osho, on this site. Perhaps this aged band of older sannyasins has had its time. I certainly feel I have little further to add. If the site is to continue it needs to attract new people, with new ideas, perhaps a FB version might, after all, be better suited to do this.

In any case the financial contribution to the site that I offered is still valid, and I wish the editors and site organisers my full support in whatever decision they decide to make.

MOD:
Re your last paragraph, Simond, thanks for your support. We’re still waiting for details from Clive, SN’s chief financial suppoorter for the last three years, re where to send financial contributions. Info should come in next few days.

Your definition of religion as “more than one person discussing some dead person`s contribution” would have to
to include many things and activities which are not normally seen as “religious”.

For example, Marxism, which is based on interpretation or discussion of a dead man`s writings.
Then what about theatre? For example, are Shakespearean actors, directors, critics etc. religious?
And what about philosophers, poets, musicians? They could all fall easily into this categorisation. Pretty much any form of politics or culture, really.

Indeed, in the vernacular we say that people “do something religiously”, meaning with keen and repetitive application. This of course can apply to anything: sport, gardening, cleaning, walking, reading or watching porn!

In the vernacular sense we are all a little religious, I expect.
In the dictionary definition sense, probably not so much.

“Perfectly correct, Swamishanti!

Certainly, the childish Americans in their immature diapers are simply sartorial pygmies compared to Shantam and Ramana in their spiritually superior underwear!

Also, the US is only 200 years old whereas Shantam has been wearing same diapers for over 400 years! Certainly in gravely important matters of spirituality American students have much to learn!

In glorious Bhorat we have been bowing down before lingam of holy ones for thousands of yugas!
If a guru says to cut testicles like Rahim Singh, faithful easterners out of reverence and respect will immediately fetch rusty serrated vegetable knife! And when Paedo Baba demands that holy lingam needs to be oiled by 12 year-old disciple, those steeped in mighty superior traditions you speak of will immediately comply, unlike egocentric westerners whose egosare threatened and will treat him with suspicion, cry out “cult-leader”, “paedo”, “nonce”, “rapist” and demand justice!

See the madness of the western mind which is nothing but mind!

Yahoo!”

Generally the West is still widely immature in regards to the spiritual dimensions. Americans in particular often appear to be childish and still wearing their diapers when it comes to understanding spiritual phenomena that are ancient in the East.

For example, the relationship between the Master and the Disciple is an ancient one in the East, yet you will find Americans have changed the word ‘disciple’ to ‘student’.

‘Student’ has a totally different connotation and implies someone who is intellectually learning something from a teacher.
The ‘disciple’, on the other hand, is absorbing the enlightened Presence of a Master, and no words are actually necessary for this transmission to take place.

A disciple can catch the transmission from the Master, and with a true Master, a disciple can begin to merge into the Consciousness of the Master.

In Indian language, this could be called ‘devotion’ or ‘Bhakti’ or perhaps simply being a ‘disciple’.

In India, the Master/disciple relationship is so old, and the transmission is understood. This relationship is so ancient and respected in Indian culture that Indians will treat gurus with a certain reverence, with humility.

I think that one of Osho’s greatest gifts and strengths was freeing his listeners of any obligation towards him, and, cutting into the religious traps of fear of hell/greed for heaven that have plagued humanity for centuries.

To many Americans, still wearing their diapers in the spiritual/consciousness dimension, however, submitting and surrendering to a guru as a central authority figure will be treated with suspicion. The ego will feel threatened.

To a society as spiritually immature as the US, a guru can be labelled as the ‘cult-leader’ and his sangha will become a ‘cult’.

Even a guru such as Osho, who went out of his way to encourage disciples to think for themselves, to question him and everything else and contradicted himself to avoid any dogma – is still the big bad wolf to many.

Osho spoke of the essence of religion, and spent a lot of energy talking against organised religion.