Once I asked Robert if OSHO were enlightened. He said yes. He hardly ever spoke of other teachers. Osho got a bad rap for numerous reasons.
However, the video below shows Osho demonstrating having much the same appearance as Robert: still eyes, still demeanor, and total involvement at the same time, and an apparent radiance of peace.
What he says is true, but coming to that understanding, and finding your way to that completely doing nothing state is very difficult. Osho created a hundred ways for his students to get there. The external trappings we all heard about are nothing. He knew it was nothing. It was his play.
Realizing the Manifest Self--the Life Force permeating our humanity--and the Unmanifest source from which it arises.
What about this?
ReplyDeleteOsho talks about Nisargadatta:
http://www.otoons.com/osho/askosho_nisargadatta_maharaj.htm
Well, that shoots that theory down!
ReplyDeleteActually, that is Osho's opinion, even if a correct quote.
You have to understand that in India each jnana tradition jealously guards its superiority. They all fight with each other.
If Osho didn't like Maharaj, he would not like Ramana either because they are so similar.
Maybe I'll have to read some of Osho's books (No I won't) to see what he is up to. I just judged by his face, his movements, his silent pauses, his voice and his peacefulness.
Peacefulness can be faked, but I don't think that is the case here.
In any event, I could be wrong. This is just my opinion never having met him, just as Osho never met Nisargadatta.
Osho may have thought Maharaj's way too difficult for most, or he could be a complete fraud and fooled me totally.
No truely enlightened masters will ridicule other's.Have you seen Ramana Maharishi or Nisargadatta Maharaj criticizing others.But OSHO did.He carelessly criticized lot of traditions and masters.
DeleteIt is wrong - simply wrong - OSHO's several words were negative criticism.
Why would you want to read OSHO's books after getting enlightened.Speak from your own experience.
People with knowledge of the scriptures and advaithic books prior to Ramana Maharishi/Nisargadatta Maharaj will know clearly that their teachings were in lines with Upanishads/Scriptures.
Also have a clear understanding of what when Nisargadatta maharaj means I AM.
http://www.spiritual-teachers.com/oshoonug.htm
ReplyDeleteI could not access the link to nissargdutta but elsewhere on several occasions, Osho has nothing but highrest praise for bhagwan Ramana.
Couldn't Osho have been in an exceptional spiritual state rather than fully realized to allow him to appear to be a Jhani?
ReplyDeleteWhole books have been written on his skeevy ways which included cultism, criminal acts, drug use, lies, contradictions, abuses of devotees and materialism (rolls royce anyone?), which flies in the face of genuine spirituality in my opinion. It can't all be rumor I would think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYes, you can't judge a Jnani by his cover :-).
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, if you see interviews with U.G. Krishnamurti, he didn't exactly have such an exalted opinion of just about any other gurus as well and even rejected the notion of himself being one(though within himself he probably relished that role). In fact, he seemed to express an outright contempt for them. A real, bona fide iconoclast of the first order!
ReplyDelete"A real, bona fide iconoclast of the first order!"
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely!!!
You see, he chose this role quite consciously very early in life after his enlightenment, even before university. His close relatives used to beg him, under tears, to stop this kind of behavior of being against everyone and everything in society. He refused, since he was free already and could see what fears were motivating them. He was fearless.
His being against Nisargadatta might have been caused by N's approach to reality and teaching style. N. seemed to have been focused entirely on the absolute or Parabrahman, cutting out all interdimensional manifestations of Brahman aka astral etc. Osho on the other hand didn't cut that out of his teaching (I am assuming to give his students comfort and security aka: don't worry, if the body is going to die you are gonna live on in the astral and can continue with your journey of realization either there or coming back into the material world)
IMO there is not so much difference between Osho and Nisargadatta at all, both opened their mouths out of total compassion only!
Then based on the aforementioned comments, I would think that where OSHO is concerned, "you can't judge the messenger by the message."(which I've also found to be true with alot of gurus/teachers out there).
ReplyDeleteforgot to mention Nisargadatta's introduction earlier:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sadguru.us/nisargadattaintro2.htm
My opinion is that you should not take Osho words about Nisargadatta so seriously , I think he was just playing around (shaking peoples traditional beliefs) , because he was God Crazy it seems. See What Nisargadatta said of Osho : ( source : http://realizedone.com/sri-nisargadatta-maharaj/ )
ReplyDeleteNisargadatta about Osho: (in response to a question about him from a visiting Osho's sannyasin)
Rajneesh is not a small personality or small principal.
He is tremendous.
He is very big.
He is a great sage.
When you already have a guru, why do you visit other sages?
Since you already have a great sage as your guru, you should not sit here or come here.
I do not like those shiftings from gurus to gurus.
I do not like wanderers.
What is the difference between Maharaj and Rajneesh?
Once you remove the letters, the names, what is the difference?
You investigate that wanderer's, I, before you investigate others.
What is the product, after you remove its name?
What are you, without the name or the label?
Before you take up the assignment of inquiring about others, inquire about yourself first and see if you are real or unreal.
The letters "I Am" are written spontaneously with a certain ink.
What is that ink which was used to write that which you are?
In that ink with which the letters "I Am" were written, in that ink the title of Tej Sesh Bhagavan is confirmed by the Vedas.
Sesh means the leftover, the remains.
What is the leftover that means what you are?
~ From "Consciousness and the Absolute"
Chapter Sixty One. June Nine, 1981.
Why do you all appear to be finding something to discuss about, if he was enlighten or not, if someone didn't like some else? Just let it be, and find your own way in life.
ReplyDelete