tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post5516349972828613030..comments2023-12-07T00:37:30.109-08:00Comments on Historical Threads: What to think about Rajneeshpuram?James V. Hillegashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-42197383925729338962010-09-16T10:35:53.858-07:002010-09-16T10:35:53.858-07:00"But trying to convince those who do believe,...<i>"But trying to convince those who do believe, that they are abetting foolishness and worse . . ."</i><br /><br />Yes, this is a conundrum I've experienced for a long while, and continue to experience. It's one thing to believe in X, Y, and Z, but it's quite another thing when those beliefs shade into anti-civil rights campaigns, support for illegal invasions, murder, etc., or whatever the case may be.<br /><br />Truth be told, I haven't yet read extensively about the Rajneeshees. However, I did just take a few minutes to check out the pro-Osho side, <a href="http://truthaboutosho.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://truthaboutosho.blogspot.com/</a> and <a href="http://oshoage.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">http://oshoage.blogspot.com/</a>. The latter source asserts much but doesn't provide any references, so I wouldn't be able to follow-up with any part of what is asserted. <br /><br />The former source, at least in the post "<a href="http://truthaboutosho.blogspot.com/2007/09/christopher-calderkrishna-christ-and.html" rel="nofollow">Christopher Calder, Krishna Christ and his Lying or Misinformed 'Lost Truth'</a>," does contain copious references. According to this latter source, Osho is said to have admitted that Sheela and others committed crimes, and to have taken responsibility for this stuff. Regarding the Rolls Royce cars, this post also asserts that Osho purchased these "to make a joke out of American consumerism."<br /><br />I find myself still disagreeing with wasting money on those fancy cars, and not comprehending the mindset that makes people lose themselves in the midst of charismatic figures. I can read on the Internet the words of people who are convinced that Osho was even better than Jesus, the Buddha, Gandhi, etc., etc., but it's not in my constitution to lose myself in the veneration of others. I can read claims that Osho faced up to the allegations in one way or another, but unless I check on the sources cited myself, I won't really know for sure. <br /><br />I find myself right back where I started: On one side of the chasm, looking across the divide at others with views completely alien to mine. This is why I'm an urban environmental historian and not a theologian, I suppose -- in the work I do, issues are much more amenable to quantitative analysis, communal dialogue, empirical debate, and political compromise. With spirituality, things seems always to dissolve into the aether. <br /><br />In any event, thanks for the virtual conversation, Nancy & OpenMinded!James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-1419742055451126102010-09-16T08:53:51.714-07:002010-09-16T08:53:51.714-07:00To be clear: I am equal parts fascinated and enrag...To be clear: I am equal parts fascinated and enraged by this divide, and on balance find myself exploring it a great deal. Like you, I am constitutionally unable to be swayed by gurus and other sociopaths (Win McCormack's statement to the contrary, that we will not recognize our own special charasmatic leader when we see him). But trying to convince those who do believe, that they are abetting foolishness and worse; this doesn't seem to do much good, as we have seen in some of the comments. (As my father used to facietiously say, "Don't confuse me with the facts.") <br /><br />One comment I found particularly benighted is the idea that followers would never, upon command from Rajneesh, have flung themselves into the crematorium. Rajneesh many times directed female followers to abort their babies, but first, to spend a few weeks getting to know the fetus; to bond with it, and then abort, and get sterilized in the process. And they did. They made sure, on Rajneesh's orders, that their generation ended with them. We know why he ordered as much; children leeching, as they do, love and devotion and time, the connections Rajneesh himself needed to remain the god-head. If some Rajneeshees were willing to sever all biological times with the future, I see it as a very small step, had Rajneesh asked, to sacrificing their mortal lives.Nancy Rommelmannhttp://www.nancyrommelmann.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-80042616779620009862010-09-15T10:32:21.427-07:002010-09-15T10:32:21.427-07:00OpenMinded & Nancy, thanks for the comments --...OpenMinded & Nancy, thanks for the comments -- you've both provided more productive food for my thoughts.<br /><br />The discussion threads on the <i>Oregonian</i> page and here brings seems somewhat similar to a dynamic that I've been focused on recently. This dynamic involves people holding beliefs regardless of evidence to the contrary. I've blogged about it <a href="http://wwwhistoricalthreads.blogspot.com/2010/02/yet-more-on-topic-of-why-we-believe.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> -- however, the questions I have regarding Rajneeshpuram (and religion generally) do not correlate precisely with this linked blog post, for at least one reason: I'm not always interested in the reasons why someone believes or does not believe in God, or Allah, or Zeus, etc., but why people believe or disbelieve things even in the face of hard evidence contrary to their beliefs. Continuing to believe that Pres. Obama wasn't born in the U.S., for example, or the frustrating occurrence during the Bush II administration when the majority of Americans believed that Iraq had anything at all to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.<br /><br />So, regarding Rajneeshpuram, this blog post was an attempt to square the idea of "enlightenment" with actions and results that seem extremely and egregiously unenlightened. <br /><br />OpenMinded refers to the story of the relationship between Jesus and Judas. I don't think this analogy works. I don't see the connection between this example and Rajneeshpuram because, according to the story, Jesus led an ascetic life in which he renounced material goods and committed himself to public service. Judas gave Jesus up, and Jesus voluntarily went to the cross. Osho, on the other hand, wasted money on material goods rather than spend money on the social good, and when the crimes of his lieutenants came to light, he left the country rather than accept responsibility. I don't personally believe that Jesus, if he existed, was "the only begotten son of God," etc. (as stated in the Nicene Creed), but even as a functional mythological construct (in the sense that Joseph Campbell articulated), the Jesus story and the Osho story are drastically different.<br /><br />I want to make it perfectly clear here that I'm still not trying to disparage individuals or belief systems here. I find myself fully in the camp of those who do not believe in deities of any kind nor follow any spiritual leaders. At the same time, I have no interest in speaking ill of those who do. What I am interested in, however, is learning more about how people with certain belief systems can square their beliefs with actions in the physical world that seem in such contradiction to their stated beliefs. <br /><br />On this, Nancy writes "The divide between living that way [i.e., devoted to a given belief system], and the way of unbelievers, of which I am strongly one, can perhaps not be breached." Perhaps she's correct, because it seems like such a wide chasm. Nancy then adds that "it doesn't interest me very much to try" to breach this divide. I still find myself trying to breach this, in some way . . . because I'm a glutton for punishment, I suppose!James V. Hillegashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293973126277397585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-66186980215979023842010-09-14T18:35:33.558-07:002010-09-14T18:35:33.558-07:00Nancy Rommelmann
Osho was not one of the charlatan...Nancy Rommelmann<br />Osho was not one of the charlatans. Do not put Osho in the same basket as "Ching Hai to Stalin to Joseph Smith.. bla bla". Osho is unlike any others. With Osho, A new age of humanity is born. Have you ever heard a charlatan person saying "I am Sex Guru", "God is dead","I am super materialistic",using F word thousand of times etc.<br />Osho never cared about respectability. Osho had the courage to stand against the very popular beliefs. He had the courage to speak against all the organized structures.<br />He had the courage to speak against Budha in Nepal. He had the courage to speak against Jesus in chrisian countries..against Krishna in India. <br />Osho is the last person to come into the category of charlatans.<br />Also remember Osho is not a cult like Christianity. Osho is not even a religion. It is a revolution of real religiousness.<br /><br />You claimed to know lot of Osho. You always approached Osho as a outsider. You never opened your heart. It is useless to go to an ocean unless you are in swimming suit.. Come out of your formal ideas and show some love for unknown...OpenMindednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-79212779941616005512010-09-14T11:35:06.458-07:002010-09-14T11:35:06.458-07:00It is not the case that individuals within the Raj...It is not the case that individuals within the Rajneesh cult had a great time, Bhagawati's claims to the contrary. I have written several times about Bhagwan; I also visited the ranch (albeit in 2004, long after the Rajneshees were gone). For more on life there, I recommend "The Promise of Paradise," by Satya Bharti Franklin, who joined Bhagwan in Pune (leaving her three young children in Westchester), becoming his ghostwriter, and following him to Antelope, where she became disillusioned, with cause.<br /><br />To ask whether Bhagwan is enlightened is, I think, a question that has no real meaning. We can accumulate knowledge and wisdom and bring that to others in our works and our works, good begetting good and etcetera. Those who follow(ed) Bhagwan (or any charismatic figure, from Ching Hai to Stalin to Joseph Smith) do so for many reasons, chief amongst them that they long to be part of something larger than themselves, something that they are told will build a better world, and if it devolves into less than that; if compromises must be made, perhaps, they are made to believe, these are the price, the necessary sacrifices. The arc of every cult is about the same; they either end badly, or they gain real traction and become, say, Catholicism.<br /><br />It surprises me not at all that people still believe that Bhagwan was a font of goodness; the facts do not muddy their devotion; to do so would call too much into question. Better to dig in and make unbelievers the enemy. Such is human nature. The divide between living that way, and the way of unbelievers, of which I am strongly one, can perhaps not be breached, and it doesn't interest me very much to try. What does interest me, and always, is to expose the charlatans and sociopaths amongst us, and let the reader make his choice.Nancy Rommelmannhttp://www.nancyrommelmann.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4622647309248545307.post-85462083936854971342010-09-14T09:21:14.725-07:002010-09-14T09:21:14.725-07:00James
Nice post. Honest questions. You have surel...James <br />Nice post. Honest questions. You have surely windows of your heart open and that is all Osho needs.<br />Judas was the closest disciple of Jesus.But still Jesus could not make him a good person. Judas was a criminal and we know very little of <br />Judas's full crime list now. Do you want Judas to represent Jesus now?<br /><br />Concentrate of good things about Osho. Read atleast once this blog http://oshoage.blogspot.com/OpenMindednoreply@blogger.com