Frank Relationships: Swami Gyankirti on Osho

Monday, Apr. 29th 2013 12:04 AM

 

Occasionally, there are thought leaders that are before their time. As was the subject of most of today’s conversation. His name was Osho, and he sought to challenge his audience to break free of the conditioned belief systems and prejudices that limit their capacity to enjoy life in all its richness. Join me in a conversation of discovery … on this edition of Frank Relationships.


 

FRANK RELATIONSHIPS: SWAMI GYANKIRTI ON OSHO
Guests: Swami Gyankirti
Date: April 29, 2013

Frank: Occasionally there are thought leaders. They are before our time. As is the subject of most of today’s conversation, his name was Osho and he sought to challenge his audience to break free of the conditioned belief systems and prejudices that limit there capacity to enjoy life and all its richness. Join me in a conversation of discovery on this addition of Frank Relationships.

Welcome to Frank Relationships where we provide a candid, fresh and frank look into relationships with goals of acceptance, respect and flexibility. I’m Frank Love and you can find me, my blog and my various social media incarnations at franklove.com. Once again, I’m joined by my beautiful, psychological co-host, Dr. Gayl. What’s up?

Dr. Gayl: What’s up? What’s up, Frank?

Frank: Today, we’re discussing the man that the Sunday Times of London called one of the thousand makers of the 20th century and whose name by the Sunday MiD-Day, an Indian publication, as one of the 10 people, along with Gandhi, Nehru and Buddha, who have changed the destiny of India.

He’s none other than Osho. More than 20 years after his death, he still continues to expand, reaching thinkers, myself included, of all ages in virtually every country of the world.

If he’s been dead for over 20 years, how can we speak intelligently about him on today’s show? Well, that’s where our guest comes in. He’s Swami Gyankirti, a former student of Osho and an accomplished man in his own right. And will most certainly discuss his accomplishments over the next hour also.

So, if you’re interested in learning the difference between a reaction and a response, about the truth as few of us are willing to explore in relationships and why meditation is a must, before we can really love, then stay tuned as we learn about Osho. Welcome to the show, Swami.

Swami: Thank you my brother.

Dr. Gayl: Good morning.

Swami: Good morning, Dr. Gayl.

Dr. Gayl: Good morning. How are you?

Swami: Fine, thank you. A lovely day here in South Carolina.

Dr. Gayl: Great.

Frank: I know it is. There, every day is lovely. You got to see this place. It’s incredible. I mean beautiful.

Dr. Gayl: Wow.

Frank: First off, what is intimacy?

Swami: Well, that’s a difficult one, because it’s something that a lot of people want but are afraid of. A lot of people want, but aren’t willing to do what is required to actually achieve it.

Intimacy is essentially, surrendering yourself to another person. It really has very little to do with the other person. It’s about you allowing yourself to become vulnerable. It’s about you getting close to someone else and dropping your defenses.

If you do not drop your defenses, intimacy is not possible. So, most people are really pretending, because they’re not really allowing themselves to be open and vulnerable. When both people do that, then intimacy is really totally achieved. It’s a surrendering. It’s surrendering to the process of love and it can be a very difficult thing to do.

Frank: That sounds, to many, like it’s just some pie in the sky cloud. Can you give us an example of what true surrendering might be?

Dr. Gayl: Or how does one get to that point?

Swami: Okay, well that’s probably a better way to look at it. And then I’ll come back to an example. It is almost impossible to be intimate with another when you’re not intimate with yourself.

Intimacy with yourself means, knowing yourself. Who are you? How are you? What is the history that has brought you to where you are? Do you really know who you are? When most people are dealing with themselves or with another in a relationship, they bring to the table their mother, their father, their uncles, their aunts; their whole family, their culture, their background, their religion, their teachers they had in school. And every time they’re asking a question or responding to a situation, those factors chime in.

So, it’s very rare that the actual person is really there. Usually a man may respond to a question being giving to him by his mate, and it’s really his father answering the question, not him; or could be his mother. So, to really put yourself into a position to be intimate, you have to really know yourself. You have to be able to be intimate with yourself. Self-love is really paramount and primary before you can surrender.

Frank: And the way you get to know yourself is through meditation?

Swami: From where I stand, yes.

Dr. Gayl: Can one person–

Swami: Meditation–yes?

Dr. Gayl: Can one person get there before the other?

Swami: Yes.

Frank: Is that most likely what will happen?

Swami: Most likely that is what will happen. If we’re talking about male female relationships, It’s the woman who would be more prone to be vulnerable and open and honest, and therefore capable of being intimate than the man, because we tend to have more defenses up where we’re afraid.

We’re taught not to cry, not to open up, don’t show yourself and we, therefore, are less open to our mates, to our spouses.

Frank: Describe the meditation that you prescribe for getting to know yourself.

Swami: Well, any meditation technique essentially would lead you to a deeper awareness of yourself. Osho came up with so many active meditation techniques. For example, there’s the dynamic meditation, which helps to peel layers of stuff that we come to the present to which the past.

That dynamic meditation consists of chaotic breathing, catharsis, a [“who”] 08:18 mantra that hits the [tech] 08:21 center and moves energy up into the shakras. And, of course, silence and stillness, but that stage in which the catharsis is really so important, because you’re shouting, you’re screaming, you’re crying, you’re laughing; you’re basically going crazy for like 15 minutes and that really unburdens the soul, the mind, the body of so much collected rubbish.

That’s one technique and there’s the Kundalini technique in which you shake, you dance, you sit and you then lie down, But even the personal, just sitting, doing nothing, watching your thoughts; moving into your breathing, allowing the breath to become deeper and deeper.

All meditation techniques essentially lead to the same place, silence within yourself. Once that begins to be achieved and you’re watching your thoughts more carefully, not getting caught up in them, but just watching them as they pass by, you begin to see the magnetism and you’re able to disassociate yourself from that more and more as time goes by and gradually you begin to see who you really are, because your meditation establishes a “connectiveness” with the divine and you begin to see the day, “I’m part of a much bigger thing. I am a much bigger thing. I’m a part of God.”

Dr. Gayl: And how is that different from prayer?

Swami: Prayer is essentially coming from the mind. It’s you talking; it’s you communicating with the divine. It’s a vital exercise, but it’s used communicating, you talking to the divine. It’s not really you just being with the divine. It’s not really you merging into the divine. It’s not really you becoming one with the divine. It’s you asking for things, it’s you bearing your soul, but it’s not really you waiting for the divine to happen to you.

Frank: Tell us about Osho’s spiritual background.

Swami: Osho was born into an ordinary life. A simple Jane family. His father was a trader, business man. Osho achieved a university education. He became a professor of philosophy in the Indian university system. But he was frustrated by his experience with philosophy and life around him in which people use words, but had no experience or real knowledge of that which they spoke. And I think studying philosophy led him to be even more aware of that, because he realized that these are just words and everybody was propounding big theories, but they really didn’t know what they were talking about.

So he explored through practical application of himself to study and spiritual practices of many different teachings, discovering reality for himself that he would never have been exposed to had he not jumped into these things practically.

And this created the foundation for his teachings. He discovered that essentially all spiritual practices use meditation as a common denominator for expanding awareness and for going beyond the mind into the realm of the divine.

So, meditation for him became the basis for human transformation. He did not really have a teacher and such. He didn’t really belong to a particular religion. He kind of rejected all religions, because as far as he was concerned they were all about talk and they were about controlling people and they were about deceiving people and he felt that there had to be more direct ways of exploring the divine, experiencing the divine as opposed to being parrots, which is what he considered adherence to most religions to be. People simply repeating things that were taught to them that they really didn’t know to be true.

Frank: And how do you think he grew to become compared to Gandhi and other spiritual leaders, such as the Buddha? That’s a significant comparison.

Swami: Gandhi, I would say was simply because he came from India as well and attracted a large following. But Gandhi was not a particularly dynamic spiritual teacher as such. Gandhi was a passive resister whose philosophy can jived with the basic Indian sentiment and it happened at an appropriate time when resistance was needed and you know the history.

Frank: Yes.

Swami: Other spiritual leaders–I would want to differentiate between people that we call spiritual leaders in the contemporary sense and masters and enlightened beings like the Buddha and Christ.

Frank: Okay.

Swami: Osho perhaps, would be more of a compatriot of people like the Buddha and Christ as opposed to many of the spiritual leaders that we have here around today.

His teachings are more existential and reality based. His approach was somewhat revolutionary and rebellious, as were the approaches of people like the Buddha Gautama, the Buddha and Jesus, the Christ.

He does not condone the dogma and sheep-like adherence or old rules and traditional ways of accepting things simply because that is how they’ve always been done. He steps out of the pulpit and into a living room and your dance hall and your bedroom and your classroom and your church and your temple and says, “Stop being a robot, wake up, be a attentive, know thyself, be true to yourself; be the divine being that you are.” And these were the same things that masters like Jesus and Gautama, the Buddha did. And that is one of the things that made Osho very unpopular and also very popular.

Dr. Gayl: Being compared to Jesus?

Swami: Well, no, his approach.

Dr. Gayl: Okay.

Frank: And as Jesus and the Buddha, he was not very popular in his own time.

Swami: No, he was not, but that unpopularity is also popularity.

Frank: Yeah.

Swami: One of the greatest ways of promoting yourself indirectly. I don’t think that he did things that made him unpopular to be popular, but the by product of being very, very unpopular is that you become very, very known.

Dr. Gayl: Right.

Swami: Because the press puts you out there.

Frank: So, what were some of his philosophies or prospectives around relationships? That’s a pretty being question. I get it.

Swami: To me, Osho’s approach to relationships was offensive. Relationships exist to help get you beyond the need for relationships.

Dr. Gayl: Can you break that down for us?

Swami: Relationships are a stepping stone to you discovering yourself, to you becoming intimate with yourself. Relationships are not things that exist for you to become dependant on. There are ways for you working another person to move deeper into yourself, to explore your loving nature; to explore your power of humanity, your grace, your wisdom, your knowledge, your love aspect. To become the love that you are inside and to me this is what Osho’s take on relationships are all about. Not the co-dependency that we generally have, not the exploitation that we generally have in relationships. No, as a matter of fact, if you listen to Osho, he says that most people are not even ready for relationships in the true sense of the word.

Frank: On that note–

Swami: Most people go–

Frank: I’ve got an excerpt from his book, Intimacy, where he says, “Relationship is needed only because you can’t be alone. Because you’re not yet capable of meditation, hence meditation is a must before you can really love.”

Dr. Gayl: Which is kind of what you stated earlier.

Swami: Yes. Yes, I agree with that whole heartedly. Unless you know yourself, unless you love yourself, what are you really going to share with anyone else? It’s going to be the poison thing that you pass off in the name of love. It’s your unloving nature that you’re going to be sharing, not your loving nature, because you don’t know it. You haven’t explored it, you have not developed it.

It’s going to be a vassalization of love, not a true expression of something divine. And this is what happens in most relationships that we see. Things begin sweet, romantic and nice and then the truth begins to come out. The reality begins to manifest itself and then what you get is that ugliness that is really below the surface.

Things began to come out. We begin to be horrible to each other. People begin to be bored with each other, people begin to be bored with themselves in their relationships and nothing good really comes of it. There are a few, of course, exceptions to that, but that’s generally the rule.

Dr. Gayl: So, it sounds like it’s best to be alone rather than enter a relationship according to Osho.

Swami: Yes. Aloneness is essential. Relationships can be of immense support in your growth. However, you have to be prepared to deal with what comes with the relationship. Relationships really are impediments to growth. They can be aides, because they help you run away from others into yourself. They’re largely impediments to growth. They’re distractions and until you are truly whole, you really don’t have much to share.

Frank: Would you give us an example of what it looks like to know yourself? Once you know yourself, what is the concluding statement that you’re able to provide yourself or others? How does that look?

Swami: When you know yourself, especially as far as relationships go, there’s no need for possessiveness. There’s no need for jealousy. There’s no need for compulsion, trying to force someone to do or be something that they’re not. You’re accepting, because you realize that you are god-like in your nature and the divine in you wants the other person that you love to also be as divine as possible. Therefore, there’s encouragement, there’s patience, there’s acceptance.

Frank: And does divine mean–

Swami: When you know–

Frank: Satisfied?

Swami: I’m sorry?

Frank: Does divine mean satisfied? You want them to be as satisfied or as happy as possible?

Swami: As content as you are. You want for your partner, what you want for yourself. And you want them also to feel the joy that you may feel, because when you know yourself there’s a certain joy that’s there. It’s like the substratum that exists in spite of what you’re doing or what you’re experiencing–is that joy.

And of course, little bits of happiness will come from different things from day to day. But the joy is constant and that is also something that you also want your partner to have. Knowing yourself means also that you are aware that you’re part of a divine plan. You’re aware of the fact that you have something to contribute. You know what that is. You’re seeing that unfold. You are developing that day by day. You’re a co-creator.

Frank: Some people listening to the show would say that you are espousing that if your partner wanted to have sex with someone else, that was okay. Is that what you’re saying?

Swami: That’s their business. It’s got nothing to do with me.

Dr. Gayl: So what about monogamy? What does monogamy–

Swami: I may or may not like it, but I have no right to interfere with that.

Dr. Gayl: Okay.

Swami: That’s their business. I’m sorry, Dr. Gayl. What did you say?

Dr. Gayl: I was asking about monogamy. Where does monogamy come into play in relationships with this frame of view?

Swami: It’s a matter of choice. You may choose to be monogamous, you may choose to be polygamous, you may choose to be polyamorous, you may choose polyandrous. It really doesn’t matter. At the end of the day, you’re a child of the divine and what you do is your business. That’s between you and the divine. It’s really between you, yourself and you.

Frank: How did you come to know Osho?

Swami: I was doing my yoga teacher training. This was back in 1975 and my yoga teacher at the time, Swami then, he was actually in D.C.–we were in D.C.–was into Osho. Now, the interesting thing is that when I first met Swami *(inaudible) 24:08, he was not Swami *(inaudible) 24:10, he was something else.

And he used to wear white all the time; had a turban. He was a very strict yogi and I was a student at Catholic University and he came into the black student organization’s office and taught a yoga class. That was my very first exposure to yoga and that just wetted my appetite and I wanted more and more and more and more.

But fast forward, a year or two later, here he is and I want to be an *[Ananada Shab] 24:48 to the yoga society up on Alaska Avenue, near Georgia Avenue and he was teaching this advanced teacher training class. And he now had this huge afro, was wearing this bright orange robe, that had these beads hanging around his neck and he was eating ice cream and I’m like, “This is not the same guy I knew.” But now his name hand changed and he was Swami *(inaudible) 25:20 and he was into Osho now.

At time he was known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and so I took a book and I think the book was, Until You Die, and I read that over night and came back the next day for another book and read the book just like that.

Frank: This were books by Osho?

Swami: By Osho, yes. And after that, I was like, “I want more,” and so I started reading everything I could lay my hands on by Osho. I started working with his meditation techniques. A few years later I took Sannyas and became a disciple of his. This was probably either ’78 or ’79.

Frank: In India?

Swami: No, in D C. In those days, you could write to India and get an application form that would be sent to you. Or you could get it from the meditation center and you had to fill out the application form and put your photograph in it and he would look at your photograph and determine who he saw you to be and he would send you back a name based on what he saw in your photograph and he sent me the name Gyankirti, which met, glory of wisdom. Gyan, meaning wisdom and Kirti, meaning glory.

And that’s how I met him and then, of course, years went by and eventually I met him at the ranch in Oregon and today that is all history. But I have grown tremendously as a result of my relationship with my Master Osho.

Dr. Gayl: How have you grown? Can you shed some light on that? Where were you when initially started?

Swami: Well, Osho led me to a space within myself where I found peace. When I started I was 20 years old. I was a young man exploring life, exploring everything that I could possibly engage in that was exciting and Osho’s meditation techniques got me to a place where I became settled. I calmed down. And for a young man to me, to me that was a great feat, because even though I was searching, even though I was exploring, I was still just 21 years old when I ran into Osho for the very first time.

And when I took Sannyas, I must have been maybe four years older. So, he lead me to a space within myself where I found peace and from this space I was able to develop going forward, a clear understanding of who I am and what my mission in life is. What tools I have at my disposal and as far as I’m concerned, an untainted view of the world around me includes other people.

Therefore, I’m better able to create my reality and guide others into creation of their own, when and if they’re willing to be guided. This has become my life work.

Frank: Fast–

Swami: I feel that Osho helped me become cemented in the standing and awareness of who I am and what my life work is.

Frank: Fast forward to your current project, which is Noah’s Ark. Would you tell us about that?

Swami: Well, Noah’s Ark is essentially a safe haven that we’ve created for people who want to grow. People who want to get away from the hustle and bustle of life and find tools and means by which to work on themselves for their own better spiritual growth and development and/or healing from physical, mental and emotional disturbance that they may have.

It’s 135 acres in the sand hills of South Carolina. We have an organic vegetable garden here that’s fairly large. We have goats, cows, sheep and chickens that we use for home manure and people like the eggs from the chickens, but the animals we don’t eat or abuse. We use them to get manure for our compost to create super dirt that we use in our gardens.

There’s a 10 acre lake that’s full of fish. There’s a smaller one acre lake that also has fish in it. The fish are bass, brim, and crappy and some kind of fish at the bottom.

It’s a beautiful wooded area. We have here in the main center’s 2000 square foot meditation room. We have Migun bed.

We have a full-time genius machine, which is a healing device that’s about five and a half feet tall, about six feet wide and an ark that heals the body using noble gases and infrared. It essentially restores *(inaudible) 31:07, it anti-oxidizes, it detoxes. It’s just a great device. That was not here when you were last here.

We have a home gym in the basement. There’s a swimming pool and hot tub outside. We have *(inaudible) 31:26 in the bath house, a guest house that seats 20 people and there’s overflow space here. And it’s just a really serene and beautiful space and this is where we hope to be able to help people mature and grow spiritually.

Dr. Gayl: Sounds like you guys try to live a purified life.

Swami: It is. We managed to get back to nature. We use solar power to heat all the hot water. The water comes from our own well and we purify it and we use different means. Our heating and cooling is geothermal and we’re trying to do as much as we can to get off the grid within the next few years completely, so that we’re generating our own electricity. But meditation is essentially our main instrument.

Frank: Another relationship question, regarding–

Swami: Yes, sir.

Frank: Security. Osho explained that secure relationships lose attraction. What’s your interpretation of this?

Swami: Nothing. In reality it’s secure. Everything is constantly, in life, in a flux. Who are we to think that we can make anything secure? The greatest security in life comes from accepting insecurity; from accepting the flux-like nature of reality.

Frank: Dr. Gayl, yells at me when I say stuff like that.

Dr. Gayl: Well, I’m just trying to process what he’s saying. That’s why I had the question about monogamy earlier. It sounds like that the theory is that, being alone and being an individual is best, kind of like what Jesus says. Well, I don’t know if Jesus says it, but it’s in the Bible, “It’s better to be alone and single, than it is to get married,” but if you have to get married or if you have to step outside of boundaries of what the Bible teaches, and go ahead and get married. Meaning, if you have to have sex or you have to be intimate with someone, it’s best to get married, but it’s better to actually be alone and single, because you can kind of live and be an individual, learn yourself and help others and live whatever your purpose is on earth alone.

Swami: Oh yeah. Relationships are just totally distracting. However, they are perhaps a necessary evil for those of us who live in social communities where relationships are essentially part of the system.

So, what I feel is that people in relationships have to learn how to use those relationships for their personal growth and development.

Dr. Gayl: Well, don’t you think that–

Swami: And this is where–

Dr. Gayl: Don’t you think that we were placed here to be social beings and to interact with other individuals and to learn to live together and help each other and grow through relationships?

Swami: Yes, perhaps that is part of the reason why we find ourselves in social communities, because they create a certain security for us. However, that security is false.

Dr. Gayl: What makes you say that?

Swami: But the problem–

Dr. Gayl: What’s false about the security?

Swami: Because life does not allow security to exist. Everything is constantly changing, so when we try to superimpose security on life itself, which is constantly in flux, then we’ve created something unnatural.

Frank: What is the difference–

Swami: Now–

Frank: Go on, please.

Swami: If we were, in our own natural state, and we knew who we were and we operated out of awareness and we were not into selfish possessive, oppressive-type exchanges in our relationships, then relationships would be a perfectly great thing to be involved in all the time. However, given unhealthy state of our exchanges, it’s best for people to give themselves time to grow before engaging in relationships.

Dr. Gayl: Don’t we always evolve though? I mean everyone–

Swami: No. No.

Dr. Gayl: Okay.

Swami: Definitely not.

Dr. Gayl: What makes you say–

Swami: If we look at the human race, let’s say the last 2000 years.

Dr. Gayl: Okay.

Swami: What have we been doing? We’ve been fighting war after war after war. There is nothing more permanent, so to speak, in this life than man’s inhumanity to man. How have we evolved? We’re no more barbaric 2000 years ago than we are now. We’re just as barbaric. Just as inhumane to each as we were 2000 years ago. We may have fancy cars and we may have computers and we may have space travel, but as far as I’m concerned, space travel existed long before we inhabited this planet, but still we haven’t really evolved.

We’re still brutal, we’re still like cavemen, we’re just modified cavemen, because we have not allowed ourselves to grow spiritually. We have not evolved as a spiritual race, therefore it’s impossible for us to evolve as the human race, because our essential reality is spiritual

Frank: Which is the perfect lead into my next question. What’s the difference between a reaction and a response?

Swami: A reaction is automatic. A response comes out of a deeper space. It may take a little bit of time to come forth. It may take a little more than an instant or a few minutes or even a few days to be forthcoming.

A reaction is right there. You press a button the elevator goes to fourth floor. We are essentially programmed entities and when facing situations, we react according to what has been programmed into us from the past. We’re like robots. Let’s look at the nature of the mind. The human brain, what we call it mind, is essentially a data processing and data storage unit.

Anything and everything that we think, primarily comes from that storage unit. That’s our database. So everything that we come out of the mouth with is based on something that we’ve heard, something that we’ve read, something that we’ve experienced in this lifetime; not something new.

So, the robots can only feed back that which has been stored into it in the past. Nothing new. Anything new is going to have to come from a much deeper space and that would be a response. That’s what responsible being is all about.

Dr. Gayl: Or conscious verses unconsciousness?

Swami: To some extent. For example, let’s say, and this is an analogy that I use all the time. Let’s say a child in a remote village in Africa is taking an exam and this child is asked on that exam, “What is sugar?” Now the child responds. “Sugar is a white crystaling substance that is derived from sugar cane that is used to sweeten food and juices.”

He gets 10 out of 10 on that question, but that child has never seen sugar. The answer is correct, but the child doesn’t know what he is talking about. He has the information, but no knowledge and this is where I differentiate between information and knowledge. And that’s what the difference is.

Frank: And is that a reaction or a response?

Swami: That’s a reaction.

Frank: Got it. I’m going to read a story from Osho’s book, Intimacy. It’s a little long. Work with me, but it illustrates what you’re talking about and it’s about the Buddha.

“Buddha was sitting under a tree, talking to his disciples. A man came and spit in his face. He wiped it off and he asked the man, ‘What’s next? What do you want me to say next?’
The man was a little puzzled, because he himself never expected that when you spit in someone’s face, he will ask, ‘What’s next?’

He had, had no such experience in the past. He had insulted people and they had become angry and they reacted. Or if they were cowards and weaklings, they had smiled trying to bribe the man, but Buddha was like neither. He was not angry nor in any way offended. Nor in any way cowardly, but just matter of factly, he said ‘What’s next?’ There was no reaction on his part.

Buddha’s disciples became angry. They reacted. His closest disciple and Ananda said, ‘This is too much and we cannot tolerate it. You keep your teaching with you and we will just show this man that he cannot do what he has done. He has to be punished for it, otherwise, everybody will start doing things like this.’

Buddha said, ‘You keep silent. He’s not offended me, but you’re offending me. He is new, a stranger. He must have heard from people something about me that this man is an atheist, a dangerous man who’s throwing people off their track. A revolutionary, a corrupter and he may have formed some idea, a notion of me. He has not spit on me. He has spit on his notion. He has spit on his idea of me, because he does not know me at all. So how can he spit on me?’

If you think on it deeply, Buddha said, ‘He has spit on his own mind. I’m not part of it,’ and I can see this poor man must have something else to say, because this is a way of saying something.

Spitting is a way of saying something. There are moments when you feel that language is impotent and deep love and intense anger and hate and prayer. There are intense moments when language is impotent. Then you have to do something.

When you’re in deep love and you kiss the person or embrace the person, what are you doing? You’re saying something. When you’re angry, intensely angry, you hit the person, you spit on him, you’re saying something. I can understand him. He must have something more to say and that’s why I’m asking, ‘What’s next?’

The man was even more puzzled and Buddha said to his disciple, ‘I’m more offended by you, because you know me and you have lived for years with me and still you react.’

Puzzled, confused, the man returned home. He could not sleep the whole night. When you see a Buddha, it’s difficult, impossible to sleep again the way you used to sleep before.

Again and again he was haunted by the experience. He could not explain it to himself, what had happened. He was trembling all over and perspiring. He had never come across such a man. He shattered his whole mind and his whole pattern; his whole past.

The next morning he was back there. He threw himself at Buddha’s feet. Buddha asked him again, ‘What’s next?’ This too is a way of saying something that cannot be said in language.

When you come and touch my feet, you’re saying something that cannot be said ordinarily, for which all words are a little narrow. It cannot be contained in them. Buddha said, ‘Look Ananda, this man is again here. He’s saying something. This man is a man of deep emotions.’

The man looked at Buddha and said, ‘Forgive me for what I did yesterday.’ Buddha said, ‘Forgive, but I’m not the same man to whom you did it. The Ganges goes on flowing. It is never the same Ganges again. Every man is a river. The man you spit upon is no longer here. I look just like him, but I’m not the same. Much has happened in these 24 hours. The river has flowed so much, so I cannot forgive you, because I have no grudge against you and you also are new.

I can see you’re not the same man, who came yesterday, because that man was angry. He was anger. He spit where as you’re bowering at my feet, touching my feet. How can you be the same man?

You’re not the same man, so let’s forget about it. Those two people, the man who spit and the man on whom he spit, both are no more. Come closer. Let us talk about something else.'”

Any comment or insight on the Buddha and Osho’s story of the Buddha?

Swami: When Christ was being arrested, one of His disciples drew a sword and cut off the ear of one of the Romans–one of the Roman soldiers. Christ was rather dismayed by this and he reversed the process by healing the man’s ear. To me it’s a similar thing. The master is always rather disappointed by the behavior of the disciples.

Christ was very disappointed, because He could not get his disciples to sit in meditation with Him Gethsemane. They kept falling asleep. He kept trying to say to them, “Look, you got to get this, I may be gone any day now,” but they kept falling asleep. Same thing with Buddha. He was more dismayed by his disciples’ behavior than that of the man.

But the point was essentially, that “Hey, all we have is this moment. What is here now is what’s important.” And if any relationship is ever going to be vital, it’s going to be vital in the moment, in the present time. Not tomorrow, because tomorrow, by the time it arrives, it’ll be this moment. We always live in the present moment. The future doesn’t exist. The past is dead and gone. All we ever have is now and that vitality is pregnant, always the moment, this very moment. It’s always pregnant with the divine.

God is immediate, here, now and this is where we are. So whatever we bring to a relationship has to be capable of changing in the moment.

We can’t keep coming with the past. We have to be open to new things and those new things can only become from a meditative space deep within ourselves. Otherwise, it’s the robots that’s manipulating the present.

Frank: You’re listening to Frank Relationships, we’re talking with Swami Gyankirti, a former student of spiritual leader, Osho. He’s also a proprietor of Noah’s Ark; a beautiful retreat facility where healing, empowerment, transformational and educational programs and classes as well as meetings, vacations and other events are held. Please tell our listening audience how they can reach you.

Swami: We are reachable through the email address medissage@sprintmail.com. We’re also available on the web at medissage.org. Phone number’s 843-658-7062 and we’re in Mount Croghan, South Carolina.

Frank: Define loyalty and merge it with relationships.

Swami: Loyalty in relationships is essentially, as we know it, a fallacy.

Dr. Gayl: Frank agrees with you. Before you continue, I just wanted you to know that.

Frank: Yes, I do.

Dr. Gayl: I disagree, but Frank agrees. Go ahead.

Swami: Well, let’s look at it. What are you loyal to? Let’s say that our relationship is a friendship and friendship, friendliness is the highest piece of love. If I am loyal to that friendship, then I don’t need to be loyal to anything else. I don’t need to be loyal to a person. I need to be loyal to the friendship and I need to be loyal to the love. There in my integrity’s to be found.

Dr. Gayl: Isn’t that the same thing? If we are friends and we’re in this relationship together and I’m loyal to the friendship, I’m also loyal to the person as well, because that’s who I’m in a relationship with.

Frank: But you might stop being friends.

Dr. Gayl: Then I’m no longer loyal to you or the relationships.

Swami: I may not like you today, and therefore, I don’t want to be with you today. As a matter of fact, I’d rather go hang out with my buddies, because you’re getting on my nerves right now.

Frank: I thought he was going to say, “As a matter of fact, I don’t like you.”

Swami: If I was to be around you, you would mess up my day and I would probably inadvertently mess up yours.

Frank: You know, I feel that way some times, Dr. Gayl.

Dr. Gayl: I feel you on that. However, if we’re loyal in a relationship–

Swami: So-if I’m loy-go ahead.

Dr. Gayl: It’s like saying that “I love you and I’m in love with you, but I don’t like you right now.” It’s kind of the same thing.

Swami: That is true. That happens. That is the reality–

Dr. Gayl: But that doesn’t mean, just because I’m angry and we had a fight or disagreement, that I dismember the relationship and the friendship and say I’m out of love with you right now, because we had a disagreement, that doesn’t make sense.

Swami: No, no, no. I’m not talking about dismembering the friendship and relationship. I’m just saying, at this particular moment, I need a break. I’ll be back later on.

Dr. Gayl: Okay.

Swami: Now, you may say, “You can’t do that, because you’re not being loyal to the relationship,” but I am. I’m trying to preserve the relationship by getting away from you for a few moments or a few hours or a day.

Frank: What’s the problem, Dr. Gayl?

Swami: That’s my right.

Dr. Gayl: Right, you have that right. That’s not a problem.

Frank: So, why do you have a problem with our concept around loyalty, that there really isn’t any?

Dr. Gayl: But that doesn’t make sense to me. Just because you say, “That I need a break,” that doesn’t mean that you aren’t loyal.

Frank: But it does mean it removes the possibility for one side to constantly just say, “Hey, you’re suppose to be acting this way, if you’re loyal,” in order to get you to do what they want you to do.

Dr. Gayl: Well, see you tacked that in on-“In order to get them to do as you want.” If you’re loyal to a relationship, the one person–let’s pretend we’re in a relationship and pretend, because we would never, never work. So, you need a break and we’re loyal I can understand that you need a break, because we’re loyal and we’re loyal to each other and to the relationship.

You’re going to come back. You’re going to get your break. Do whatever you need to do and come back. However, if we aren’t loyal, then that’s where the difficulty arises, because you could go do what you want to do, but you may or you may not come back, because you have no loyalty to the tides here in this relationship.

Frank: What if I come back–please take it away, Swami.

Swami: Let me play angel’s advocate here.

Dr. Gayl: Please.

Swami: What if in my loyalty to this relationship, I feel today, I need to go to the beach with Jane, who is another woman.

Frank: And she’s fine.

Swami: Because if I don’t do something like that, I’m just not going to be happy and you’re not going to be happy.

Dr. Gayl: Then, there is no loyalty and there’s no need to say that we’re in this relationship.

Swami: See, then there’s a problem, because what that means is that you’re not able to accept what makes me happy, if you wanted to go do something similar, I would be able to accept that, because I love you and that’s what makes you happy and I want you to be happy, because I know, when you’re happy, you make me happy. When you’re not happy, I’m unhappy.

Dr. Gayl: In other words–

Swami: When I’m happy, I make you happy.

Dr. Gayl: In other words, that’s a cop-out for saying, “We don’t need monogamy, we don’t need loyalty and we really can just do what you want to do.”

Swami: No, what I’m saying is that–

Dr. Gayl: And in Frank’s world, you can–

Swami: You can be true to the friendship. Be true to the love. These concepts that we impose upon ourselves have nothing to do with love, have nothing to do with friendship. They’re generated out of fear, out of possessiveness, out of insecurity and out of other things that are based our childhood and our social structures and our cultures and have nothing to do with the beauty and innocence of love. They’re impositions that really have nothing to do with love. I like to share something–

Dr. Gayl: Please.

Swami: That after really falling in love with for many years–and these are words by a Native American woman called, Oriah Mountain Dreamer. She says, “It doesn’t interest me what you do for a living, I want to know what you ache for and if you dare to dream of meeting your heart’s desire.

It doesn’t interest me how old you are, I want to know if you will risk looking like a fool for love, for your dream, for the adventure of being alive.

It doesn’t interest me what planets are squaring your move, I want to know if you have touched the center of your own sorrow, if you have been opened by life’s betrayals or if you have become shriveled and closed from fear of further pain.

I want to know if you can sit with pain, mine or your own, without moving to hide it or fade it or fix it. I want to know if you can be with joy, mine or your own.

If you can dance with wildness and let the ecstasy filll you to the tips of your feet and toes without cautioning us to be careful, realistic or to remember the limitations of being human.

It doesn’t interest me, if the story you are telling me is true. I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to yourself. If you can bear the accusation of betrayal and not betray your own soul. It doesn’t interest me who you know or how you came to be here. I want to know if you will stand in the center of fire with me and not shrink back.

It doesn’t interest me where or what or who you have studied. I want to know what sustains you from within when all else falls away. I want to know if you can be alone with yourself and if you truly love the company you keep in the empty moments.”

Frank: We’ve been listening to Frank Relationships. We’ve been talking with Swami Gyankirti, a former student of Spiritual Leader, Osho.

He’s also a proprietor of Noah’s Ark. A beautiful retreat facility, where healing, empowerment, transformational and educational programs and classes as well as meetings, vacations and other events are held.

One more time, please tell our listening audience, how they can find you and use your services.

Swami: Our phone number is 843-658-7062 or you can write medissage@sprintmail.com. You can find us on the internet at medissage.org.

Frank: Along today’s journey, we’ve discussed possessiveness, intimacy and the beautiful facility, known as Noah’s Ark and you don’t have to take my word for it. You can go on the website, check it out.

I hope you’ve had as much fun as I have, talking with Swami Gyankirti, about spiritual leader Osho as well as his own accomplishments. I’m grateful for this opportunity.

As always, it’s my wish for you to walk away for this conversation with a heaping helping of useful information that will help you create a relationship that’s as loving and accepting as possible.

Let us know what you thought of today’s show at: facebook/relationshipflove, on Twitter @mrfranklove or at franklove.com

On behalf of my producer Phileta Legette, keep rising. This is Frank Love.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Buzz
  • LinkedIn
  • PDF
  • Print
  • Reddit

Leave a Comment: Let Us Know Your Thoughts

How to Gracefully Exit a Relationship
Posted by FrankLove | in Osho, Radio Show, Swami Gyankirti | 22 Comments »

22 Comments on “Frank Relationships: Swami Gyankirti on Osho”

  1. Toby C. Says:

    i think any discussion of Osho would need to mention the seemingly awful community he set up in Arizona, his arrest for tax evasion and role in attempts to bribe officials and role in murder enquiry centred around his community.

  2. Deepesh F. Says:

    Toby, if you’re going to spread heresay, at least get your facts straight. Osho never set up any community in Arizona. (“seemingly awful?” now there’s an accurate report! C’mon Toby, you can do better than that!) Do you mean Oregon? He was arrested,not for tax evasion (who might you be referring to?), but on a trumped-up, politically motivated charge of immigration fraud, because the INS said he was “working as a guru” when he wasn’t supposed to,according to his visa. Then he was poisoned in prison, but we won’t go there. Governments don’t do that, especially ours. He never attempted to bribe anyone, nor was that ever reported, even by the sensationalist Oregon newspapers. Nor was he ever a principal in any murder enquiry, although some of his psychopathic followers were. An amazing amount of vicious trash has been written about Osho, and the same is true of any guru, teacher, holy men (or women), etc., who dare to offer alternative practices or teachings that threaten the consensus reality. I had not expected to read such recklessly unfounded and inaccurate ramblings.

  3. Deepesh F. Says:

    I’m sorry but it is difficult to take seriously the petty and inflated charges against Osho, when they were brought by the most corrupt administration in any of our lifetimes. No, I’m not talking about Nixon and Watergate (awful enough!), but the administration of Ronald Reagan. No less than 138 of his staff, many of them very close associates or even cabinet members, were either convicted, indicted by grand juries, or subject to serious criminal investigations due to official misconduct. At least 21 of them served prison time. (Compare to 8 for Nixon, one for Clinton.)

    Why even bring up this sad, dirty period in our political history? Because it was these same Reagan people, who self-righteously and hypocritically investigated and charged Osho and his commune with these crimes. From none of them was Osho ever shown to be guilty. These sleazy officials included Reagan’s nefarious Attorney General, Edwin Meese III, once simultaneously the subject of three separate criminal investigations, and two national security advisors, John Poindexter and Robert McFarlane, one press secretary, Lyn Nofziger, and James Watt, the secretary of the Interior, who received five years in prison for multiple counts of bribery and fraud. This is naming only a few. Most of the accused were either pardoned or similarly escaped justice. (Think Oliver North, perpetrator of the MyLai massacre.) Google it; it’s all there for public view, despite the myth-making efforts of some to make Ronald Reagan into some sort of culture hero.

    All of this is not to say that everyone in the Osho commune in Oregon was lily white in their practices. Like every political organization, it had its corruption. For this it must be held accountable, and it has been. Let’s just keep it in perspective and avoid the sensationalism of a scandal-hungry media, especially as history recedes into the mists. And most of all, let us not get carried away by the tendency of the masses to project our collective shadow onto easy targets so that we can elevate others to hero status.

  4. Toby C. Says:

    It’s true that i don’t have the facts. i was a bit hasty there. I have just developed a bad opinion of Osho from the things that i have read. Thanks. Its instructive to get a robust response.

  5. Jürgen H. Says:

    So many individuals need conscious or unconscious cult leaders. It seems like achetypal.

  6. Toby C. Says:

    Ok I have read Osho in the past, and I have read accounts of Osho by people that knew and met him and people attempting to piece together what happened in Oregon. The disconnect between the lucid simplicity of his prose, and the apparent trail of mayhem that seemed to follow his group’s activities seems profound. His views on homosexuality and learning difficulties seem particularly out of touch. I just read the wikipedia entry, which may not be unbiased but at least has a policy around referencing and peer led rigour. He himself made the following accusations against his main advisors Ma Sheela:

    “The alleged crimes, which he stated had been committed without his knowledge or consent, included the attempted murder of his personal physician, poisonings of public officials, wiretapping and bugging within the commune and within his own home, and a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, using salmonella to impact the county elections.[6] While his allegations were initially greeted with scepticism by outside observers,[120] the subsequent investigation by the U.S. authorities confirmed these accusations and resulted in the conviction of Sheela and several of her lieutenants”

    perhaps he had nothing to do with these crimes, but at the very least his attempts to create utopia seem to have backfired spectacularly and he was guilty of poor judgement or lack of leadership. at worst he was implicated.

    I would be interested to get your perspective on how these allegations arose and what they tell us about Osho. can they really just be people writing from fear of change, or because Reagan’s administration was corrupt?

  7. Deepesh F. Says:

    Toby, part of the difficulty here is that you and I are in different epistemological universes. It’s almost like you are speaking Latin and I am speaking Linux. Almost impossible for the twain to meet. I’ll offer this, not for the sake of argument, because I have no interest in debating, arguing or trying to be “right.” What is your interest?

    It’s difficult even slightly to enter into the kind of dialog you are inviting. Things like “poor judgement”, “lack of leadership”, “attempts to create utopia”, etc., are so far off base, meaningless and irrelevant to the kind of world he (and we) all lived in, that it is completely useless for me to talk about it in those terms. Try this: He was a crazy wisdom, enlightened master, and his only goal was to –unscrupulously–provoke, startle, seduce, confuse, and convince his disciples and students to wake up. Does that mean anything to you? Probably not. I’m sure it will create reaction in you, right? And there is no fault in that. You are where you are in your mind, and we were where we were/are.

    I was there. I was an eyewitness to all that your wiki account relates. Yes, Sheela and her gang of 20 did all of the things you mention, without his knowledge and without the knowledge and consent of any of the thousands of others who lived there. He was not the “leader” of the commune. Sheela was. He was the spiritual teacher/master, in the ancient tantric tradition, which, I acknowledge, makes little or no sense in the world view from which you are asking those questions. So where do we go from here? Much of that hearsay you relate may have some literal, “factual” validity, but from his frame of reference, it has no “truth” in it.

    Does all of this sound dangerous? That’s precisely what it is. In exactly the same way that Socrates was dangerous to the Athenian world he lived in, and in exactly the same way Jesus was dangerous to both the Romans and the Jewish establishment of his time. And Mansour, and Mohammed, and Gandhi, etc etc. If you were to take the trouble, you could make the same logical, “factual” case against any of those people, some of whom were crucified literally, and others of whom were “only” crucified in the media of their times.

  8. Toby C. Says:

    hello Deepesh, thanks for getting back to me. . I wonder what sense you make of what happened now, looking back?

    What do you consider to be the “truth” that came out of Osho in Oregon, and what have you taken from it?

    Because if nothing else, Osho’s legacy has to be understood in terms of what happened, as well as what he wrote and said. Socrates stood trial and drank hemlock apparently to show death could be faced. Jesus was betrayed in the garden died on the cross apparently to kill sin. Ghandi the pacifist was assassinated apparently because his assassin was afraid that of vulnerability through pacifism – that hindus would become so pacifist they would not be able to defend themselves.

    What myth do you understand Osho to be embodying, through your experience of him?

  9. Helen B. Says:

    A final legacy is a problematic thing, isn’t it? This is something I was thinking about at the time of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. As we know, that had been arranged in advance, by her as much as anyone, with every detail taken care of so that she and those claiming her as a symbol would speak that final word. And, yet, even then, we all have our own thoughts about what she embodied. It’s like the crystal-clear aphorism on Apollo’s Temple at Delphi ‘Know Thyself’ which nobody individually agrees a meaning for but which has a kind of overarching meta-meaning.

    You talking about Socrates’ personal motivation in choosing to die made me think, Toby. He was willing to go because the other choice was anathema. He comes down through history as a man standing up for his belief that to live rightly is more important than anything and we let him have that mostly because it suits us, I suppose. That’s a contrast to Jesus who, all the way to the end, might have had it otherwise. But he was swept along by a collective wave and God’s will so he died a sacrificial lamb, in word and deed. Now, as part of that myth, he lives, split between a world of hearts, divided amongst us: a sacrifice even now to the collective. As you say, Ghandi’s death symbolized paradox just as his passive resistance did: his guiding principle held in suspension in the facts of his death.

    I’m just thinking, won’t everything – even one person’s final word – mean something larger than that person ever intended?

  10. Toby C. Says:

    Yes a legacy must be as fluid as anything else. I am glad Deepesh answered me, because I have had a strong reaction against Osho from reading his writing and accounts of those that knew him. But Deepesh was actually there, so it is more interesting to hear from him what happened for him than to re-visit my antipathy again.

    What his response got me thinking is – how do we approach “crazy wisdom” and ethics? I guess part of crazy wisdom could be the deep realisation that ethics are a human, relative construct. Life itself could be a lesson in crazy wisdom. But doesn’t it let Osho off a bit lightly? Here was a man who preached about peace, love and transcendent simplicity, but whose followers ended up paranoid, deliberately spreading salmonella to influence an election, and plotting to murder a doctor. And who was happy to recieve a planned 365 rolls royces. well, you could say- why not? perhaps he was worth it, and by doing so, let us know that we are all worth it too. Perhaps it is just within human nature that we have a core of peace surrounded by a shell of paranioa and murderousness.

    Perhaps acknowledging this does help us “wake up”. But in order to wake up, i suppose we must know, really know, that life is not a dream. Much as we naturally believe life to be literal, some see through it to its dreamlikeness – but to go beyond this, and see that despite it’s dreamlikeness life is about being awake – then the simple importance of not plotting murder, accummulating rolls royces (or devotees) etc etc seems evident.

    But i have re-hashed my antipathy. I am actually really interested to know more about Deepesh’s time in Oregon, and what he learned from this complex man.

  11. Helen H. Says:

    For me, the only way to get beyond a visceral sense of something is to feel it fully without wanting to get beyond it. It needs its full hearing because not hearing something out isn’t fair. I think crazy wisdom deserves the same treatment.

    Questions around ethics, as you say Toby, can only be answered in context and trying to apply the ethical considerations of one system to another is pretty much philosophical imperialism.

    I guess the symbol that is Osho’s life is a tough one to view sympathetically. As you say, his life and teachings seemed so much at odds with each other that, if this was hypocrisy on his part, the contradictions are very undermining. But surface contradictions are usually illusionary. And, anyway, how much of the Osho myth lies with the myth-builders? I’m thinking about celebrities as the convenient archetypes here when the chosen are lauded into plaster saints and then kicked to pieces because, actually, they disappoint when inevitably they fail to live up to the image built around them. They may be guilty of fostering the image but they can only do that when those around are willing to conspire.

    I’m not sure about the idea that humans are built in the image of chocolate snowballs with a crispy shell of murderous paranoia and a pillowy interior of peace. I think both the outer chocolate and inner marshmallow require particular growth conditions…and being awake is one of them. But, with this, dreaming can fool you into thinking you’re awake can’t it?

    But, yes, I’d like to hear some more, Deepesh 🙂

  12. Deepesh F. Says:

    I appreciate the sensitive questions and intelligent commentary, Toby and Helen, and feel a strong pull to respond in kind. I have been buried for weeks in term papers and exams to grade. Now I’m off to Germany to teach, but I will do my best to find a few thoughtful hours to summarize what it took me an entire book to explore some years ago. Frances Fitzgerald (F. Scott’s granddaughter) wrote a sane, “objective” viewer’s appraisal, published in two parts in the New Yorker, then later as a book.(Can’t recall the title.) It was the fairest treatment, not hysterical, but even she, bless her good journalist’s heart, completely missed the point. She tried, but her urbane, Western-educated New Yorker’s point of view predominated. My book, never sent to a publisher, was addressed to her. Thanks for waiting, and thank you Helen, for adding some important considerations. The problem is: where is the absolute, objective perspective from which we can judge a “foreign” system? Anthropologists like Margaret Mead have valiantly tried, but so many problems remain…. Frankly, I don’t think Osho’s life and teachings are contradictory at all. (See what I mean?)

  13. Helen B. Says:

    Thank you, Deepesh 🙂

  14. Toby C. Says:

    I feel glad this discussion has some running in it….i have some further thoughts – one related to the Ballad of a thin man, one to honour killings and one to the the fantasy of being/not being middle class. So : the first is the ballad of a thin man

    http://www.lyricsfreak.com/b/bob+dylan/ballad+of+a+thin+man_20021423.html

    You’ve been with the professors
    And they’ve all liked your looks
    With great lawyers you have
    Discussed lepers and crooks
    You’ve been through all of
    F. Scott Fitzgerald’s books
    You’re very well read
    It’s well known.

    But something is happening here
    And you don’t know what it is
    Do you, Mister Jones ?

  15. Toby C. Says:

    I love this song – its Dylan at the height of his scathing surrealist blues. And it’s got a reference to F Scott Fitzgerald too, which is why i thought of it. (although not his grand daughter)

    in fact the song seems to express to me what you are saying, Deepesh, about how no one gets Osho, quite, except when they do, and you know when you do, but you can’t explain it, except that you know that she doesn’t understand it.

    If you follow!

    There are 2 characters in the song, Dylan and Mr Jones – Dylan sings it to him, addressing him. Lets face it, I would rather be Dylan. He is the imaginative authority here. Perhaps he finds Mr Jones smug annoying and intellectual. But i have always felt a little sorry for him. He is being exluded really, and the song is at his expense. We get to feel the joy of Dylan absolutely destroying him in the song, pitying him, playing with him.

    what i feel is that this urbane western educated new yorker point of view, when taken as a perspective rather than a threat, or a final authority, could be just as deep as whatever the mouth of crazy wisdom speaks. Perhaps this would be closer to crazy wisdom in some way.

  16. Toby C. Says:

    As regards ethics, and objectivity, I think that to adopt a relativist point of view would be to continue to fruitlessly seek for that objectivity that one has already felt to be fruitless. In some parts of the world women are felt to be guilty of a crime for being the victim of sexual abuse – in the uk so called “honour killings” are gaining wider press. To only see different systems that cannot inform each other means there a refusal to stand up for what may be wrong, even at the risk of being wrong oneself.

    so far as the judge goes, and imperialism, I, writing from the Uk am the heir to all sorts of imperialist experiments. But to refuse to judge abdicates a deeper responsibility, to oneself. In the tarot Judgement is a man holding a pair of scales. In a commentary on this card, Rachel Pollack mentions the scales in the Egyptian book of the dead – and that in the hall of the dead, in the presence of a the gods, a feather must balance a heart”. She writes that a true sense of judgement is possible that can discriminate, that relates to our sense of ourself.

  17. Toby C. Says:

    Finally, middle class- ness. I went to college on a small self contained campus, seven miles from town and lived there for a year. I remember some students saying at different times that the campus was detached from life, and they wanted to be part of “real life” in the town. I remember thinking that it is not possible to be detached from real life, as it always happens exactly where you are. I understood that they didn’t want to live in a “middle class bubble” and well, neither do I. I am thinking something about the middle class and the way they take on this level of self critical hatred, which is also highly creative, but is also based on what Satre might call “bad faith” – identifying with a role, when in fact there is nothing there.

    Anyway, these are my thoughts. I am still curious as to how you articulate what Osho stands for, having been part of his crazy seeming world, and in the light of what others have written, and this conversation, thanks for continuing the dialogue.

  18. Toby C. Says:

    btw i mention the middle class bubble because i think that this is partly where I think Osho gets his power from – in appealing to a way out of this kind of trapped-ness.

  19. Helen B. Says:

    I know these posts are for Deepesh, Toby. But I wanted to say, first, I love the Bob Dylan quote and its choice is all empathy I think. The underdog’s pity, forced reliance on, anger and hatred for, the uncomprehending powerful saviour/oppressor is all there in those words.

    Yeah, judgement: we’ll all be weighed in the balance eventually and the hope is that our doing-the-best-we-could-mostly-with-the-circumstances-thrown-at-us will be sufficiently understood to prevent a plunge into the fiery furnace.

    But I understand you’re description of the tarot symbol not as the Judgement card but as the Justice card. I think this is a common mistake, metaphorically-speaking. With this, I think you’re talking about the sense from (possibly) Edmund Burke who said that ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. This is the wound of the educated middle-class insofar as they, the law-makers and upholders of the establishment, are bound by position, modernism and Protestant thinking to decide right from wrong. To do this, there’s no choice but to fall back on personal values and recast these as absolutes to judge by. Of course, it seems unfair that those with such good intention and shouldering so much responsibity should be despised by those they try to help. But, I guess it’s that Mr Jones-thing, isn’t it? Half the time he’s blind to what he’s inflicting. The rest of the time, he can no more shrug off his context than anyone else, so why should he be expected to? With Frances Fitzgerald, I agree that her point of view was as worthwhile as anyone’s but the thing is, with her background of special privilege (white, educated, middle-class) people immediately award her final authority. It comes with the territory.

    Judgement is necessary to prevent chaos and maintain the status quo. But it has to be accepted that judgement is not necessarily justice at all. Advocates plead for justice by offering mitigation which they understand through allowing a proper hearing of a relative viewpoint.

  20. Deepesh F. Says:

    Wonderful, Helen! Yes, Frances Fitzgerald was all that you say. And, she won a Pulitzer Prize for her book on Vietnam written amidst the fog of confusion during the height of the war. She saw past the consensus trance around that awful, falsely represented, brutally fought war, and helped people to wake up. And yes, I appreciated the wisdom of her approach, incisive and courageous soul that she was! And, I saw her as fair-minded, sincerely trying to comprehend the phenomenon of so many bright, well-intentioned, often spiritually evolved, people of all ages and nations, gathering around a teacher like Osho in a social experiment such as Rajneeshpuram. “Why are they here?” she kept asking. “I can’t find anything wrong with them.” They weren’t blissed-out, bleary-eyed and drinking Kool-Aid because the guru said so. My point about Frances was that she could not understand what she did not believe, because, as someone in our time has said, “Believing is seeing.” As the village priest at Fatima said of the apparition of the Virgin, and the subsequent millions who came to be there, “For those who believe, no explanation is needed; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” It isn’t about blind faith; it is about a different state of consciousness. We went to Rajneeshpuram in search of the miraculous, and we found it; but it was not on the outside; it was not in the person of Osho (yet he did work miracles!). It was with us all along; we just didn’t see it.

  21. Deepesh F. Says:

    Well, Toby and Helen, I’m afraid I am not ready to take on the ultra personal and vulnerable process of discussing what my own Osho-inspired transformation entailed. No offense intended, Toby, but I still detect a need to be right, and worse, a slight tone of “baiting.” I’m not sure, but it feels that way, and it doesn’t feel inviting or even safe. Yet.

    So let’s stay with the level of thought. You gave me some things to think about; I’ll give you some in return. I loved the piece on Dylan, one of my favorites, in fact. What I find really original is your eccentric invitation to be compassionate with “Mr. Jones.” I agree: the truly enlightened person can be compassionate with poor, lonely Mr. Jones, as should we all. Mr. Jones of the old paradigm, Dylan of the new. I admit, though, I find this level of compassion eluding me, except intellectually. (ie. I know I “should” be compassionate with him.) For example, if the present Mr. Jones is the Wall Street banker who created and sold credit derivatives inflated by thousands of times their value, having in fact no real value, and almost wrecked the entire world economy, causing untold suffering across the planet, all so that he could have a few more hundred million in wealth, I confess, I strain to love him, except in the abstract. And when you are condemning the “honour killings”, are you not saying, “Something is happening here, and you don’t know what it is, do you, Mr. Abdul?” And, honestly, maybe he doesn’t. (And yes, I agree with you that we need to forbid them in our society.)

    Also, Toby, would you kindly refrain from the prejudicial way of thinking that generalizes from the acts of a few misguided to the whole system? You keep condemning Osho for the faults of the few suicide bombers at the commune. Is Osho responsible for their misinterpretations of his teachings? Is Jesus or Mohammed responsible for the centuries of atrocities committed, in their names, by their followers. (Some would say yes. I don’t.) When Buddha lectured about the corruptibility of the body, and a group of his monks heard the discourse (wrongly) and committed suicide, is Buddha to blame?

    And you compound your illogical conclusions by wanting to discredit all of the teachings in Osho’s 380 books, because of what happened at Rajneeshpuram. You don’t have a clue what really happened there, except heresay. The Roll Royces, for example, were bought by the commune as an investment in real goods, in an economy ready to crash, as one might buy gold, then used by Osho as a joke, a parody on wealth. (He owned nothing; he walked away from the whole RR collection without looking back. Of course, I can see how it all LOOKS, but what did it mean? That is a wholly other reality, one we have barely scratched, although your invocation of Dylan talking to Mr. Jones, is moving in the right direction, even if you did side with a peculiar protagonist. (You must love Iago.)

  22. Deepesh F. Says:

    Okay, last one. This one on Crazy Wisdom teachers. They are like the man who approaches a house, filled with sleeping people, some of them children. He sees it and breaks the door down, smashes windows, sets off fireworks, makes a complete fool of himself, running from room to room, turning over cabinets, gesticulating wildly and making noises. One of the sleeping men calls the police and screams that a maniac is in the house, and the intruder snatches the phone from him, dumps him out of the bed and drags him, kicking and screaming, to the window, where he throws him out. Need I go on….? The crazy wisdom master, like Osho sees this planet as a house on fire, full of people who are sound asleep and snoring. (And, isn’t it?) Because he loved it so much, he was willing to do whatever it takes to wake people up. No holds barred! No concern or respect for sacred cows.

    Toby, you are way too focused on content. Squinch your eyes and focus on process. Forgive me for what probably seems like pontificating, but you asked me to explain. I’m trying to. You see, in any one person there are usually a number of epistemological levels; there is what we say, or think, we believe. There is what we actually believe. There is what we do: a) consciously, and b) unconsciously. There is what we think about what we do; and there is what we think about what we think. To talk about this, notice that I did not refer to any actual content; I did not have to risk stating any dogma or set of beliefs that might immediately set off a content-oriented argument, or offend someone who has a contrary dogma. This is approaching a problem with a different state of consciousness. First and foremost, that is what I think Osho was doing: he got us to look critically at all of the processes that we believe, think, act out, and reexamine them, and look unflinchingly at the actual consequences of our process in the world we live in.

    Here is a brilliant quote based on cutting edge neuroscience. It reminds me of Osho’s way of working:

    “The conscious act of thinking about one’s thoughts in a different way changes the very brain circuits that do the thinking, as studies of how psychotherapy changes the brains of people with depression show. Such willfully induced brain changes require focus, training and effort, but a growing number of studies using neuroimaging show how real those changes are. They come from within. As the discoveries of…this self-directed neuroplasticity trickle down to clinics and schools and plain old living rooms, the ability to willfully change the brain will become a central part of our lives–and our understanding of what it means to be human. – Sharon Begley, Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain

    As Einstein said, “One cannot alter a condition with the same mind set that created it in the first place.”

Leave a Reply