| Username |
Post |
| sudhos |
Posted
on 08-Sep-01 01:56 AM
Hi de-de demystifyer,
I was little busy with school, and I had to research for things that came out here on the way. Now, I am very careful- if I arg with you on this matter, perhaps, I would write another scripture. My trust is that scripture does not help as far as quality of a person is concerned. That is why I was always saying to be Meditative-Silent. If you have any doubt that Silent belongs to any “ism”, be sure that Silent does not belong to any "ism". It is existential gift. It is really worthless to make arguments because I speak Chinese language and you speak French: I see things in reference to Existence which is ultimate.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
You are so full of answers and justifications. Yur arguments are the
arguments that are desperately trying to convince people of what Osho
believed.
sudhos:
---------
First thing is, Osho did not believe anything. If you landed in moon, touched it, smelled it, hugged it, then you have experience of it. If you have experience of moon, there comes not such a question to believe that there is moon.
As far as insight is concerned, East is far more ahead as compared to West. This is the Eastern view that you can experience things in two ways: The first way is the way of YOGA and the second way is way of TANTRA. The way of YOGA says, just sit in the shore of the Sea and be witnessing of Sea, do not touch it. The way of TANTRA says, dive into Sea and go deep down in to it until you find diamonds.
So the moment you believe something/someone, you are Dead. Believing means that neither you are close to YOGA nor you are close to TANTRA. YOGA refers the water that transformed to zero degree centigrade to become Ice, and TANTRA refers the same water that transformed to 100 degree centigrade to become Steam. Believing on something/someone never takes you into transformation point. Being unique and individual, and doubting everything is the force that transforms you to the extreme point. I did not say you to believe on Osho!! Have your own experience.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
The difference between you and me is that YOU are programmed
and NOT ME. You have been programmed to believe that sex energy
does everything and you are not willing to look into that twice.
Hitler did not kill the Jews because of his sex energy....You have a
great way of justifying atrocities! It was not his passion energy his calculative use of intellect and cunning.
sudhos:
---------
If you see me attaching with something, that is Existence. You are right! I am programmed with ULTIMATE. I am prejudice with Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tsu, Kabir, ,Mahavir, Zen, Osho and few more. These are the few persons in Human History who lived close to Existence.
Hindu religion is an outstanding religion in the world in the sense that it accepts sex as a natural energy. It includes sex as one of its philosophy. It sees sex as the source of the all creation. Yet, difference is that how you use this energy. If you use such a way that it goes up, it becomes an experience of ULTIMATE. If you use such a way that it goes down to depend on something/someone, it creates something. Osho's experience on sex energy is same as what Krishna said in Gita.. It is such a natural energy that you cannot condemn sex. As long as you condemn it, it keeps following you. It is interesting existential phenomena that if you fight with your enemy; you have to act like your enemy. At end, you become same as your enemy is. Fighting with sex does not keep you away of sex. To transcendent sex, either you have to go through way of YOGA or follow the way of TANTRA. As for creation and destruction, I see it as complementary in the ground of existence because existence cannot be viewed as an instant of time. The Eternity of existence turns every Creation into Destruction, and Destruction into Creation. Things are such a related, if you are not meditative- silent, you miss the gap. If you doubt it, that is your experience.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
If Osho is not a topic for academic discussion, why is he being discussed
here? Is he someone to be listened to, believed and not questioned?
sudhos:
---------
Look, I am not President/CEO of this Osho discussion. While I was waiting Train in the station, there was mediocre mass judging on Osho. Now, I just became a common shareholder who shared experience on Osho in the ground of my research on him. I just said there, do not get hurry to judge unless you know the whole. To judge Osho, who spoke 60 million words that turn into 650 volumes of books, one should have listened at least 6 million his words or read at least 65 his books. Only then, the judging would be insightful. Judging without a research is a egoistic idea. If you do not know and try to show you know is a ego. If you know something and try to show you know is pride. Pride is helpful , not ego.
|
| sudhos |
Posted
on 08-Sep-01 03:53 AM
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
He was an intelligent philosopher, may be, but he is not beyond question.
sudhos:
---------
Philosophers are products of Western mind, Greek mind. Philosophy happens within MIND. In West, there was not a single Philosopher who crossed the border of mind except the case of Pythagoras. Pythagoras was a great mathematician, philosopher, and mystic at older days of his life. He had such a Treasure that no one had that much of it at that time. He was born in Greece. His whole life he was a seeker in search of a philosophy - philosophy in the true sense of the word: love for wisdom. He traveled almost the whole known world of those days, in search of the Masters, of the mystery schools, of any hidden secrets. From Greece he went to Egypt - in search of the lost Atlantis and its secrets. The mystery of Atlantis was still intact on the Library of Alexandria in Egypt. Mohammedan fanatics later destroyed that library. After Egypt, he traveled the then known-world. At that time, world was considered as few ancient countries such as Greece, Egypt, India, Tibet/China. When he visited East, he learnt/researched the UPANISAD, DHAMMAPAD and all the JEMS of East. In East, he learnt the ways of intuition. He was respected all over. However he was brought up in Greek Mind, Greek scientific approach, he realized that East was living close the truth, close to the existence. He was the only person from the West who was philosopher and then achieved self-realization, enlighthnment. He went beyond the mind, and happened to be a mystic. He was the first person who tried to bridge East and West- intuition and Greek scientific approach.
Osho is not Philosopher. He is mystic. Mystic is some one who goes beyond the MIND. When someone stucks in the MIND in search of truth, he becomes Philosopher. Philosophers just play with words that mind is programmed to know. There is such an experience, which cannot express in words- the experience of "Enlightenment". It happened to Buddha, Mahavir, Zarathustra , Lao Tzu and few more.
If you implicitly used classic meaning of Philosophy to refer Osho, then you are absolutely right. In the classical meaning, Philosophy means "Love of Wisdom". When you go beyond mind, there is one thing left that is "Love"- no condemnation, only celebration. When celebration becomes your life, you do not ask question with Osho. You yourself answer your question.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
Just as fanatics hate questions about their faith, you dislike questions or
deisbelief in Osho! You begin: "Osho, I know..."! You know, indeed, and nobody else knows! You are PREJUDICED...you are just an Osho advocate. Nothing else.
sudhos:
---------
To be a fanatic, I have to have certain beliefs of "ism". I did not advocate Osho, but Existence. You do not have to believe Existence. How do you believe something that is happening? How do you believe when rivers are flowing down into Ocean? How do you believe while trees are gaining new leafs in spring? Just trust it. When you are experiencing something, that is your trust, not believe.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
Sixth sense indeed..something people in power often use to force their
decision on their subjects. When I used the word sense, I meant meaning..To make sense means to convey some meaning...to convey a significance. It is not done through the five senses..or the sixth sense (whatever it is)..it is done by the brain. You take in an information and make a judgement in your brain as to what that means or wheteher that has some meaning. And if it does not, it "does'nt make sense" or is senseless. When you become senseless,
you don't feel. That is different. When you find something is senseless, it
does not make you understand anything.
sudhos:
---------
Nobody can be powerful than existence. People like Mahavir, Buddha, Osho, Zarathustra, Lao Tzu etc. who lived closed to existence are most powerless person in the human history. You are powerful than THEM. As soon as you drop the mind, you become powerless, a part of existence like a tree or mountain or sun. Six sense means experiencing things as it is without being bias with your mind. Your mind HAS BEEN programmed for thousand and thousand years. You judge the things quickly how your mind is programmed- you do not bother to experience it by yourself.
There was a Bio-ethinics group in Philippines. People of their community used to live without violence for all their lives. They even did not kill a fly; they did not know what was violence. Violence was the word that was not plugged into their mind.
|
| sudhos |
Posted
on 08-Sep-01 03:54 AM
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
I think that Osho did believe in something.An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of idea or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true is what a dogma is. Any one who believes in and/or advocates or teaches
such a thing is a DOGMATIST. So that is an ism. And what Osho
taught/believed is a dogma and definitely an ism by definition.
sudhos:
---------
Authoritative principle belongs to mediator(s) who say we are “chosen people of God” , “I am a son of God”, or “I am incarnation of God” or I am “last messenger from God” or “I will reborn again and again to make things fixed”. They established themselves as official authoritatives from the office of God. Persons like Mahavir, Buddha, Osho, who discarded God from the religion, highly respected the uniqueness/individuality of each human and realized the changes in moment to moment can not be said to have authoritative principle. When there is no authoritativeness, there is no question of Dogma with them.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
I am not a fan of Sai baba or the maharaj or whatsoever but I do believe that they are of the same constellation as Osho is! What is human consciousness....somebody had to define it for you? If it is my own affair,
then you do not know whether I have one or whether Sai has one, or Railway
minister or Osho for that matter. How can you say that anyone is not
concerned about Human Consciousness? If you can not learn from preaching
or lectures (which I believe too ), then how can you make comments on
anyone else's affair with the Human Consciousness? I have my own
conscience and I define it myself.
sudhos:
---------
It is not my business that who you believe on. It does not make any difference what constellation you put Osho in. I am not a follower of Osho either. When I experience the things in reference to existence, my heart absorbed the things what he experienced. When I said, “my heart absorbed” that means I just put my Mind aside. I am not borrowing his experiences, but I processed them as it came necessary to do in my life. The processed outcome is my experience. Look, the word “in reference to existence” makes huge sense when I write something here. Following and advocating Osho I DO NOT WANT TO START ANOTHER “TRADITION”, “ISM” and “HYPOCRACY”.
A conscious human loves everything, celebrates every moment, lives with momentary changes, and respects individuality. You do not need definition for how you see, how breathe, and how you hear. Science, Greek mind needs definition, intuition does not need definition. If everything is changing, how you define it? The definition you give for something is just relative.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
And orgnization....what of the Rajnish ashrams around the world where
interesting things happen? Or is Osho not to be associated with them? Is he to be not associated with his legacy? Everything has been with getting people
organized around some abstract principle.
sudhos:
---------
Rajnish ashram is not organization. It is a commune. In organization, there is always hierarchy- there are pop, prophet, maharaj, pandit so on. If you study the human history, you will find that commune was the basic form of accommodation. Early humans (our great-great grand fathers) used to live in commune. There were not hierarchy in commune- every body was equal. Where everyone is equal, it is not organization. Buddha also lived in commune. When he was alive, he helped many people to attain self-realization. By helping disciples, Buddha did not solve the whole assignment, he just used to provide hint. If you need to pass the exam, you have to solve the problem by yourself. Master just provides hint and share experience.
If people get distracted at somewhere else, the commune is the best place to go for inner journey. Dropping mind/ego is not easy thing because it has been piled up for thousand and thousand years. You need enough courage. Looking people around the commune, a discouraged and distracted person gets the courage that he is not alone in the journey to drop the mind/ego. It is same thing like going to Library. If you are disturbed at home, you go to Library for studies. Library gives you an environment to study. You see many people there, but if you want to learn something, you have to do it by yourself. Buddha was associated with his commune. Osho is too.
As for “abstract principle”, first, I like to tell you a short story: One day, while hunting for food, a Jellyfish passed by the group of Dolphins who were talking about Ocean. The big Dolphin was saying that we all are the creatures of Ocean, and without Ocean we are no more Dolphin and Jelly. The Jellyfish joined the discussion and told that it is the “abstract idea” that we are creatures of Ocean.
Now, all creatures in that Ocean divided into two parts; some with Jellyfish and the other with Big Dolphin. The time passed along. The Jellyfish and Dolphin got older as well. One day, two fishers in a boat was fishing around the same Ocean. Suddenly, first fisher looked happy and said to the other fisher that I got a fish hooked up. He pulled the rope all the way up. He found that a Jellyfish was still alive, and hanging and suffering on the hook. As soon as he saw the Jellyfish, he said to second fisher that “ Oh Jesus, it is too old Jelly. I was told that in this part of Ocean, I can find young Jellys, I hate old Jellys”. The Jellyfish was also listening what first fisher said to the other fisher. At this time, Jelly was closed to death as being out from Ocean. Later, the first fisher unhooked the Jelly and threw into Ocean again. As soon as the Jelly was contacted with Ocean again, he took a long breath. Then, the Jelly realized that what Dolphin told was true.
Being closed to existence is ‘not’ an “abstract principle”.
|
| sudhos |
Posted
on 08-Sep-01 03:56 AM
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
Arguments do not run one way only. I know, not only from human history, that there is a great correlation between potency and creative works. But the correaltionship is not always causal. I know so many people, not from
history, but from trhe present times, who can not do without sex a day but
create nothing! There are couples I know who copulate everyday and still do not reproduce because can not reproduce. You are misusing the worb
"impotent" here. Potency and sex energy do not always go to gether, whatever Osho says. People who get excited on sight of the opposite sex
have not been able to father or mother offsprings. Or is that also a reason of
the wrong channeling of evnergy? They are may be not good enough! At one
point you simplify it foe me sayiong that sex energy is not only about having
sex but then you talk about potency in unmistakably biological terms! I think
one should base his/her arguments and opinion on what one experiences and
not what one reads from "great" phoilosophers!
sudhos:
---------
Every modern language has “Sanskrit” as its mother language. The Sanskrit match for English word “World” is not what you find in Oxford dictionary, but it is “Sumsara” which means, “wheel”. Sanskrit is the most ancient language in this world. Being the most ancient, it has classical meaning of word. Sanskrit is the language of East. As I told you, East lived very closed to existence. So East thought the World as a “Wheel”, a round object. So I have now suspicious that Copernicus was not the first person to conceive that Earth is round. East must have been realized it before Copernicus.
Similarly, the exact meaning of English word “Impotent” for Sanskrit’s match is “not having sexual energy”. There is difference between “sexl object/organ” and “sexual energy”. When I said “there was not single person in Human History who was Impotent as well as a great creator”. I tried to show the “impossibility”.
Look, there was a famous English poet, John Don from 18 century. This is the piece of one of his poem.
“Go and Catch a falling star
Get with the child a Mandrake root.”
Poetry is more and less mathematics. The meaning of this poem is “intuitive”. John Don tried to show the “impossibility”. “Mandrake” is a tree which root is poisonous. He was trying to show the impossibility in such a way that as you cannot catch a falling star, you can not get poisonous attitude/behavior in a child. In one sentence, he tried to describe the “innocents” of a child.
With that impossibility, I tried to tell you that sex energy is such a natural energy everybody has it. I told you above, when this energy goes down to depend on someone, it creates something, reproduce another being. If they are not reproducing, and unable to father or mother, it is not fault on their sex energy. May be their organ/object is not fully developed. May be, their object/organ is not healthy. May be, they are following contraceptive or some other methods. Look, energy and organ/object is not the same thing. It is not necessary to have sex object, to have sex energy. That is why I am saying sex energy is another name for passion/desire. If you do not understand it, that is your problem, not mine.
As far as your friends who involve in sex every day, but not creatives are concerned, their sex energy is also going down to depend on someone, not on something. Their passion/desire is more for another body, not for something like music, art, science, politics, paintings etc. As far as energy is concerned, there are two things when you use it. You use it with concentration or without concentration. When you use it with concentration you become a great lover, painter, scientist, mathematician, politics etc. When it distributed over more than one thing, its intensity is also proportionally distributed. If you are hurry to find definition, you do not see it.
Energy does not have shape; it has forms. There needs to be some kind of a mechanism before it can change forms...it flows but just does not flow from one form to another. It transforms from one form to another. Otherwise we would not need to have all those hydro electirc projects! Or facts of nature do not relate to Osho or the Human Consciousness?
Look at dictionary (even in Latin, German, Sanskrit), the word “shape” is often used to describe abstract phenomena. However, with energy, “form” is used traditionally. Thanks for remind me to use proper word.
By now, everyone knows there needs a mechanism to transform a form of energy to another. I was not talking to make HydroElectric Project to transform energy. I was talking about energy in terms of “Inner Science”, science of self. The science which is the JEMS of East. The science which is far more advanced than Greek mind.
There were two cities in India, Mohanjdra, and Harapur. These were the cities established 5000 years ago. The people of those cities at that time had as broad roads as they are in US now. They had all kind of sophistication at that time. They had attached bathrooms in their bedroom. Look at just 200 years back in US, the person who ‘first’ made attached bathroom in bedroom was persecuted by local church. Church said that in Bible it was written that bedroom is place of God, and one can not make bathroom closed to the place where God lives. Later, that case was brought into Supreme Court. Look at the difference of the time 200 years Vs 5000 years.
Inner science never tried to conquer nature but conquered by nature. Outer Science is still growing, it has not reached into the pick. But, the Inner science has already touched into the highest point. It was Gautam Buddha who brought it into the highest level 2500 years ago. The day Outer science touches the pick it becomes Inner Science.
Look, Albert Einstein was not the first person who talked about Relativity. That was Mahavir, a parallel to Budha, Osho, Lao Tzu who realized and talked about Relativity/Absolutism more than 2500 years ago. He was not hurry to prove the theory and define it- the realization was enough, counciousness was enough.
Facts of the nature can not relate to anyone, but facts of the nature were already realized/experienced by some highly conscious humans like Mahavir, Buddha, Osho and so on. Mediocre mass could not realize it unless they come out for a search.
|
| sudhos |
Posted
on 08-Sep-01 03:57 AM
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
On second thoughts, what do you think about eunuchs who have been great artists? What do you know about the truth of history? It has always depended on who wrote it. It has basically been the loyalty of the historian that decided what is to be included and what is not. One classic example: When the
soldiers of the American confederacy routed an American Indian tribe and murdered their women and children, it was considered to be a victory. When
the Indians routed the American soldeirs, it was termed a massacre. That
was a white American historian.
sudhos:
---------
“Implicitly, you are saying that Eunuchs have been great artists without having sex energy”. Look, First thing to remember is that a Eunuch is just castrated man. Research said that Eunuchs had alternate sex partner- they used to enjoy sex with a same sex partner. Second thing, which is very intuitive, is that by removing testicle of a person, he can not be free from sex energy. Then, there is no question that Eunuchs can not be a great artist.
Historians are always bias with their orientation towards religion, political ideology, tradition/culture, and social values. When they make a history, their reference is always on where their orientation is. That is the reason I am not after History written by historian.
I know why you are asking this question. When I said look at “human history”, I just took the “existential phenomena” from the history. A historian does not always write history. If you need to find out the age of an old tree, just cut open it, and count how many circles it has on its side. The number of circles is the age of that tree. When earth makes a complete circle around sun, it makes a history on a tree. No historian is needed. Existence makes its history without historian.
Again I say, if you look at the human history, you find that there were five thousand wars in last three thousand years in the name of God, Religion, Ideology. I am not interested in who were wrong, who were right in those wars, who started wars. Historians get interested with those subjects. If there is a war, no historian can hide the fact that there is war- it leaves the impacts in the existence anyway. Historians just under and over estimate the war according to the pole they are in, and that is your history.
In Nepal, all royal family members were killed. No historian can say that there were not killings. Historians have just the capability to manipulate the things such as who did, when happened, where occurred etc.
Historians can not say WORLD PIECE 2 for WORLD WAR 2. There was WAR that was enough to take as a reference if I talk about human history in relation to destruction.
When you ask me about history, let me tell you something. The “same incidents” have been repeating again and again in history. Just their dimensions are changed. They are coming with new pants and shirts. Look at the, Palestine, and Israeli. They started this battle from almost first century. The root is the same, its dimension are different. They started this battled with different Leaders using swords,and hooks, and now they are using AK-45s, self-destructive bombs, and
Yasir Aragat, and so on.
Awaken souls such as Mahavir, Buhha, Osho were not interested on what was considered as Victory and as Massacre. Every Victory is massacre for other party, and every Massacre is victory for the other one. This is social phenomena, not existential. Existence does not know wars, victory and massacre. For existence, there is only love and celebration.
de-de demistifyer:
----------------------
As for religious scriptures, they change. Read the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Change does not mean that you throw
out one and bring in another. As in everything else, views of so-called
religions are also changing and will keep changing. "Only change is
permanent"...I know of the types who use such confusing terms to fool the less intuitive and less intelligent folks into their fold!
sudhos:
---------
Change to what? I have not found Kuran is changed, Mahabharat is changed. Christians just changed the Title, from Old to New. They put new cloth over it. Look at a tree. Changed means dropping old leafs, and gaining new leafs.
First symptom of a less intuitive and intelligent person is always hurry to judge! Intuitive/intelligent person does not ask questions, go for search and just answears! Look at the Pythagoras- even at that time, he traveled Egypt to India in search of truth.
Jesus is absulately right when he said, do not judge unless you know the whole…..
|
