Log in

View Full Version : OSHO



WWKMD?
19th September 2007, 01:02
Has anyone here heard of Osho? He was an Indian guru of sorts who drew from various spiritual points of view, but attached himself to none. I just came across him today, and the beliefs he holds I find similar to my own, and Id say probably quite similar to those expressed here, especially on topics of freedom. He differs completely from religious figureheads in his points of view, and believs the word "God" to be an intolerable insult. Indeed, he has a good quotation about our favourite sky-fairy:

"It was good of Friedrich Nietzsche to declare God dead – I declare that he has never been born. It is a created fiction, an invention, not a discovery. Do you understand the difference between invention and discovery? A discovery is about truth, an invention is manufactured by you. It is man-manufactured fiction."

Look at what he has to say about marriage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocbZhRQS9I) for instance and tell me if you find this viewpoint quite compatable with leftist (specifically libertarian leftist) political viewpoints.

He is deffinately worth a check, and I'd be interested to hear reactions on what he has to say here.

Severian
19th September 2007, 01:50
So he noticed that God doesn't exist? So what? I noticed that when I was 12.

Gurus occasionally say something true; but none of these insights are so profound or remarkable that we should hand over our money or our minds to them.

And they wouldn't be gurus if nobody did; they'd have to work for a living then.

WWKMD?
19th September 2007, 05:29
I wasnt trying to say we should hand our money or minds over to this guy, indeed, he himself sends people away from him if he feels they are becomming to attached to his teachings or words, I am merely suggesting that not all forms of spirituality, if I may use such a redundant word, are in opposition to free-minded thinking. Indeed, claiming such would be contrary to free thought.

And there of course allways will be a place for those who offer thought instead of labour, that is to say, I didnt know Marx, Engles, Bakunin, or Kropotkin held steady jobs to support them and offered their views between shifts.

Severian
19th September 2007, 05:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:29 pm
I wasnt trying to say we should hand our money or minds over to this guy,
Really? You've only posted on this board only to promote him. Admit it, you're here to do the missionary thing.


And there of course allways will be a place for those who offer thought instead of labour, that is to say, I didnt know Marx, Engles, Bakunin, or Kropotkin held steady jobs to support them and offered their views between shifts.

Some of those lived by their writing.....but I wouldn't buy a book that only offered the kind of pseudo-profound "insights" that spiritual gurus do.

I mean, if this guy's got something really important and non-obvious to say, you haven't told us about it so far.


I am merely suggesting that not all forms of spirituality, if I may use such a redundant word, are in opposition to free-minded thinking. Indeed, claiming such would be contrary to free thought.

You might as well say:
"I am merely suggesting that not all forms of dogma are in opposition to free-minded thinking. Indeed, claiming such would be contrary to free thought."

Or:
"I am merely suggesting that not all forms of lobotomy are in opposition to free-minded thinking. Indeed, claiming such would be contrary to free thought."

It's good to have an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.

If you had something worthwhile to say, you wouldn't have to accuse people of being "contrary to free thought" for not accepting it. You could just say whatever it is you have to say, and argue for it on its merits.

ÑóẊîöʼn
19th September 2007, 12:24
Just another self-styled "wise man" spouting philsophical psychobabble in order to attract followers.

Yawn.

I certainly don't need that crap, and I doubt anyone else on this board does.

WWKMD?
19th September 2007, 19:59
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:46 am
Really? You've only posted on this board only to promote him. Admit it, you're here to do the missionary thing.
Dont slander me, I just found this guy yesterday, thought he was cool, and wanted to see what other people thought. Not once did I say "this guy has the answers" or "he is who we should follow", I merely said of what Ive seen of him, he sounds like a fucking cool guy, and quite different from other spiritual leaders. Im not doing the "missionary thing".


Some of those lived by their writing.....but I wouldn't buy a book that only offered the kind of pseudo-profound "insights" that spiritual gurus do.

I mean, if this guy's got something really important and non-obvious to say, you haven't told us about it so far.

Then dont buy it, but dont out and label it as psuedo-profound off hand just by getting a brief summary of it. Many have called Marx a psuedo-economist, but that is a matter of opinion, and is not something that you can say in a universalist right/wrong manner which you seem to be so fond of.


You might as well say:
"I am merely suggesting that not all forms of dogma are in opposition to free-minded thinking. Indeed, claiming such would be contrary to free thought."

Dogma? What dogma? He admittedly contradicts himself many many times, and says it is good not to have one permenant basis of thought, as only idiots do not change their mind. If that is dogmatic, then I suppose I dont know what dogma is.


If you had something worthwhile to say, you wouldn't have to accuse people of being "contrary to free thought" for not accepting it. You could just say whatever it is you have to say, and argue for it on its merits.

Again, you do the whole "your a preacher" stint. I didnt come up with this to spread the words of some prophet or any of that bollocks, as before, I just found this guy today, and I was merely interested in hearing what people on this forum had to say about him. Ive been here for a while, I just changed my tag the other day, so I know how completely opposed to all forms of spirituality some people here can be. I would not describe myself a spiritual person, but I certainly would not discriminate somebody who is merely for the sake of being an anti-theist. Ill debate with them, as it is fun debating with theists, but I wont dislike them based on the fact, and this guy isnt even a theist and already he has been shunned off-hand by you simply for being spiritual. Suppose he was not saying things under a spiritual tone, youd likely say "its obvious what he is saying, but fuck hes funny at saying it". I mean, tell me you didnt laugh at the whole "your god is a rapist" bit.

Just to clear up, I am not a preacher, and I am not one of his followers, I just think the guy is pretty cool, from what Ive seen.

Dean
21st September 2007, 20:34
It'd be nice if one of you trolls posted a constructive criticism of the fellow instead of shrugging him off because he is spiritual.

Now, I'm not saying that he's certainly right, or that he's some great thinker; indeed, I have only read what has been posted here of him so far. But I don't see anything pointing to him being overly irrational or dogmatic, so I don't see much reason to judge him just yet.

Guess who else was fond of spiritualism? Karl Marx.

RedStarOverChina
28th September 2007, 01:38
It'd be nice if one of you trolls posted a constructive criticism of the fellow instead of shrugging him off because he is spiritual.

Why the hell listen to a guy in a robe in the first place? It's not like we have to learn how to think from this guy.

Modern "spiritual Gurus" serve no constructive purpose. The best I can say about him is that he's an attention whore.


Guess who else was fond of spiritualism? Karl Marx.

:lol:

Sometimes, I think whenever someone says something this stupid we oughtta track him down and give him electroshock therapy.

Jazzratt
28th September 2007, 02:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:34 pm
It'd be nice if one of you trolls posted a constructive criticism of the fellow instead of shrugging him off because he is spiritual.
Why, what has he said that is especially deserving of our consideration that we'd overlook his completely cretinous belief system?


Now, I'm not saying that he's certainly right, or that he's some great thinker; indeed, I have only read what has been posted here of him so far. But I don't see anything pointing to him being overly irrational or dogmatic, so I don't see much reason to judge him just yet.

You don't know a hell of a lot about Indian Gurus do you? They sell spiritual snake-oil to the feeble minded in order to fatten their own wallets. If they coincidentally say something truthful whilst spouting bollocks it's no real biggie.


Guess who else was fond of spiritualism? Karl Marx.

Tell me, was the accident in which you acquired this debilitating brain damage, that you so obviously suffer from, extremely painful? As painful, for example, as reading something this eye-rapingly wrong statement?

RedStarOverChina
28th September 2007, 02:56
After watching some of the videos, I have decided that Osho is a very intelligent man, especially considering his background, bring born in a backward country. He has a Marxist view on many subject: family, marriage, religion, institution, so on.

I suspect his "spirituality", "meditation" and the way he acts like a "holyman" is just a "market strategy" to attract followers-----Something you'll have to do if you want to attract attention in India.

Because from what I have seen, he's ideas are not "spiritualist" at all.

Maybe it's because I haven't seen all of him----So I might be wrong. And I'm sorry for judging him prematurely.

WWKMD?
28th September 2007, 05:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:56 am
After watching some of the videos, I have decided that Osho is a very intelligent man
And funny, intelligence without a sense of humour or good delivery is just boredom.


Because from what I have seen, he's ideas are not "spiritualist" at all.

This is a very vague word, basically, to me spirituality is anything that encompasses the world beyond material human existance. As an Atheist, I know that my life will end, and there will be nothing for me. So I direct my inward spirituality to try to understand the meaning of non-existance, call me a niltheist if you will.

There is a thing to think about, imagine, if you will, complete nothingness. Its a mind-boggler.

Here are some of his more "spiritual" videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-7JSIDgcLk&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jeca3isOoW4


Just try to remember that "spirituality" is a very vague term, and does not necessarily imply the supernatural.

al8
28th September 2007, 06:41
Well this guy seems to have some progressive ideas, but so do reformists. He speeks slowly, but he gives good deliveries. A real sooth-sayer.

I like his points about God, in the youtube-video God is not the solution, but the problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhjOnYbKJJw&mode=related&search=).

Although I share RedStarOverChina's suspisions. It seems to be a marketing tool. Playing on radical sentiments so as to fish people onto the 'spiritual path'.

Jazzratt
28th September 2007, 10:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 05:41 am
Although I share RedStarOverChina's suspisions. It seems to be a marketing tool. Playing on radical sentiments so as to fish people onto the 'spiritual path'.
Um that isn't what RSOC is saying at all...


I suspect his "spirituality", "meditation" and the way he acts like a "holyman" is just a "market strategy" to attract followers-----Something you'll have to do if you want to attract attention in India.

Looks more like he means followers for his political cause.

BurnTheOliveTree
28th September 2007, 10:37
I don't really see that his atheism makes him a fucking cool guy. If he had some brilliant and new arguments to bring to the table about it, or was charismatic and articulate about it, then yeah. As it is, I'd bet he's one of these crack-heads that tries to say "God really means the universal consciousness and we're all connected and love and stuff" and pass it off as new radicalism. Just like Deepak Chopra and the "Barefoot Doctor" and all the other sillies.

-Alex

BurnTheOliveTree
28th September 2007, 10:42
There is a thing to think about, imagine, if you will, complete nothingness. Its a mind-boggler.

Well obviously it isn't possible, we have never experienced it. I don't know why you'd waste your time on an inevitably fruitless thought experiment.


spirituality is anything that encompasses the world beyond material human existance.

Okay, sounds like a fair definition, but then you say:


remember that "spirituality" is a very vague term, and does not necessarily imply the supernatural.

If it is beyond the material, it is supernatural, surely? Give me an example of a spiritual belief you hold or know of that includes nothing beyond the natural.

-Alex

al8
29th September 2007, 03:04
Originally posted by Jazzratt+September 28, 2007 09:28 am--> (Jazzratt @ September 28, 2007 09:28 am)
[email protected] 28, 2007 05:41 am
Although I share RedStarOverChina's suspisions. It seems to be a marketing tool. Playing on radical sentiments so as to fish people onto the 'spiritual path'.
Um that isn't what RSOC is saying at all...


I suspect his "spirituality", "meditation" and the way he acts like a "holyman" is just a "market strategy" to attract followers-----Something you'll have to do if you want to attract attention in India.

Looks more like he means followers for his political cause. [/b]
The one need need exclude the other.

WWKMD?
30th September 2007, 19:22
Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:42 am
If it is beyond the material, it is supernatural, surely? Give me an example of a spiritual belief you hold or know of that includes nothing beyond the natural.

Does a dream exist within the material world? You can look at the chemicals in the brain that produce the dream, but we dont yet understand how exactly the brain works to create a non-existant world every night.

As I said, I also focus on nothingness, it is not a fruitless experiment, it is a form of meditation. We all meditate, when you think long and deep about class struggle, that is meditation, meditation has nothing to do with the supernatural, but thinking about amaterial things (emotions, dreams, nothingness) does not qualify as belief in the supernatural.

BurnTheOliveTree
1st October 2007, 11:12
Does a dream exist within the material world? You can look at the chemicals in the brain that produce the dream, but we dont yet understand how exactly the brain works to create a non-existant world every night.

The brain isn't literally creating a whole new world though, is it? You imagine a series of images, that's about it, and all of them are taken from the material world that we've observed. While we may not know the ins and outs of dreams, they're hardly mystical or spiritual.


meditation has nothing to do with the supernatural, but thinking about amaterial things (emotions, dreams, nothingness) does not qualify as belief in the supernatural.

Emotions and dreams are material, and nothingness isn't real. In any event though, meditating on nothingness, i.e. "emptying the mind" is not spirituality it's a form of mental and physical relaxation, just like a waking sleep.

-Alex

al8
1st October 2007, 11:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:22 pm
We all meditate, when you think long and deep about class struggle, that is meditation, meditation has nothing to do with the supernatural, but thinking about amaterial things (emotions, dreams, nothingness) does not qualify as belief in the supernatural.
That's destinctly opposite to what I know of meditation and yoga. (I was a practitioner once).
The goal is not to think and thus 'clear the mind' for for a calm 'centered awareness'. Thought though is not frowned opon per se, it is conceded to be neccesary sometimes, is deemed of a 'lower order' than 'spiritual understanding'. And thinking intensely does not rhyme with the yogic sense of a 'clear mind'.

But being a content introverted zombie needs both justification and glorification. So in come the metaphysical claims of the grandness and awards that this thoughtless contentment and self-wallowing is supposed to provide. In this pure 'state of mind' you will eventually become, if you are 'pure enough', nirvana itself - 'eternal bliss'. And further, the 'secrets of the universe' will be yours. The same goes for 'all power' - Yes; jedi powers. The superman stuff. Your supposed to be able to fly, instantaniously transport yourself elsewhere, be at two places at once etc.

I can understand why yoga and meditation has been rebranded and secularized for the western market. I was first a secular meditationist before I dropped the thing altogether. I did have 'spiritual experiences' that I thought inexplanable at the time - and lead me to think there was something to this 'spirituality'.
Although I was an agnostic towards the metaphysical claims I liked meditation and the associated stoic mindset. I thought that could stand on its own merits. But when seen in historical context the picture became quite the different. It became harder to isolate yogic practise from its context. Yoga and meditation had a history like everything.

Like every other relgious belief-set yoga was molded to serve the dominant productive relation of its society. And namely the Indian cast system. It is a way to fool the oppressed into their place and let them look at there suffering as a spiritual challange - staying straight on the stoic path of calmness and bliss (and explitation). It didn't take long to see how the relationship of guru and disciple was thoroughly a copyment of Indian social relations. A strong indicator was that hindu sayings and myths about sacred cows and monkeys where espoused and songs about "Brahma and Rahma" sung in many of these scenes I frequented.

In india 'spiritual men' often owned land and had to have someone to work it, often intentured laborers of sorts. They (the landlords/gurus) would then take these intentured laborers as disciples, who would have to plow there fields for 40 years or so as to learn 'spiritual wisdom' from some obscure (and shamelessly invented) paper snipplets in the posession of 'the master'. The guru would of course lie the laborer full - inculcating in him love for the dreary mantenace of the masters cow fx. - by making the cow sacred and declaring the work a 'spiritual task'. "If your body is weak (from work) you must make your sprit stronger (work harder)".

So meditation to me is nothing but the musky aroma of a class society in the east. It is a set of ideas and practises that are meant to console and offer nothing as everything to people who have nothing. It is an opiate as any other religion despite its secularly puffed up reincarnation in the west.

I think real-world involvement is much more gratifying than self-wallowing introspection. It makes for a more varied experience of the only life there is. And if one is looking for a spiritual fix, one should just take drugs. It's more effective. But I say for myself that I don't take drugs be they 'of this world' or spiritual.

WWKMD?
2nd October 2007, 03:02
/\ /\ /\

Classic example of orientalist perceptions of the word "Meditation".

When you hear Meditation, or at least when you saw me write it, Im pretty sure you had an image of some Buddhist monks or the like, but that is not the meaning of the word meditation. Meditation is simply a long process of deep thought. So, for instance, if you are lying in bed, unable to sleep, and just thinking really hard about something (anything really) you are meditating.

Too much real-world involvement is nothing without introspection. If you never stop to think about anything, and just involve yourself in the world, you would be chewed up by the omnipresent entertainment/consumer society we live in. It preys on people who never stop and think.

You dont need to hum a mantra or get in locus position to meditate. You simply have to stop and think, its as simple as that. It pisses me off how people allways think that Meditation allways means some form of religious activity.



The brain isn't literally creating a whole new world though, is it? You imagine a series of images, that's about it, and all of them are taken from the material world that we've observed. While we may not know the ins and outs of dreams, they're hardly mystical or spiritual.

Dreams are as real as the real world to your mind, it simply creates the electrical signals our brains recieve when we look at something, or touch something. The only reason we dont think the dream world is real is that we allways have different dreams.

It would be interesting to meet a person who allways has the same dream, or at least the same laws to the dream world. Such a person, I think, would not easily be able to distinguish the real from the dream.

But im starting to flirt with solipsism by going on this tangent, so I had better cut this off, for my sake as well as everyone elses.

The only point is that to your brain, the dream is every bit as real as the real.



Emotions and dreams are material

Show me a picture of one.


and nothingness isn't real
Then what do you find in between the sparcely located atoms in space? What happens to you after you die, or before you are born. I assure you, nothingness is quite real. If there is Mater, there must also be a lack of mater. If in life we think, in death there must be an absense of thought. This is nothingness, plainly put.



In any event though, meditating on nothingness, i.e. "emptying the mind" is not spirituality it's a form of mental and physical relaxation, just like a waking sleep.

Christians think about angels and clouds and sulphur and devils when they think about what its like to be dead, I think about my real destination. Humans are by nature fixated on death, but for me, thinking about nothingness after life is calming personally. If I hadnt thought on nothingness, I may be more depressed by the thought of Atheism, but for me, meditating on it turns Atheism from a harsh reality to a liberating truth. It is fear of death which drives people to religion, and it is understanding of death which shatters its emotional credentials.

al8
2nd October 2007, 03:58
Meditation seems to hold both our contrary meanings. I looked it up in the Oxford American Dictionary it means;
"thinking deeply or focus one's mind for a period of time, in silence or with the aid of chanting, for religious purposes or as a method of relaxation"

But I think contamplation would be a more appropriate word for what you are descriping. It only has this one meaning of thinking at length or profoundly - and dosn't have the same conection to a method or religious practice meant to clear the mind of all thoughts.

al8
2nd October 2007, 05:00
Originally posted by WWKMD?+October 02, 2007 02:02 am--> (WWKMD? @ October 02, 2007 02:02 am)
Too much real-world involvement is nothing without introspection. If you never stop to think about anything, and just involve yourself in the world, you would be chewed up by the omnipresent entertainment/consumer society we live in. It preys on people who never stop and think.[/b]
What you say dosn't seem far off. But what comes to mind is what Marx says in my tag;


"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering." That is I think you are protesting a society you don't like through a secularized spiritual practise and/or through semi-religious contemplation of sorts. Something that is meant to console and distance oneself from what is deemed spoiled and rotten.

But the only thing that can brake this "entertainment/consumer society" which is capitalism pure and simple, is revolution. And one should have no illutions about that. But Marx said that "he struggle against religion is [...] indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion."

But I let Marx's qoutation continue, because it is so beautiful and relevant;

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.

It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world. It is the immediate task of philosophy, which is in the service of history, to unmask self-estrangement in its unholy forms once the holy form of human self-estrangement has been unmasked. Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics."


[email protected] 02, 2007 02:02 am


In any event though, meditating on nothingness, i.e. "emptying the mind" is not spirituality it's a form of mental and physical relaxation, just like a waking sleep.

Christians think about angels and clouds and sulphur and devils when they think about what its like to be dead, I think about my real destination. Humans are by nature fixated on death, but for me, thinking about nothingness after life is calming personally. If I hadnt thought on nothingness, I may be more depressed by the thought of Atheism, but for me, meditating on it turns Atheism from a harsh reality to a liberating truth. It is fear of death which drives people to religion, and it is understanding of death which shatters its emotional credentials.

Yes, but it dosn't have to be that a of big deal. It just requires bit of an understanding of evolution. In short death has been a natural part of life which functions to make room for progeny, and thus heraditary changes in the species. If the members of a spiecies have lifespans that are indefinate it can't evolve to meet different environmental requirements and dies off.

But further more, the nothingness that occurs after death is about as mysterious and profound as the nothingness we experinenced before we were born.

The thing is that religions try to make death a big deal - a big problem - to which they so conveniently happen to be selling the perfect solution.

BurnTheOliveTree
2nd October 2007, 09:43
When you hear Meditation, or at least when you saw me write it, Im pretty sure you had an image of some Buddhist monks or the like, but that is not the meaning of the word meditation. Meditation is simply a long process of deep thought. So, for instance, if you are lying in bed, unable to sleep, and just thinking really hard about something (anything really) you are meditating.

Glad you thought that - Except I'm an atheist materialist and I meditate daily, so it was prejudice. :) I can pretty confidently say that real meditation is not about deep thought on a given subject - quite the contrary. Meditation is about learning to slow down the stream of consciousness in your brain, and "coming into the present". Basically just going into your senses, being content to simply observe your surroundings, listen to your breath, etc. That is meditation, and it's physiological benefits are scientifically documented. Deep thought is the religious form - Meditating about the suffering of christ, or Nirvana. And it tends to overlap into just thinking really hard, which literally defeats the point of the exercise.



The only point is that to your brain, the dream is every bit as real as the real.

Well first things first, I often lucid dream, so I'm aware that I'm dreaming, and am omnipotent within the dream. So it isn't every bit as real at all. However, even if it was a perfect illusion, no new world is created, no physical new matter enters the universe. All that happens is your brain forms semi-coherent images that you have (in reality) acquired.


Show me a picture of one.

http://cdn.channel.aol.com/body/hv/101940

If you're going to be flippant.


Then what do you find in between the sparcely located atoms in space? What happens to you after you die, or before you are born.

Before you are born and after you die, all the atoms that make you up have and continue to exist. I don't know as to your first question. I suppose I have difficulty in describing nothingness as a "real" positive thing. Seems contradictory to me, although I can't quite explain why.

-Alex

RedStarOverChina
2nd October 2007, 14:21
While the hell would you say "meditate" in the first place?

Critical thinking is much more like it!