Talk:Rajneesh

You state that "silly as it may be the ® is still part of the name" "Osho®".

Not according to http://www.osho.com/, which features the name "Osho" over and over again, without any accompanying symbol, and nor on any other hit on the first page of a Google search for "Osho". The Anome 20:48 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Poisoning claim

I've seen Rajneesh's US lawyer on video about this. He said, US wanted Rajneesh out for some reason, he was way too popular. Talium was found later, when Rajneesh was released. He tried to visit other countries, but no major country where he had followers let him in. He returned to India. The years before his death he felt extreme pain all the time, said he doesn;t enter Nirvana only because of disciples. That's according to lawyer.

However, Rajneesh did not develop the extreme baldness that, I am told, would result from radioactive Thalium poisoning. There are a lot of lies surrounding Rajneesh, and most of them attempt to show him in a good light that he does not deserve. Luis Dantas 02:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From religioustolerance.org:

The Osho International Foundation (OIF) has registered the word Osho® in order to promote of certain products. The registration is being challenged before the US Trademark Board of Appeals. Those opposing the OIF allegedly claim that the name cannot be a trademark, and that the OIF committed fraud in its application. While this matter is being sorted out in the courts, we are using the registration mark, to avoid prosecution.

Wouldn't you agree that we'd best follow suit? Mkweise 20:51 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Even if the word is trademarked, it isn't normally used in titles. Should we include the tradmark at Microsoft, Apple Computers, Coca-Cola and Frito-Lay too? Tuf-Kat

I'm just a technical writer who does what he's been taught, but I believe according to the letter of the law (at least in the US) trademark attribution is required in publications, though not in correspondence. Better ask the Wikipedia legal department to be sure. Arguably it could be a serious issue where litigious trademark owners are involved, as with Osho® or Scientology®. Mkweise 21:31 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

In addition, the cited page uses the name repeatedly without the symbol, clearly demonstrating that it is not part of the name. The Anome

I've stripped the honorific titles from the entry name, as that appears to be the Wikipedia standard. Mkweise

The trademark attempt failed in the US Courts.

While I've reconstructed the entire childhood episode to make it readable, its not advisable to have something like that for an enclyclopedia page about Osho. It can be made into capsule form, may be in a single paragraph. A new page called Osho's Philosophy can be added to filter out his life from his teachings.
Jay 22:09, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

1953 to 1981

These seems to be a gap in the narative between 1953 and 1981 which needs to be filled Lumos3 08:00, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm much afraid I don't have the book here, so I am writing from memory without dates or, at most, approximate ones.

After his enlightenment at 21 he didn't drop everything he was doing. He worked as a profesor of phylosophy in his university in Jabalpur. Later on, afterhours, he started giving discourses to some disciples who gathered around him. These disciples started organizing larger and larger events and even tours around India. His fame grew to the point that he was able to drop his day job and move to a small appartement in Mumbai (ex-Bombay) supported by his disciples and the money collected from his public appearances.

It was in that small appartment (it was said that an audience of a couple of dozens would spill out to the stairwell) that he was found by western seekers (yes, it was in the days when The Beatles had just returned from India and it became fashionable), mainly German.

It was mainly the impetus of the hardworking Germans that produced the Ashram in Pune (ex-Poona) where he moved along his direct followers and where his commune still stands. This commune supported a far larger number of people so his discourses were regularly attended not just by a few dozens at best but by a few hundreds. The commune grew by buying adjoining property so that it could provide further services. Even then, the commune was never able to provide living quarters to the number of people attending the place, so his disciples spilled around all the neighborhood where it is located. At peak time, in the years after his return from the U.S. before his death, I would say Pune could be filled by as many as 10 to 12 thousand people, while attendance to his discourses would usually be around 3 thousand people, growing to 5 to 6 thousand for special ocasions.

It was from this stable base that his discourses started being recorded, first in audio, then in video, which got written down and published under his name. These books and tapes greatly helped his popularity, particularly in the west.

The commune also supported, and it still does, a very creative atmosphere for all sorts of artists. Some of Osho's meditations are supported by specially written music. German musician Deuter (http://www.newearthrecords.com/Biographies/deuter.asp) wrote and performed many of those pieces. Osho's discourses were usually preceded by dancing with live music and some of these musicians are also in the catalog of the record company in the link.

The commune not only provided space for the actual practice of his meditation techniques and to listen to discourse but Osho also welcomed western therapists so that the most advanced therapy techniques that could be found in Esalen were also available in Osho's Ashram.

The commune in Pune was going pretty well when, due to medical concerns, he went to the U.S. to have surgery performed on his back. His way of walking was not just for show, he really had problems in his back. Anyway, he didn't get surgery since some physical therapy helped him, which included the chair he used to give his discourses which was orthopedic.

It was while he was staying in the U.S., actually somewhere in New Jersey, that a group of his U.S. disciples wanted him to stay there and they bought the ranch, as it is often referred to by his followers, in Oregon, to establish the commune. Many of his disciples that came from India with him, lots of them German, kept up their hardworking fame and built a large commune almost out of nothing. In this issue, I feel (and this is clearly my POV) that it is not correct to say that Osho requested his followers to buy the ranch. Being the leader of his group this would be expected but his role was far more passive in the practical matters than one would expect. Had he not been found in his small apartment in Bombay by the very entrepreneural and hardworking Germans, he would have happily remained there, there would not have been any commune in Pune nor any ranch in Oregon. He behaved as the most kind and courteous guest wherever his followers carried him.

His living quarters were always modest. While in the ranch he lived in a trailer. Back in India, he spent all his day either in his very small and spartan room or in the terrace. The place where his ashes lie was built for his room, both bed, living and working room. Actually, his ashes are where his bed would have been. The actual purpose of the room is hinted by the adjoining fully equipped bathroom that, to my knowledge, has never been used and makes no sense on the side of a meditation hall or a mausoleum as the room is sometimes referred. It became a small meditation hall after Osho's death but the bathroom was never demolished nor ever used. The room had been usable by the time of his death, but he never bothered moving there, staying in his small room, where he died.

The story also continues after his death, since the commune in Pune is still running under the direction of some of his disciples, just as it always had. It has grown about twice the size Osho knew it, now even including a hotel, swimming pool, a large auditorium, larger kitchens and eating spaces. There is no spiritual successor to Osho, the directors only handle 'practical' matters. The daily program of the Ashram is still much as it was when Osho was alife, his recorded videos are still shown every night just as his live discourses occurred at that same hour.

The commune contributes to the city by attracting a large number of foreign spiritual tourism and also by direct action, such as the building of a large park in a small stream at the back of the Ashram which was converted from a sewer to a very beautiful and confortable park. The foreign flavour brought by the disciples attract a lot of the young students of the University of Pune so that the whole area around the Ashram is now quite fashionable so that nowadays you see young soon-to-be professionals riding their powerfull new motorcyles( 125cc is powerfull by Indian standards), with cell phones on their belts, asking for decaf capuccinos and female students wearing jeans.

--DevaSatyam 14:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV gone amuk

There has go to be a way of getting this page to be more NPOV. I think if we look at the Scientology page as an example of something that is far more balanced, we can fix this page. I think the criticisms should be put in a section called "Criticism/Scepticism." The current page is extremely POV. That it had talked about the Rolls Royces without giving balance is irresponsible.Aasgaard 15:37, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It is also somewhat shocking to read the introduction with all the description of his names. As it stands it sounds like showing off, like he was shamelessly appropriating the honorific titles of former masters. This has to be seen in the perspective of Indian culture were the use of that many honorific titles is not unusual for someone in Osho's situation. Just like the use a lot of colours and gold lace on their clothes and their paintings. Austerity is not their thing.

Come on, DevaSatyam. You ought to know that you are lying shamelessly. Rajneesh was very much a show-off, as his Cadillac collection proves. He _did_ steal both the title of "Bhagwan" (from Ramana) and that of "Osho" (from Zen Buddhism). Besides, Rajneesh's situation is that of a compulsive liar with delusions of grandeur. Luis Dantas 19:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, those names were only used in formal contexts, his followers always referred to him by either Bhagwan or Osho and it should be noted that in this later stage, prior to his death, he explicitly requested that all other honorific titles should be dropped.

--DevaSatyam 15:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream on. This page is nothing but a love letter to a cult leader, and it's obviously written by his marks.

This just in

Today someone inserted the following text in the article: He re-hashed and re-introduced hundreds of old meditation techniques from various traditions, ... - is that accurate? Are there "hundreds" of "old meditation techniques" which Rajneesh actually reintroduced? Some sort of reference would be welcome. Luis Dantas 02:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it all depends on how you count them or what you call a meditation. If we are talking about formal, structured and regularly performed meditations (actually, meditation techniques, since the technique is the part you can do, the meditation is what happens), there might be just above a couple dozen. There are CDs recorded with the music that goes with about half of these.

Over the years, though, in his discourses, specially when answering questions of his disciples, he would sometimes sugest a meditation technique that, though for someone in particular, it might be of general use to anyone else. Thus, we have a few smoking meditations, for those who want to quit, or meditations to do at work, or against obesity.

Moreover, lots of activities can be performed in a meditative way. Thus, the ashram offers working meditation such as watering the garden (the ashram has a full irrigation system, but if someone feels like doing it meditatively it is Ok), or cleaning a room (there are hired workers for that, but once again, you can do it if you feel like).

So, if you count all of these, yes, they can add up to a hundred. I think 108 is the number cited more often, I don't recall the story behind it but 108 has some historical or mythical thing behind it. Nevertheless, I am quite certain nobody ever did an actual count, eliminating duplicates and categorizing them into full blown structured techniques or minor sugestions, but about a hundred in all would be about right.

--DevaSatyam 15:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps I am the only one who has spoken on 112 methods of meditation. There is no other literature on those 112 meditations, and I have developed many new meditations which are not included among those. There is great need for literature on meditation from different angles, because there are meditations which you can do while doing anything. It is just an inner process. There are meditations which need specific times. There are meditations which you can do only while making love. There are meditations which need a certain kind of a structure. So much possibility is there for writing theses on meditations. [ ...] These 112 methods that I am referring to are the most significant ones. It is not that there are only 112. There can be thousands of methods. Each person has to work differently on whatever technique he is using, so there are as many techniques as there are persons. Ultimately they all lead to the same thing, but your uniqueness has to be taken into account. - Osho :) -(see also: The Book of Secrets, St. Martin's Press, New York)

"Rajneeshee Cult"

Is there an NPOV way of including the fact that Rajneesh' ashram became referred to as the "Rajneeshee Cult" in the US press and colloquially. The reason why I ask is that I want to redirect Rajneeshee Cult to this article as it provides a relatively sedate non-sensational account of events. Thanks for the input. Courtland 04:34, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"Osho" Rajneesh's "Sannyasins"

This controversial and iconoclastic guru (1931-1990) has considerable influence in the "New Age" circles of some countries (Brazil for instance), where his books are sold in mainstream bookstores with nearly as much acceptance as those of the Dalai Lama. His teachings emphasize the search for personal freedom (definitely including sexual activity), often to the point of damaging ethical discernment and leading to enthusiastic yet destructive behavior. His books are often very caustic in their criticism of many institutions and traditional teachings. His followers caused the Wasco County, Oregon scandal (involving political fraud and salmonella poisoning). Much of the information about him is of dubious quality, such as his death supposedly being caused by poisoning with radioactive Thallium.

While it may have been a cult once, nowadays, few people are active in a hierarchically organized group based on the organizational lineage of Rajneesh. Some people may be involved in several unhealthy cult-like groups based on the teachings of Rajneesh.

References:

OCRT essay
"Osho, Bhagwan Rajneesh, and the Lost Truth" by Christopher Calder
Commentary on Rajneesh
Friends of Osho
Biography
Homepage of a Brazilian community of "Osho sannyasins" (in Portuguese)

POV issues

This has been included in the latest version of the article:

Osho was unique in his syncretism of a number of philosophic systems previously though to oppose one another, such as ancient Greek doctrines (Heracletus, Pythagoras and Socrates) and Oriental philosophy (Islam, Zoroastianism and Budhism). His claim that all religions where valid having been founded by an enlightened master (Christ, Pythagoras, Budha, Mohamed) and later corrupted by the official church, granted him a following of a multitude of ethnic groups and beleifs.

That is so POV that it hurts. Rajneesh's so-called syncretism is a lie that heavily distorts most if not all of its sources, most definitely including Buddhism. He is best described as a sort of modern-day Alesteir Crowley, actually.

Even if he had taught some sort of syncretism (which I strongly disagree he did), that would still not make him unique at all. He would have lots of company, from Kant to Ken Wilber, including the founders of the Bahai Faith and of Sikhism.

I will leave this notice here for a day or two and NPOV the text then if need be. Luis Dantas 14:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the second sentence is valid but the use of the term unique does tarnish the validity of the first sentence.

I have read the syncretism phrase elsewhere, I am sure it is copied from some sort of marketing material. I don't even know what it really means because it smells so much of marketting bable that I never bothered to look it up in the dictionary. It is truth, though, that he spoke and commented about most religions and thinkers all in the light of his own phylosophy and in this I think it should be recognized that he was quite impartial with all of them, finding fair amounts of positive and negative things on all of them or, put it in other words, religious people of all colours find his words equally offensive, ignoring whatever good he had to say about them.

--DevaSatyam 12:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

June 18th NPOV

This article is for me not acceptabel NPOVed. Most gross violation:

He extracted and expounded truth and techniques from various spiritual sources. He has spoken over 10 million words and is :author of at least 600 books in Hindi and English on various spiritual tradtitions including Buddha, Krishna, Jesus, Socrates, Zen :masters, Hassid's and every subject under the sky. He was a voracious reader and his lectures were mixed with wit and jokes. :A powerful orator, he used it to convey his message, but insisted that the only reason he kept on talking was to eventually :convince his listeners to start on a path of meditation. He re-hashed and re-introduced hundreds of old meditation techniques from :various traditions, and developed several unique meditation techniques ("Dynamic Meditation", "Kundalini Meditation", "Nadabrama", :etc.)

Obviously, one cannot discern with any degree of certainity how many words one has spoken in life, the quality involved. The idea that one can be the auther of 600 books is ludicrous. Phamplets, letters, maybe, books, no. He was a voracious reader, but how is "voracios" defined? Is quality of what was read involved? Wit and jokes seems to be propping up. Powerful orator is an opinion.

MSTCrow 05:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Info: in one of Osho's books there's a statement by him that he never wrote any of those books, and that the books are just dialogue between him and some sort of audience that gets written by people. Of course, it is also written that he said that nothing that he said should be taken seriously and that he contradicts himself on purpose, just to mess with your head, so... :-)

It´s a pity. It looks like the MSTCrow didn´t make a little research before complaining the whole world his not prooved disbeliefs. I love doubts and people they are in doubts, if then afterwords they start to find out what´s the truth about his issues. If the referred article is in fact for somebody not acceptabel then where is the negativ proof? I´m curios to get some assistant for my own prooved opinion! Instead I saw Books and Booklists from the referred Person "Osho" Rajneesh with my own eys. They counted at least 200 Books. If they are containing for everybody on the planet the same value ore acceptabel values? I don´t Know. But I found out. You can proof with Your own eyes, 200 books You can buy right now, maybe there are older ones also, they don´t offer?: http://www.oshorisk.dk/books_music/EnglBooks/CompleteABC-list.htm I found even more: "a total of more than 2000 individual audiobook titles, each lasting some 90 minutes at a cost of US$ 3.50 per title."http://www.osho.com/main.cfm?Area=Shop&Sub1Menu=Books&Sub2Menu=ShopBooksTitles&Language=English. A little serious research and I think we would maybe be more sure about the topics of our interest? Thank You for Your patients with my kind of english writing...

Aren't these many books just discourses that have been written down? I largely agree with the assessment of Rajneesh as witty but that is an opinion and not a fact and should and can be attributed to preferrably non-followers. Andries 16:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, that is the case. He didn't write any book at all, he said that himself. All books attributed to him are prints of his discourses improvised live in front of large audiences and personal interviews. This is not to say he is not the author, as I am sure many books out there were dictated to someone else. This also accounts for the number of audiobooks, since each paper book resulted from several daily discourses, usually each chapter in a book corresponding to a day. Most audiobooks contain the discourse of a single date, but some very long discourses (they were in between an hour and a half to two hours, but I heard he once went for 4 hours non-stop) are broken in two audiobooks.

There are also books and audiobooks that contain selections of fragments of several discourses, some of them years appart, all talking about a single subject. With Osho talking about so many subjects something for, sometimes against, it is easy to pick fragments supporting any possible POV so these books, though attributed to Osho are basically the creation of the editor doing the selection. These Osho for Dummies sort of books are partly the reason for his popularity in certain countries and in no way they really reflect his phylosophy.

As for being a powerful orator, perhaps I may provide a hopefully objective measure. All his books are taken directly from his live discourses almost without any editing but adding proper punctuation. His pace was slow, with plenty of pauses both to let the speech sink in and, I am sure, to let him figure out how to go on, a blessing to some of us who translated them on the run since it gave us time to squeeze in the translation while he paused. He never backtracked, at least not that I know of; he somehow managed to carry on the sentence quite elegantly until a proper ending. He did not prepare any of his discourses. The only parts of his discourses that he read were the jokes which were written for him, the material he was commenting or the questions he was answering. You can tell from the audio of his discourses when he was reading and when he was improvising. The jokes he read and then his usually fluent speech went down the drain. You can often hear giggles from the audience when a joke is coming because he was awfull at telling a joke and as soon as the audience saw him picking up the papers where he had them written, the audience started bracing for a good joke awfully read. As another measure of the quality of his speech, I would like to add that the thread of his discourse sometimes jumped from one subject to another one but somehow, at the end, he managed to close all the threads left open in a few masterly sentences. Finally, it is said that he won several debating contests in his youth a skill, it seems, he never lost.

DevaSatyam 12:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DUDES~! Isaac Asimov:- "Asimov wrote or edited over 500 volumes and an estimated 90,000 letters or postcards, and he has works in every major category..." So why not this crusty old guy? And you needn't remove the reference to his humour - simply reword it. e.g. "Many of his followers found his discourse to be witty..." Try chilling out. You guys are WAY TOO uptight! It's not like this wikipedia thing has any real worth. Of course, it is fun and all, but, really... it's not exactly the Brittanica...

Living Enrichment Center

I fail to grasp what Portland's Living Enrichment Center has to do with OSHO. The former is the largest New Thought church in Oregon, and quite respected nationally as a successful liberal ministry. The later was the head of a totalitarian cult. So why is the LEC listed as a link from the Rajneesh's page?

Trademark OSHO

During my life my work was published under my name 'Rajneesh'. Rajneesh was a registered trademark since the 70's in the US and other countries around the world. Short before my death I changed my name to Osho and I requested that all my work should be published and made known under my new name. I also requested that my name and work should be protected. Osho is a registered trademark in the US and other countries since years. Where is the problem? Friends can refer to me without problem simply as Osho - no need always to place the ® - Enough for today - Osho :)

Are you dead? We've never had a ghost editor before, so far as I know. Though people may have different names before, during, and after their lives, on Wikipedia we tend towards using the names by which people are best known. For example, the former Emperor of Japan was known as Hirohito in life, but became Shōwa after death. Nonetheless, we still have his article under Hirohito because that is where people are most likely to look for him. Likewise with your own name. "Osho" is the final name that you used, but "Rajneesh" is the name by which you are best known in english. They are both fine names, both are discussed, and redirects ensure that users looking for either will find their way. Best wishes for you in the spirit world. Please say hi to my friends and family up there, you'll know who they are. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:42, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

In OIF Trademarks there is a list of several trademarks of Osho International Foundation (OIF), including the name Osho and several of his meditations and therapies. By the way, the previous by Willmcw is funny, but I would say that Rajneesh is, indeed, the name most popular amongst Americans (not necesarily all English speakers) of a certain age ;-) --DevaSatyam 15:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Osho: leader, controversial, religious movement

In TFA it says: 'was the founder and leader of the Osho-Rajneesh movement, a controversial new religious movement'. He said (at least as far as I read in his books) that he was nobody's leader and didn't seek to lead anybody. You can say that a bunch of people following you around makes you their leader, but that makes it your own opinion. Also, he said (again from the books) that he was not a Rajneshee and had nothing to do with the Rajneshees, that he was only a guest of the Rajneshees (further clarification: for his part, no such hierarchy as leader-follower, just fellows). The term 'controversial' part may seem opinion but it is right, as osho repeatedly said (again from the books) that he wanted to be controversial and stir things up as much as possible. As for the religious movement thing, he bashed religions like no one else ('all religion is utter crap' or something to that effect) so I think that labeling him as a willfull starter of a religion is somewhat of a mistake... Maybe the 'rajneshee cult' separate page was actually a good idea, at least it would be a good place to put some osho book quotes about his stance towards the people that followed him around, about free will, etc.

We can mention that he did not consider himself the leader, but that doesn't stop him from being the leader. By example, Deng Xiaoping "retired" and for five years his only title was "Chairman of the All-China Bridge Club". But he still ran the country. It would be incorrect for an encyclopedia to take Deng's official title at face value. Likewise, Osho was the leader, whether he liked it or not. Within the article there is ample evidence of the influence of others, and some description of how decisions were made. The egalitarian "followers" is a nice thought, but the followers didn't give the Rolls Royces to each other, they gave them to their leader. -Willmcw 20:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wiretapping

The article should deal with the fact that in addition to the largest domestic mass poisoning incident up to that time, the Rajneeshee group was also the single largest incident of illegal wiretapping. "The largest single incident of fraudulent marriages, the most massive scheme of wiretapping and bugging, and the largest domestic mass poisoning," according to a former Oregon Attorney General. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. -Willmcw 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the commune itself was the victim of that wiretapping. The group who took control of the ranch, who orchestrated the poisoning in The Dalles was the one that wiretrapped all the commune, including Osho's trailer, the same one that kept Osho completely isolated from the rest of the commune under pretext of protecting him. As a result of this wiretapping it was plotted to kill Devaraj (mentioned elsewhere) who tried to get Osho's support to revert the situation.

The wiretapping was discovered by police authorities when they were called to investigate the sudden dissappearance of a large number of chief officers of the foundation running the ranch and the far more suspicious dissappearance of a lot of money from its bank accounts.

Sheela lives in Switzerland since those days. She was born in India and was a U.S. resident by marriage since before the ranch, actually she headed the group that bought the ranch. Now, there are two ways you can get to reside permanently in Switzerland, either you are born there or you pay your way into the country, pay handsomely. Osho ends up in India, Sheela in Switzerland, now, guess who is the one who run with all the money? Switzerland is also the place where you can find a lot of people who did fiscal fraud, as said elsewhere in the article. Once again, list all the gurus who ever lived in Switzerland, you won't find Osho in that list.

Finally, about the illegal marriages or, let us say, dubious marriages, this is how I see it, which is to say, this is my POV on the issue. You get a bunch of devoted and loving followers of a guru. Guru leaves India and goes to U.S. U.S. disciples want him to stay. They go through all the immigration laws to see how can they manage that. They find a way as 'religious leader' which, of course, requires that there be a religion. So, the guys, young and rebelious decide to f*** the system, lets have fun and make up a religion, so they file for a religion presenting all the made up rites, hierarchy, belief system and all that. Thus, Rajneeshism is born and registered in the U.S. as an actual religion, totally unknown absolutely anywhere in the world. Ain't that fun? Ain't we smart?

So, here you have the guys solving two problems at once, getting a visa for their beloved guru and, by the way, solving the problem of hundreds of followers because, you see, most of Osho's followers back then were European and they wanted to live in the commune with their beloved guru, something they couldn't do with their tourist visa. But, hey, they could marry Rajneeshism style, the rite was there, the Acharia (sort of a priest they made up, though the word does actually exist in Sanskrit) could perform it once properly licensed in the State, which they did.

It is all a big joke, and for several years it does work. Osho's teaching are completely against marriage, but no one was marrying for real, it was just for the papers, and he is also against any religious hierarchy but, it doesn't matter, they all know it is not meant for real, it is only to get all those visas for Osho himself and all the European disciples.

Please notice, though, that the people involved in this marriage business had nothing to do with Sheela and her criminal gang. Osho was detained and finally deported on immigration charges, neither the poisoning, the wiretapping or the attempted murders were ever blamed on him. The dubious marriages and Rajneeshism was a game some fellows played to work the system for the benefit of the commune from within the system in complete disregard of both, the U.S. system and their leader's teachings, but it was only a game, wasn't it? Well, no, it didn't come out that way.

--DevaSatyam 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This background is very interesting and your perspective is informative. However please know that for the article we need to have verifiable sources. -Willmcw 18:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure of that and I am much afraid little of this, if any, can go into the article. At most I would like to clarify the situation regarding the several charges popularly laid on Osho. I believe two women have been charged, tried in Portland and jailed for the poissoning, the wiretapping issue was never fully solved, neither the stealing of the money since most of those involved were foreign nationals and are out of reach. Osho, even though his direct responsibility could be questioned, as the leader of Rajneeshism, was charged and deported so I would say that most of what was done against others outside the commune itself, the victims of the poisonning and the violation of immigration laws, have already been settled. It was mostly the crimes commited against the commune itself that have never been solved and it is unfair that those are still blamed on Osho or the commune as a whole.

--DevaSatyam 18:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this perspective is available in print somewhere then we can use it as a reference. If it isn't, then perhaps you should write it out and get it published. (Then we can use it as a reference!) It'd be a shame for first-hand accounts to be lost. Thanks again for taking the time to spell it out here. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton to DevaSatyam for spelling it here rather than in the article, which may have led to a rv war. I'm completely with Willimcw abt making this perspective available elsewhere so that it can be used as a reference. How abt any on-line spiritual newsletters? A tentative title could be In defence of Rajneesh. --Gurubrahma 11:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Distinction

This discussion has been informative, and it does have its disputable points. But there is a clear distinction between Osho as a teacher and Osho as a person. I do not think there should be a big chunk of his bio placed in the "cult" section. I suggest two solutions: one make a page of the man that Osho was and leave the cult in there, but have a page dedicated to his teachings, or two make a page for Osho and his teachings and a page for his cult. I find this issue an assault on his credibility as an educated philosopher, in similar circumstance I am not going to link to the Catholic History page and see a link of pedophilia. In those regards this page should be dedicated to his teachings, let his controversy be elsewhere. I would hope all that have commented in this discussion have read his books, you would see he does not wish for followers, and his so called "cult" was not his responsibility, if you have read any of Osho's material you would know responsibility is attributed to the individual. His ideas are not welcome in an American country where catholicism reigns, I see why the controversy. In the future I would like to add his philosophies to a page so that people may know of Osho and his thoughts.LHLbyvirtue 03:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He was right there at Rajneeshpuram. You can't simply say "the bioterrorism and wiretapping and attempted murder don't reflect on Osho because they weren't his responsibility," or, more to the point, you can't simply decide for the reader that the acts committed at the very least under his nose by people he himself had appointed to high positions have no reflection on his teachings. Beg pardon for questioning whether you might be just slightly biased on this, but I think "catholicism reigns" have a little less to do with his unwelcomeness than the bioterrorism, hmmmm? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it sounds rather like David Irving's insistance that Hitler knew nothing about the holocaust. Boggy was a self-aggrandizing, greedy criminal nut-cult leader, rather like elron, with the slight difference that elron's clambot followers have only targeted individuals. Carrying out a bioterrorist attack was quite an innovation.

Alittle biased, no, taking the contextual material and keeping it objective is the point. Regardless of what happened, which as far as I am concerned is forever unclear, by reason that none of us were there. What we can be clear about his lectures and books. I think the biased perspective is the one in which we take the cult event and pair it with Osho. I do not wish to decide for the reader, I wish to have two sections in which someone can read these events and also read the teachings separately, to this day I know nothing about this "bioterrorism" because it doesn't apply to my life, and all the sources I can read about it will never put into context what happens. So an argument of responsibility, if a christian goes and kills in God's name, he is diagnosed as a lunatic and the Christian religion is disconnected, yet, Mr. I am Biased, Osho has students who become radical and you condem all of his thoughts right? Yeah but Osho was there, well a Catholicist priest touches boys, the priest is appointed by cardinals, who are appointed by the Vatican, and I am not going to say, well it was the Pope's responsibility. So where should we attribute responsibility is the question? Thus I am not biased, you seem to be, I read his material for the knowledge it can provide people with, his information used objectively can help advance mankind, this is a statement in which world religions have not advanced mankind, in fact they have delayed it if anything, am I biased saying that hmmm, something called the Dark Ages comes to mind, biased, maybe, substantiated yes. It is religion that is more important then bioterrorism, see our government USA, does horrible crap all the time, unjustified crap, and it disappears.Things of terrible events disappear, disagreements with religious doctrines, those ones burn brighter then hell my friend. Either way this petty argument would still like to keep Osho objective. I think his stuff is going under a double standard, thats my only point, not to step on toes. (LHLbyvirtue 05:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The difference, Mr. I-Will-Go-Accusing-Others-Of-Bias-Because-They-Don't-Ignore-What-I-Want-Ignored, is that in your hypothetical example it was "a christian" who did whichever deed you are holding up for example. It was not Saint Peter. In this case, the bioterrorism which you claim is irrelevant because it "doesn't apply to [your] life" wasn't just committed by "a" random Rajneeshee, it was committed by Osho's personally appointed second-in-command. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is everyone playing along with this "osho" name-changing nonsense? The man is known as "Baghwan Shree Rajneesh"; it's the name under which he committed his crimes, and the name by which people will look him up in wikipedia.

So... Where in my document did I say I wanted this ignored, I only asked for a separation, nothing about ignoring this. You really need to read an Osho book, because taken Osho's way of life many new things surface, mainly the issue of Trust. Osho believed that when you place trust in someone they will be empowered and they will not break that trust, because trust is a human bond. Well unfortunately his idea of trust was never understood by his number 2 person. You see how his teachings don't relate to individual actions. The book Catcher in the Rye, and John Hinckley, two things that are paired together, does that make an intelligent person think "ohh the material in the book influenced the killer"? I thought not. I think your missing alot of points, and your dead set against keeping this fresh in people's minds, so fine leave it, anyone who wants to know Osho can learn the good and bad. (LHLbyvirtue 04:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, for crying out loud. Sure, I'll read one of Boggy's books. It's on my list, right after Mein Kampf, Dianetics, the unabomber manifesto, and half a dozen other screeds by various criminals with inflated egos.

criminal conviction allegations - lack of references

The following claim lacks any reference to a source.

"In 1999, Sheela was convicted by a Swiss court. In September 2005, Catherine Stubbs pled guilty to conspiring to kill Turner, 15 years after being indicted; she had fled to Germany, where she is a naturalized citizen. In 1991, Germany had declined an extradition request from the United States."

Who claims this? What was Sheela convicted of, jay-walking? What was Stubbs sentenced to? In what court did she plead guilty, the Kangaroo Court?

Changes by DevaSatyam

Introduction

As I will add later in the American chapter, his depiction as the leader of a religious movement is quite misleading.

Indeed. He is more properly described as a criminal nut-cult leader, who used the common tax dodge of pretending to be a spiritual man.

He is a spiritual teacher for his followers and I felt that to be more appropriate for a definition.

I also added the honorific Acharya and explained that they are just honorifics bestowed on him by his followers.

I also corrected the origin of the name Osho. Though in his books he mentions any of the many associations the name has, the original proposal was of some Japanese disciples, so I straightened it out.

If you have followers, you are a leader. That's axiomatic. -Willmcw 20:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind to grant me the courtesy of waiting a little bit and let me get through all of it before reverting my edits? There are many things that can be axiomatically said about him. You can say he was male, and nobody can deny that, but whether is significant here, it is quite questionable. --DevaSatyam 21:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editing is an ongoing process. I didn't "revert" your edit - I left what you'd added, and restored what you deleted, then reworded it to address your complaint. Rajneesh's position as head of the movement is very important to this article, and deserves a place in the lead paragraph. -Willmcw 21:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I get there, I expect to be able to straighten this Rajneeshism thing. As even the federal prosecutor of the Rajneesh case meant to prove the religion was just a cover up to be able to get Rajneesh a visa as 'religious leader' and for several other immigration irregularities. He always said that he didn't want a religion to be built around him, which was quoted somewhere in a previous version of the article. Rajneeshism was never known outside of the USA, it didn't exist in India before they moved to the USA and it doesn't exist nowadays. All these further support the non-existence of the 'religious movement' and thus, I found misleading to state that in the first paragraph as an introduction. I expect to fix the 'US Chapter' section to be more explicit about the immigration charges and thus clarify the non-existence of Rajneeshism.

It also states that he lived in India and the USA. As a matter of fact, he lived in several other places, such as Uruguay where he lectured long enough to have three 400 pages long books (Beyond Psychology, The Path of the Mystic and The Transmission of the Lamp) printed out of those lectures.

As for this being very important in this article, please notice that out of about three decades of teaching, many more if you include those years since his death (many people know him just from his books), the four years in the USA already have a disproportionate share of attention. It also includes in the same bag a series of crimes some of which were committed against Osho and his commune, and it doesn't mention the stash of money Sheela et al. run away with, without discriminating which ones were to be blamed on Osho. This section should be no surprise since many English speakers would have read about all this first hand from the newspapers, and the news of those events were very confusing and handled in a very sensationalistic way, but it certainly fails in perspective. Quite probably, in editions in other languages, this whole section would be stripped to a bare paragraph, not a whole section. Actually, I mean to translate it to Spanish and should I be so long in the 'US chapter' readers would ask me why should they care!

Imagine a German version of this page. There is one, but I don't read German so, let us imagine it. In 1980, a German Prince died in the commune, then at Pune. I am not making this up, it really happened, his ashes rest in the garden of what used to be Osho's residence, right by those of his father. He was living in the commune with his wife and daughter. When this happened, the family of this prince, a very wealthy and traditional family, went to the courts to gain custody of the child, out of her 'brainwashed' mother. I don't know how this whole issue ended, but at the time it was nasty and it got to the press and turned out to be a great scandal. Now, imagine some German, out of his memories from press articles of this absurdly overblown issue writing pages and pages out of it in Wikipedia.

So, that is why I think it does not belong there. It might trigger a memory of those days for US readers but it cannot stand the passage of time nor of distance. --DevaSatyam 22:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DevaSatyam that the US chapter is disproportionately well represented when compared to e.g. the Pune episodes, but this should be solved by expanding the Pune section. An alternative solution is to move some of the information to Rajneeshpuram (now a redirect) or to the Osho-Rajneesh movement. The assertion by user: DevaSatyam "Rajneeshism was never known outside of the USA, it didn't exist in India before they moved to the USA and it doesn't exist nowadays." sounds like complete nonsense to me. Rajneeshism was quite popular and notorious here in the Netherlands in the 1980s. There is still a movement of followers of here in the Netherlands. Or may be I misunderstand DevaSatyam. Andries 12:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Rajneeshism as a formal religious movement. There are disciples of Osho aplenty everywhere, Osho called them by the Indian term, sannyasins (which, as many translations from a different culture, does not match disciple precisely), but they are not Rajneeshes. Except for the old timers, most of them wouldn't know what the word means or used to mean. The organization as there is (OIF), is devoted to spread his teachings and the practice of his meditation, via books, audio and video tapes and meditation centers plus the commune itself, just as would be expected of any teacher. It does not support any sort of religion.

This religious movement thing started in the US and ended right there. There is no designated successor of Osho nor any reincarnation, messiah or any form of ghostly return expected. The Foundation is managed by a group of his followers, originally designated by Osho, though its members were renewed as some of them quit and few of the original ones remain nowadays. They have no particular position in any spiritual hierarchy, simply put, there is no such thing. Thus, it can hardly be called a religion, as Rajneeshism supposedly was.

I'm afraid that I meant to update the US chapter part but tomorrow I depart on a fascinating trip, coincidentally in the Dutch vessel Stad Amsterdam and I have not found the time to do so. --DevaSatyam 17:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, but I consider it unconvincing. There is no need for a formal structure for a movement, in contrast to an organisation. And clearly the teaching of Rajneesh had strong religious aspects, including the terminology that they use themselves like "sannyassin". An analogy there is something like a New Age movement that has no formal structure at all, though the existence of such a movement is undisputed. Andries 17:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is a matter of definition. Rajneeshism as know in the US at the time of the US Chapter was a religion and Rajneeshism was its formal name. In order to be recognized as such and gain immigration benefits (I believe it would have had the same non-profit tax benefits whether religious or not) a formal presentation was done indicating such things as rituals (such as for marriage and baptizing), the hierarchy of priests and so on. This is the meaning of Rajneeshism as it fits the 'US Chapter' and, actually, it was then than the expression originated.

As for the strong religious aspects you mention,Osho's teachings are more on the spiritual line than the religious line. He talked as much about spiritual teachers and some of the religions founded on their behalf, as he talked about philosophers and poets. His followers are disciples, not devotees. He was a Bodhisattva, that is a spiritual teacher, not an Avatar which is a deity incarnated. For me all these subtle differences makes it a spiritual rather than a religious teacher. As I said, knowing it might happen, the use of the word sannyasin, taken from a culture so foreign to us, might be misleading.

Thanks for your interest in the subject and for this polite conversation. I hope you won't mind that I drew a line before your first comment so as to reduce the level of indentation of this conversation. --DevaSatyam 18:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have a 1981 dissertation (in Dutch language) (by Paul Schnabel) that classifies Rajneesh under New religious movements. This contradicts your assertion that Rajneeshism was only a new religious movement during the USA episode. Andries 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat off-topic may be but with regards to "sannyasa" (the usage of the term by Bhagwan followers was and is an offense to orthodox Hindus), I strongly disagree with the view that there is something like an "Eastern culture" that "Westerners" cannot understand. Yes, there are differences, sometimes major differences, but to say that "Westerners" cannot understand and know the "Eastern culture" after learning and acknowledging these differences is simply untrue. (I consider myself a Hindu.) Andries 19:24, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical notes

I placed the two current biographical sections under this heading, and split those into further sections. The last one I have to expand.

Childhood etc

I addressed what happenned in the gap from his enlightment until departing to the USA, as requested in Talk:Rajneesh#1953_to_1981. This went into the section titled The Commune

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]