Originally I was going to make this a post on another thread. I chose to make it a thread of its own for reasons that become evident upon reading Osho’s view on reincarnation.

On the 'Reincarnation' thread started by Nanner, 'recoverer' states:

"Regarding there being thousands of enlightened people as you claim, I guess this is a possibility if immoral people like Osho are judged to be enlightened, and enlightenment means you have the incomplete and not completely accurate viewpoints that gurus tend to have."__recoverer

Osho's "immorality" pales when compared to the immorality that has come in varying moral disguises through the centuries. Osho did not persecute or send millions to their death. Osho did not cast waves of fear over the consciousnesses of other to gain control. Lastly, Osho's views on “gurus” were even more astringent than yours.

I am not here to defend Osho, I just want to point out that his contributions are worthy of study. Read the following, if it's "immoral" then I will gladly consider more immoral material whether I assimilate it or not.

Desert
_____________________  

Osho gives his unique insight on the process of reincarnation.

Question: I heard you say that we sometimes carry other people's wounds. What does this mean? Is another person's wound simply their thought pattern that we adopt? If we can so easily accept someone else's wound then why is it so difficult to accept our own Buddhahood?

Osho: It is a very complicated question, but if you are ready to understand I am willing to answer.

Everybody is carrying other people's wounds. In the first place, you are living in a sick society where people are angry, full of hate, enjoy to hurt-that is the superficial level which can be understood easily. But there are subtle levels, there are so-called religious saints who are creating feelings of guilt in you, who are condemning you to be a sinner. They are giving you an idea which will create misery around you….

According to me, the whole foundation of life has to be changed. People should be sympathetic only when there is pleasure and joy and rejoicing, because by your sympathy you are nourishing. Nourish people's joy, don't nourish their sadness and their misery. Be compassionate when they are miserable. Make it clear that this misery is chosen by yourself.

On a deeper level…perhaps the questioner has not asked me to go that deep, but the answer will remain incomplete if I don't go deep enough.

The very idea of reincarnation, which has arisen in all the Eastern religions, is that the self goes on moving from one body to another body, from one life to another life. This idea does not exist in the religions that have arisen out of Judaism, Christianity and Mohammedanism. But now even psychiatrists are finding that it seems to be true. People can remember their past lives; the idea of reincarnation is gaining ground.

But I want to say one thing to you: the whole idea of reincarnation is a misconception. It is true that when a person dies his being becomes part of the whole. Whether he was a sinner or a saint does not matter, but he had also something called the mind, the memory. In the past the information was not available to explain memory as a bundle of thoughts and thought waves, but now it is easier.
And that's where, on many points, I find Gautam Buddha far ahead of his time. He is the only man who would have agreed with my explanation. He has given hints, but he could not provide any evidence for it; there was nothing available to say. He has said that when a person dies, his memory travels into a new womb-not the self. And we now can understand it, that when you are dying, you will leave memories all around in the air. And if you have been miserable, all your miseries will find some location; they will enter into some other memory system. Either they will enter totally into a single womb-that's how somebody remembers one's past. It is not your past; it was somebody else's mind that you have inherited.

[Consider well that underlined sentence; it makes 'waking up' take on a whole different value.__Desert]

Most people don't remember because they have not got the whole lump, the whole heritage of a single individual's memory system. They may have got fragments from here and there, and those fragments create your misery system. All those people who have died on the earth have died in misery. Very few people have died in joy. Very few people have died with the realization of no-mind. They don't leave a trace behind. They don't burden anybody else with their memory. They simply disperse into the universe. They don't have any mind and they don't have any memory system. They have already dissolved it in their meditations. That's why the enlightened person is never born.

But the unenlightened people go on throwing out, with every death, all kinds of misery patterns. Just as riches attract more riches, misery attracts more misery. If you are miserable, then from miles, misery will travel to you-you are the right vehicle. And this is a very invisible phenomenon, like radio waves. They are traveling around you; you don't hear them. Once you have the right instrument to receive them, immediately they become available. Even before the radio was there, they were traveling by your side.

There is no incarnation, but misery incarnates. Wounds of millions of people are moving around you, just in search of somebody who is willing to be miserable. Of course, the blissful does not leave any trace. The man of awakening dies the way a bird moves into the sky, without making a track or a path. The sky remains empty. Blissfulness moves without making any trace. That's why you don't get any inheritance from the Buddhas; they simply disappear. And all kinds of idiots and retarded people go on reincarnating in their memories and it becomes every day thicker and thicker.

Today, perhaps, it has come to the point to be understood and to be dissolved; otherwise it is too thick to allow you to live, to allow you to laugh.

Your own consciousness has no wounds.
Your own consciousness knows nothing of misery.
Your own consciousness is innocent, utterly blissful.
To bring you in touch with your own consciousness, every effort is being made to detract you from the mind. The mind contains all your misery, all your wounds. And it goes on creating wounds in such a way that, unless you are aware, you will not even find how it creates them….

All our miseries are so superficial-and most fundamentally, they are all borrowed.

And everybody is giving his misery to everybody else he comes in contact with. People are talking continuously about their miseries, about their troubles, about their conflicts. Have you ever heard anybody talking about his joyous moments? About his dances and songs? About his silences and blissfulness? No, nobody talks about these things. People go on sharing all their wounds, and whenever you are talking about your misery to somebody, without your knowing, you are transferring a miserable pattern. The person may be thinking that he is only listening to you, but he is also catching the vibe of misery, the wounds.

When I said that you carry other people's wounds, my statement meant that your own consciousness has no wounds. If everybody becomes alert, meditative, there will be no wounds in the world. They will simply disappear. They will not find any house, any shelter. This is possible. If it is possible for me, it is possible for everybody.

And in your question you also ask why "we can so easily accept someone else's wound," and why it is "so difficult to accept our own Buddhahood."

You can accept somebody's wounds because you also have wounds. You understand the language of wounds, miseries, sufferings.

Desert wrote on Feb 7^th, 2008 at 11:40pm:

Originally I was going to make this a post on another thread. I chose to make it a thread of its own for reasons that become evident upon reading Osho’s view on reincarnation. On the 'Reincarnation' thread started by Nanner, 'recoverer' states: "Regarding there being thousands of enlightened people as you claim, I guess this is a possibility if immoral people like Osho are judged to be enlightened, and enlightenment means you have the incomplete and not completely accurate viewpoints that gurus tend to have."__recoverer Osho's "immorality" pales when compared to the immorality that has come in varying moral disguises through the centuries. Osho did not persecute or send millions to their death. Osho did not cast waves of fear over the consciousnesses of other to gain control. Lastly, Osho's views on “gurus” were even more astringent than yours. I am not here to defend Osho, I just want to point out that his contributions are worthy of study. Read the following, if it's "immoral" then I will gladly consider more immoral material whether I assimilate it or not. Desert

 Desert, do you believe that Osho was fully enLightened, as his followers and he claimed about himself?

 If he wasn't, then already we find some major issues with him and thus his teachings as well.  

 As the tree falls, so does it lay.   Pure info, comes from pure sources.  Incomplete and distorted info comes from those who have an incomplete and distorted attunement to Source Consciousness.  Like attracts and begets like.

 Look to Osho's life and not his fancy, flowery words, and you will see what kind of "fruit" this tree has borne.    The only way for most to know the veracity and helpfulness of a particular source, is by the fruit they eventually produce.   What kinds of fruits did Osho produce, how did he treat others, his own self, and life?

Osho has his own style of teaching. He seems to be talking about what I understand to be "the agreed upon collective consensus."
the astral, even the grid, where a collective thought, collective sound of humanity is contained, as thoughts are not something that just dies, but is an energy, like certain energies will pass through our flesh, like radio signals.

I have noted healers can take on another's wounds, or mediums channel and need to recover from the effects of some spirit's truama. when healers do this, it's because they have not learned, they don't have to take on another's wound in order to heal it or transmute it. since they are beginners they must learn how to shield themselves just like we all have to learn to throw off these unwanted energies. Mostly, taking on another's wounds is temporary and immediate tuning into infinite mind/PUL will clear it up quite quickly.
if the channeller does not learn how to throw this off quickly, as in the case of those in helping professions, like nurses, etc. they find themselves seeing a career change.

as regarding reincarnation. this is my last dive down here. not boasting, but I am proud I accomplished my intentions here. the rest is gravy. I do have a slightly different view regarding reincarnation, as I approached it on another thread, all of us are ONE, but only are we One, within that agreed upon consensus reality place, where our thoughts and feelings merge as an energy.
What an individual builds here, in regards to service to mankind, is a part of the self forever and will not dissolve into some murky collective.

I have lived before in another time era, as I, not John Doe, not Joan of Arc, I lived here as myself, as I know myself to be. these others were flesh and blood that I am also appearing as in a body, flesh and blood.
I know I am operating in this body but it's a rough pattern of how I really look in my spiritual body; as everything is rough here on Earth..thats why we come, to smooth out the roughness and get to PUL. too much intellectualism exists here. We mislead each other, try to make the truth complicated. its simple what the truth is.
Our struggles are not in vain to be our true selves. every effort counts. every retrieval yields a benefit to mankind, to clean up these astral effluvia areas Osho is talking about.

We make plans with family members to step into a linear time frame together. we often change the roles. who will be this, who will be that. we have the ability to call in spiritual counselors to set up some guidelines for what is to be accomplished in each time era, each relationship.
But all in all, we are all in the struggle which leads to the joy of accomplishment and that would include the entire human and animal evolvement and saving the planet from the possibilities of blowing up through nuclear war.

I often wondered why mother hated me so. I asked the question of spirit. I was ready to know the truth. Mother hated me because I had killed her. this was shown that it was I who had done this. this is the planet where we come to control our passions and subdue them. her soul had agreed to let me be born to her to show her I did love her.
why do people kill what it is they love?  I am not the only one who has killed. I am at peace with it. I have been forgiven. do you think I am just talking off the top of my head?
No, I saw that it was me, in another body...it was not the suffering person from some other century I saw; I occupied this body which did the deed.
How can I recognize myself? thats a foolish question.
Also viewing what I had done made all the pieces fit together, of her complete rejection of the 3rd child. We had it planned beforehand, that in this life I would save her life instead of take it. That way we could get around to the PUL that truly was there all along.
I did save her life, and I retrieved a pedophile, who was her husband as well.

Doing just those two acts set me free to never come back here again, unless I get bored of course, or want to accomplish something else. you have to admit, Earth life is not boring like the hollow heavens can be. that is why I can speak of that joy that Osho is talking about. Joy and PUL is our heritage, once a person takes self responsibility instead of blaming everything on the collective areas, like it's a scapegoat area.
We are just beginning to take responsibility on this Earth and healing ourselves and others is a part of that.   see the movie the Secret, it scares a person into waking up how we effect each other and how we can bring heaven to Earth and whats ahead for this planet it only bodes good..you gotta look forward though and stop dragging the past with you, then we begin to run...in joy...you'll see it soon...god heals the broken spirit.

love, alysia

Justin

"Desert, do you believe that Osho was fully enLightened, as his followers and he claimed about himself?
If he wasn't, then already we find some major issues with him and thus his teachings as well."  

With all due respect, that's a syllogism gone awry. You inquire about his enlightenment then immediately jump to pre-negative assessments about the information that is received from him. For myself, and I believe many others, reading what Osho has related is not that different than reading what other individuals through time have related; dare I say that it's not that different from reading the Bible. It is received with as open a mind as possible and then estimated as to its value.

The notion of claiming enlightenment was by no means exclusive to Osho. A brief review of history will show many claimants to that position and in some unfortunate cases the claimants wielded power to do harm to believers and non-believers alike. To those claimants it was not simply a matter of others hearing what they had to say and then being allowed to make their own decision, it was an enforced proposition with little in the way of personal choice.

Osho in some of his talks even went so far as to say that ultimately the knowledge wasn't even about him. In fact, Osho found "major issues" with many who claimed enlightenment whether contemporarily or historically. Please note that point because many believe it as part of the scenario that brought about his death. May I add that it would not be the first time that a particularly effective critic was silenced for his or her views.

Was he enlightened or not? More of the beating-a-dead-horse argument which is nothing more than reiteration under the illusion that revelation is soon at hand. If we've put up with such over a 2000-years plus span then certainly a few decades - and contemporary ones at that - seem minimal.

The "fruit" is not always sweet; indeed sometimes it's bitter. Again, much fruit has come our way and much indigestion has been left in its wake. It is ultimately up to the individual to discern the sweet from the bitter. But as you well know, there are agents in reality who simply do not want the power of differentiation in hands other than their own.

Perhaps you could elucidate for us those details that in some manner have led you to conclude that the knowledge Osho expressed was somehow in error, or more to the point, that the conduct of his person was sufficient to eclipse his offerings.  

Desert

I have to say that while I've never made a close study of the man that anything of Osho's teaching that I read seemed to resonate for me.

Think you only have to look to aspects of the Christian and many other churches to see what those that follow can justify building through misinterpretation of teachings to suit their own ends. So that's not exactly a cause for dissing a teacher.

Caution is probably advisable too in the blanket application of 20C Western public morality to reported instances of what some of these teachers did or did not. Precise context is everything, and while they may well not have been perfect there may well have been good reason for events too. There anyway have always been plenty around with a vested interest in doing them down  - it's hard to know what really happened.

My view is that it's unwise to seek to somehow vet teachers as being perfect before drawing on what they teach that makes sense. It's in essence a form of grasping that can only lead us into trouble.

If you throw the teacher out on hearsay despite a body of good teaching you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater - 'I'm not risking listening to/reading that guy unless I know he's perfect'. If on the other hand you accept a teacher as perfect you risk developing a dependence on this view, leading to a risk of being blinded to negatives that subsequently arise.

This need to tie it all up in a nice red ribbon for ever more is an ego driven compulsion. As ever that's the way to problems and suffering. In reality we live this stuff day to day, moment by moment, proceeding with openness, awareness, courage, intelligence and discrimination. What arises that feels right we can embrace, what feels wrong we don't.

You don't have to make a lifetime commitment to a teacher before reading or listening to something he says or said! And if it doesn't gel for you then fine, park it!

We will get it wrong at times, but it's only through this process that we can progress. We can only assess a teacher at our own level anyway - even if he/she is 'perfect' we can't tell. Meaning we end up dependent on somebody else's rubber stamp of approval if we try for anything else

The core lesson in this well worn debate about who's a good teacher, and who is not is for me that we are required to learn to take moment by moment responsibility for ourselves and our path while living with the groundlessness of the reality that no teachings or tradition filtered through human mind can ever be guaranteed perfect.

This capability is surely the basic that puts one truly on the spiritual path, seeking to open and connect with reality as it happens  - rather than deferring this while searching for yet another belief system to attach too and risking wasting another lifetime while as is inevitable discovering was it bum steer.

It's not even like it's a case of one size fits all. We can draw on traditions and teachers, but we can't allow them to become either props or blocks...

Hi,

Osho Sprouted a lot of nonsensical conjecture. We are individually responsible for the evil and good we do in life and face the rewards or punishments in the afterlife, like it or not. I have been there and seen there are real heavily realms as well hellish ones. Did he die like I did and come back to tell the tale?I think not.

One can speak about New York City to me until the cows come home, but I will only know it truly if I had been there myself

alan

Hi Desert, sometimes "gurus" are not "gurus" anymore. Instead, they are footballs which get tossed about on the field.

There have been cultures in which the young men played games with the skulls of the dead. I suppose the spectators enjoyed these games too, or they never would have occurred.

Were these qualities inherited from others along the way, in some respect or another?....most likely. This is an interesting way of looking at it...and some do say that the sins of the fathers will be revisited among the children.

love, blink :)

I have to agree with Alan.  These so-called enlightened "gurus" invariably have their own axes to grind and their own points of view disguised as "The Truth."

Greetings   :),

What if originally each 'continent' had its own Master and its own Truth, and the
heavenly Heirarchy established a competition with each group being a team in the race?
The Truth that got its race team into heaven soonest would be the winners.   :D

We've heard of angels who do worse than set up competitions.
We've accepted that there are separate heavens for separate faiths.
Many of us have said, OK I believe in reincarnation BUT I'm not coming back !

Why try to get every teacher to agree on every point?

Bets

"What an individual builds here, in regards to service to mankind, is a part of the self forever and will not dissolve into some murky collective." LaffingRain

If by that you mean that for example the self of Alysia or Desert will forever remember their particular contributions of service to others, then yes, there is no problem with that. But when the afterlife and other metaphysical propositions are discussed there is often a subtle contradistinction at work between one's identity and that of the Universal Mind/God. Personally, I hope that the results of my labors will not have a murky fate, but that they may dissolve into the cosmos as a bubble dissolves into the ocean is simply something that I have to live with and which in the grander context - not the local context of my identity - may be cosmically incontrovertible.

As illustration, imagine the following scenario:

You spend a lifetime, or at least a reasonable part thereof, in being of compassionate service to your fellow travelers in reality. You then die and in the midst of conversation with God - or at least one of God's closest representatives - you are told the following: "Here's the deal. You have felt and done some wonderful good will toward others and for that you are to be complimented. Now, you will always remember this but the value of what you've done will absorbed into the cosmos and become the energy of values that will help others to progress onward. But they won't know your self or your identity as the contributor of said value, to them it will simply be a part of life."

Upon hearing this should my reaction be: "Excuse me, but that's copyright infringement"? LOL. Seems to me that remuneration on the other side has very little to do with local, proprietary concepts.

By the way, considering the little that I've come to know of you I know that you would not be questioning copyrights. :)

Desert

Desert wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 3:31am:

Justin "Desert, do you believe that Osho was fully enLightened, as his followers and he claimed about himself? If he wasn't, then already we find some major issues with him and thus his teachings as well."   With all due respect, that's a syllogism gone awry. You inquire about his enlightenment then immediately jump to pre-negative assessments about the information that is received from him.

 To some extent.  Yet there is a qualifying factor in there, which is the "if" at the beginning.   I know what i believe, but the question was in your side of the ball park for the moment.  

Quote:

For myself, and I believe many others, reading what Osho has related is not that different than reading what other individuals through time have related; dare I say that it's not that different from reading the Bible. It is received with as open a mind as possible and then estimated as to its value.

Certainly.   There has been much that i've read with an open mind.  You could say that at one point, my mind was too open, that i was too naive, to trusting and accepting of other people's truths.    Such was the folly of youth.   Now, i have moved much more into my 1st house Virgo North Node and exercise discrimination and critical examination.  

  I'm not so much telling what others to believe, rather saying look to the whole picture before you make up your own mind.     If someone who promotes only a fraction of the picture comes on, then certainly it would be irresponsible of me, knowing what i know, to not try to point folks in the direction of the more full picture?  

  Some have the view that disagreement is somehow completely "unspiritual", i don't, though i believe the manner in which one disagrees, or knowing when to keep one's mouth silent, is an important factor as well.   Neither have i mastered, no, and since i'm not an actualized Master then take my info, my points, my understanding with a grain of salt as well.  


Quote:

The notion of claiming enlightenment was by no means exclusive to Osho.

  I don't see what this has to do with what i directly asked you?  I did not ask you about others, but about your view of Osho.   I don't care if a million other people claimed they were enLightened, you were not promoting them when i addressed this thread.    


Quote:

A brief review of history will show many claimants to that position and in some unfortunate cases the claimants wielded power to do harm to believers and non-believers alike. To those claimants it was not simply a matter of others hearing what they had to say and then being allowed to make their own decision, it was an enforced proposition with little in the way of personal choice.

   Certainly.   And there are different kinds, levels, and degrees of harm.   I personally don't think that Osho was free from facilitating harm in others, for one he did and thus promoted drug use.   These harm the body, the harm the body-mind, they harm the balance of the endocrine system.  

 Sure, he didn't have everyone drink deadly cool aid, nor did he and his followers get stuck in a shoot out in a compound..    But i recommend that people do their own detailed research on him and his life.  It doesn't have to be super extreme, for it to be "harmful", even as to lasting harm.  

 My reasoning comes from a mix of sources, from reading various stuff about him, but also going within and tuning into him and his life.     Both agree pretty well.   It's enough for me, though it's probably not enough for others.   Doesn't mean that i can't or shouldn't share my opinion though.


Quote:

Osho in some of his talks even went so far as to say that ultimately the knowledge wasn't even about him. In fact, Osho found "major issues" with many who claimed enlightenment whether contemporarily or historically. Please note that point because many believe it as part of the scenario that brought about his death. May I add that it would not be the first time that a particularly effective critic was silenced for his or her views.

 Well to use your previous debate style, many Gurus said very similar things.   Plenty of Church leaders, priests, and others who led others astray spiritually, said similar things.   Our ego nature is a lot more crafty than always being purely direct about such things, sometimes false humility comes in temporarily, or perhaps even a bit of true humility gets temporarily brought up in the morass of false self tendencies.  


Quote:

Was he enlightened or not? More of the beating-a-dead-horse argument which is nothing more than reiteration under the illusion that revelation is soon at hand. If we've put up with such over a 2000-years plus span then certainly a few decades - and contemporary ones at that - seem minimal.

 I was simply asking if you personally thoughts he was enLightened or not.   I wasn't going to debate the answer, but since you evaded the question so well, well i feel perhaps its an important thing to talk about.  

 People, i've noticed seem to really complicate what "enLightenment" really is.   I believe its a very simple concept, because at one point we were all enLightened, and hopefully we all will be again.    To be enLightented, means simply to be full of pure Light.   What is spiritual Light, what is matter, matter is just pure Light condensed to a very slow vibration, locked in Light you could say.

Those who are fully enLightened then, transcend matter, they've completely unlocked the pure Light within the form.   Since they have done such, they are not subject to the same space/time so called "natural Laws" that the temporarily unenLightened folks are.   Hence, automatically, they do not physically age, do not get sick, do not die natural deaths, service is their keyword, and thus they continue to serve on ALL levels, of which they are simultaneously aware of.   Ask Bob Monroe, he asked to meet the most spiritually mature person living in his space/time cycle.   He was brought to a person who telepathically communicated with him, and let him know that he was some 1800 years old, does not need to sleep, eat, does not age, and the radiation from this person was very powerful, moving, and beautiful.

 They also radiate unbelievably pure, radiant, White Light energy fields, sometimes tending more towards the Golden when interacting with those temporarily unenLightened.

 I've experienced this unbelievably pure White Light, i know the truth of it, and that its aligned to the Creator Consciousness, nor am i the only one, the White Light has a long tradition in from many "mystics", religious, and spiritual belief systems and so when both my own experience matches up to what many have universally said to have experienced, then do i consider it logical to assume its pretty truthful.  Anything less than these super radiant and bright White and Golden Whitish emanations signify less than pure enLightenment.  

 One doesn't have to be enLightened themselves, to perceive some of this stuff.   By tuning into and focussing on an such a consciousness, tends to raise your vibratory rates temporarily a bit anyways, potentially allowing for a more expanded perception than one would be apt to have to begin with.  

 When i tune into Osho, i pick up a lot of unLight or dim light, a lot of materialistic hedonism, a lot of ego and desire for attention (which is probably why at one point he claimed he was Buddha reincarnated and then later said he was Christ reincarnated).    I pick up someone who had the habit of both self dishonesty and dishonesty to others.  

Quote:

The "fruit" is not always sweet; indeed sometimes it's bitter. Again, much fruit has come our way and much indigestion has been left in its wake. It is ultimately up to the individual to discern the sweet from the bitter. But as you well know, there are agents in reality who simply do not want the power of differentiation in hands other than their own.

 I'm glad to hear that you do differentiate bitter from sweet.   That's an important step in all of this.   Some i've noticed, get hung up on trying so hard to be "non dualistic" that they almost completely phase into the Right brain aspect of self, and try not to see any distinction, hence they lose the ability to discriminate temporarily.   The Right brain, unnconnected to the Left "brain" (it goes far beyond the brain hemispheres), sees only in one color so to speak.  

 Oh..i've been learning more and more about those agents who want to dominate and control others on all levels..  Some of what i've  been learning via my guidance and my wifes guidance is QUITE eye opening and stuff that even a few years ago i probably would not have accepted or even considered.   Because i've worked on a lot of my fear issues, particularly recently, i guess i'm ready to know such things which a little while ago may have facilitated fear in me.

 One thing i've learned, is that such forces (the human ones) sometimes come on sites like these and try to promote teachings and teachers who come more from the false-distorted self, and thus tend to facilitate that within others.   It's not always easy to spot them from the much greater percentage of people who just don't know any better and are unconscious to that.  The non human ones, both discarnate humans and certain E.T. groups, try to psychically influence those physically incarnate who are vulnerable to such influence.  

  I use to believe that this was overly paranoid, but not any more.

Quote:

Perhaps you could elucidate for us those details that in some manner have led you to conclude that the knowledge Osho expressed was somehow in error, or more to the point, that the conduct of his person was sufficient to eclipse his offerings.

 If someone is interested enough in finding this out, then i suggest a detailed, holistic study of info one can find by a simple google search.   Do not just simply read the words, but quiet self and attune to what you are reading, to the vibrations connected to same.  

  I've already mentioned some stuff, his immense appetite for material hedonism, his need of and for attention, his extremism.  

 And the simple point that he claimed himself fully enLightened when he wasn't.   See to me, the most simple and basic mark of enLightenment, beyond the stuff i already mentioned, is how much a person lives for others without thought of self and of material recompensation.  

 As far as i can tell, he did not live his life in service for others in that manner (beyond writing some books) and certainly not holistically speaking, meaning physically as well as mentally and spiritually.
Consider the non religious Yeshua (Jesus).   He lived his life for others, not for himself though he had his needed moments of rest, alone time, and recreation.    Because he sought to bring happiness and joy to others, because he backed up his words, thoughts, and feelings with constant actions, he came to truly know the Creator Consciousness within himself.  


 That, and only that, brings "enLightenment", that is because like attracts and begets like.   To become One with Source, you must become like Source.   Source ever gives to us and asks nothing in return, and so we must learn to to that with all of Creation as well.  

 Pretty simple and basic eh?

  Osho, on the other hand, seemed to ask for a lot from others, and its no accident that he had as many Rolls Royce's as he had.    Even if these were given to him purely in the spirit of givingness with no hints on his part, no actual asking, then why didn't he say, sell them and give that money so that others could eat, have shelter, or start some kind of movement that considered the holistic needs of others?  

betson wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 11:17am:

Greetings   :), What if originally each 'continent' had its own Master and its own Truth, and the heavenly Heirarchy established a competition with each group being a team in the race? The Truth that got its race team into heaven soonest would be the winners.   :D We've heard of angels who do worse than set up competitions. We've accepted that there are separate heavens for separate faiths. Many of us have said, OK I believe in reincarnation BUT I'm not coming back ! Why try to get every teacher to agree on every point? Bets

 For me, this is a much larger issue than just reincarnation.   When someone promotes a particular teacher that i believe if overly tuned into, will tend to strongly facilitate stuckness instead of freedom, then i give my opinion and ask others simply to do more research and going within about that particular source.  

   Occasionally, a source, a person who tends to live much more in the false self part of them, will occasionally say some wise and truthful things.

 It's rarely so set as to say that a particular teacher only spoke truth or untruth.  The huge majority of us have our moments of both, but very few of us have proclaimed ourselves as enLightented.  
When someone does that, they are in essence telling people that they are infallible, purely constructive, and someone that you really, really need to listen too.    It's a manipulation and control tactic and one of the worst there is, if its not actually true.    I'm sure some eventually even convince themselves that its true, and then its not so conscious anymore.. but either way, i believe its important to give a fuller picture of such sources, because their info can only be mostly distorted and off though they may say some interesting and even wise sounding things occasionally.  

 If Osho had never claimed he was enLightened, then i would not speak against him.

 Bet's, did you read my last shared dream, about the Lion and the Spider?   The Spider symbolizes corruption, poison, manipulation, deceit, and those forces who would undermine spiritual progression.  

  The Lion was the only one in that dream, who decided to move beyond its fear, and stand up to those forces though it seemed to overwhelming and powerful.

Justin-

Or, to put it another way, follow the money.  Whether it's a televangelist or an enlightened guru, it almost always comes down to money.

Your point about Jesus is well taken.  He had no ulterior motives.  Wasn't interested in the latest model donkey with all the options.  "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

It's all really so very simple and yet we humans continually seem to muck it up.  The Golden Rule contains all that we need to know.  The rest is just background noise and static.

R

wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 7:34am:

I have to say that while I've never made a close study of the man that anything of Osho's teaching that I read seemed to resonate for me. Think you only have to look to aspects of the Christian and many other churches to see what those that follow can justify building through misinterpretation of teachings to suit their own ends. So that's not exactly a cause for dissing a teacher. Caution is probably advisable too in the blanket application of 20C Western public morality to reported instances of what some of these teachers did or did not. Precise context is everything, and while they may well not have been perfect there may well have been good reason for events too. There anyway have always been plenty around with a vested interest in doing them down  - it's hard to know what really happened. My view is that it's unwise to seek to somehow vet teachers as being perfect before drawing on what they teach that makes sense. It's in essence a form of grasping that can only lead us into trouble. If you throw the teacher out on hearsay despite a body of good teaching you risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater - 'I'm not risking listening to/reading that guy unless I know he's perfect'. If on the other hand you accept a teacher as perfect you risk developing a dependence on this view, leading to a risk of being blinded to negatives that subsequently arise. This need to tie it all up in a nice red ribbon for ever more is an ego driven compulsion. As ever that's the way to problems and suffering. In reality we live this stuff day to day, moment by moment, proceeding with openness, awareness, courage, intelligence and discrimination. What arises that feels right we can embrace, what feels wrong we don't. You don't have to make a lifetime commitment to a teacher before reading or listening to something he says or said! And if it doesn't gel for you then fine, park it! We will get it wrong at times, but it's only through this process that we can progress. We can only assess a teacher at our own level anyway - even if he/she is 'perfect' we can't tell. Meaning we end up dependent on somebody else's rubber stamp of approval if we try for anything else The core lesson in this well worn debate about who's a good teacher, and who is not is for me that we are required to learn to take moment by moment responsibility for ourselves and our path while living with the groundlessness of the reality that no teachings or tradition filtered through human mind can ever be guaranteed perfect. This capability is surely the basic that puts one truly on the spiritual path, seeking to open and connect with reality as it happens  - rather than deferring this while searching for yet another belief system to attach too and risking wasting another lifetime while as is inevitable discovering was it bum steer. It's not even like it's a case of one size fits all. We can draw on traditions and teachers, but we can't allow them to become either props or blocks...

 Some aspects of his teachings resonate with me as well.   So?   I'm sure that if i was back in Yeshua's times, some of the things that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes said and taught, i would resonate with some... and yet we find that Yeshua occasionally spoke out, and strongly so, against these sources because they were more misleading than not.  

 I think it is good to try to be moderate, to be accepting, to not automatically and strongly judge a teaching and its source.  

 At the same time, discrimination, speaking up about what doesn't agree with, etc. is important to do at times as well.  

 As far as Osho and his teachings go.   Well, i'm not going just by what i've read of his life by and through others accounts.   I am going by deep inner intuition that i've spent many years cultivating, fostering, honing.  

 I am not a casual critic.   Personally, i could care less how Osho lived his life, that's between him, his own Greater self, and the spiritual directing forces.    I do not judge him on a personal level.  

  However, when others promote him, a teacher who proclaimed himself enLightened and an Avatar, then do i speak up and give the other side of it.    

Most spiritual sources, i wouldn't speak out even though i may disagree with some or much of what they teach.   There are countless belief systems and teachers that i don't say anything to others about, because to me, they are mostly harmless.  

 There are some few, amongst the thousands in the spiritual world, who i do speak up about to others, because of the nature of the teachings and/or especially of the teacher.   Particularly those who proclaim to be enLightented, those who teach certain mistruths about Christ, and those who proclaim to be channeled from Christ undiluted when they are not.  


 Both you and i came into this life to learn and foster the ability to discriminate, hence why we both have a strong emphasis on a particular astro. pattern.   There was a lot of emphasis on the opposite astro pattern, which is very right brained, overly accepting, and doesn't tend to have good discrimination.  

 Sure, look for the good, but be aware of what's off as well.   I look at my country, the U.S.A, and i wonder that if more people had excerised discrimination over the years, would this country and its people's be different.  

  The U.S.A. is a fine example of how an entire nation of people let themselves get more and more hoodwinked, of how much we've pretended everythings alright, how few people spoke up against the corruption, mistruths, etc. until its too late and the entire system needs to be torn asunder.  

   The spiritual world and system is no different.   There is a lot of corruption, deception, and destructive forces in and influencing same.    And this is much, much more important than a particular gov. and political system in the long run.  

 Osho is one who lived a life of material hedonism and promoted same, he is one who spoke quite vehemently against other teachers and teachings, and is teachings are empty, hollow words of a man obsessed with his own voice but occasionally parroted some teachings which contained some truth.      

  You can call my desire to counter balance this as "grasping" all you want.  It would be much easier to not speak out and to be liked, to fit in, to not have people insinuate all kinds of things about my character.  

 Yeah, like i didn't get Blink's message, and her subtle but very strong and judgmental criticism and comparsions.   Sometimes when people do something indirectly and subtly, they think they are coming from a high space.  I say, if one is going to say something negative about someone, then at least say it directly to their face and not insinuate and dress it up as something prettier than it actually is.   The former tends to accompany the height of hypocrisy.  

rondele wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 12:24pm:

Justin- Or, to put it another way, follow the money.  Whether it's a televangelist or an enlightened guru, it almost always comes down to money. Your point about Jesus is well taken.  He had no ulterior motives.  Wasn't interested in the latest model donkey with all the options.  "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." It's all really so very simple and yet we humans continually seem to muck it up.  The Golden Rule contains all that we need to know.  The rest is just background noise and static. R

 Yup, it is very simple.   Sometimes such "teachers" aren't just looking for money, sometimes attention, ego props, slaps on the back and the like is what they are after just as much as the money, and at times even more so, though money is oft strongly involved with the particularly corrupt ones.  

 There have been some deluded zealots here and there, who truly believed in what they were teaching, who didn't really look for money, but still wielded a destructive influence in this World.  

Years ago I read Osho when he went by the name of Rajneesh. Through the years I found that he was an immoral man who misled others into believing he was an enlightened master. Near the end of his life he changed his name to Osho when he announced that he was the reincarnation of the Buddha.

The man started out as a philosophy professor, and then became a guru. Isn't it possible that he read a bunch of books and tried to pass off what he read as his knowledge?

Fakes like Osho and the organizations that follow such fakes survive, because people aren't willing to question them. Instead they come up with all manner of excuses for their immoral behavior and false teachings.

If people really want to serve the light, perhaps they should be responsible and put their discrimination to use, otherwise they'll end up supporting false teachers such as Osho, and mislead other people down the same false path.   IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR AND LOVE ARE NOT THE SAME THING!

Rondele:

You're right about Jesus not having an ulterior motive like the many fake gurus who have inhabitted this planet. Many of them set up business with the objective of being put up on a pedestal by their followers and raking in the dollars for years.  They also do so because they get off on manipulating and controlling others, and many use their position to have sex with their followers.  The gospels on the other hand show in various places that Jesus knew he would be crucified, so there was no such future available for him. He also told his followers to give their money to the poor, not to him, like scoundrel gurus such as Osho did.


rondele wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 12:24pm:

Justin- Or, to put it another way, follow the money.  Whether it's a televangelist or an enlightened guru, it almost always comes down to money. Your point about Jesus is well taken.  He had no ulterior motives.  Wasn't interested in the latest model donkey with all the options.  "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." It's all really so very simple and yet we humans continually seem to muck it up.  The Golden Rule contains all that we need to know.  The rest is just background noise and static. R

Does anyone feel this energy? When we do this the energy level drops. To me it feels like I am actually being weighted down when I read. Just a comment for those who will notice it. I'm off to other territories now.

love, blink :)

"Caution is probably advisable too in the blanket application of 20C Western public morality to reported instances of what some of these teachers did or did not. Precise context is everything, and while they may well not have been perfect there may well have been good reason for events too. There anyway have always been plenty around with a vested interest in doing them down  - it's hard to know what really happened." __ vajra

As succinct as it is true. Which is why when I read the criticisms of others who themselves don't even have a body of work to counter whomever is at question I detect a personalized and subjective agenda. Many tend to equate their expectations with truth; their version of hopscotch is only two squares, 1 and 10, and to hell with the rest. Mind you, a subjective agends is not necessarily an evil one, it is sometimes nothing more than a perception unaware of other levels of estimation.  

"The core lesson in this well worn debate about who's a good teacher, and who is not is for me that we are required to learn to take moment by moment responsibility for ourselves and our path while living with the groundlessness of the reality that no teachings or tradition filtered through human mind can ever be guaranteed perfect."

Quite right. May I say that the teacher should be giving you the shiny red apple on this one. :)  
____________

"Osho Sprouted a lot of nonsensical conjecture. We are individually responsible for the evil and good we do in life and face the rewards or punishments in the afterlife, like it or not. I have been there and seen there are real heavily realms as well hellish ones. Did he die like I did and come back to tell the tale? I think not." __ Alan

None of us can claim with sufficient authority to know what identity/individuality is for ourselves, much less for others. I may have a name, and if you pinch me it will hurt, but neither those nor the many other pedestrian notions of consciousness-delineation can even begin to account for what identity may truly be in the universal context.

That you have been to weighty heavenly and hellish realms is from the collective side no more and no less a conjecture than anything which Osho or any other claimant makes. Furthermore, unless you have extensively studied Osho's biographical aspects then you simply don't know what kind of experiences he has had that substantiate his tales.

Lastly, that you "think not" is certainly your right but hardly a condemnation that other individuals or the collective should consider as the final word. That you have returned from death's door is certainly fortunate provided that some type of spiritual pride didn't hitch a ride on the return.

Apart from that, glad to know you're alive and well and able to be part of these discussions. :)

____________

Rondele

See reply to Alan.

____________


"We've heard of angels who do worse than set up competitions." __ betson

You mean like Lucifer?  :D

"Why try to get every teacher to agree on every point?"

Allow me to rephrase it: Why do we adjust information to suit our needs? Basically it's about survival. But even more basic is that it has to do with our capability to interpret knowledge.  Simplest example: You meet up with someone and they start telling you some of the most important information you will ever hear. But there's a complication: they're speaking in a foreign language you don't understand. The information has no value until either or both of you learns the other's language. Some have it in their heads that such a responsibility falls to the other. With those types the only compromise is one that has their name emblazoned over everything else.

I will close this set of replies reply with an interesting example that points out the issue of contradiction:

This man became estranged from his wife. The biography reprints a chilling letter from him to his wife, a proposed "contract" in which they could continue to live together under certain conditions. Indeed that was the heading: "Conditions."

A. You will make sure
1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order;
2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only.
B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons…

There’s more, including "you will stop talking to me if I request it." She accepted the conditions. He later wrote to her again to make sure she grasped that this was going to be all-business in the future, and that the "personal aspects must be reduced to a tiny remnant." And he vowed, "In return, I assure you of proper comportment on my part, such as I would exercise to any woman as a stranger."

Now, I'm not a woman but I don't think you have to be one to recognize the arrogance and ego that this man displayed not just to a woman but to another human being.

Who was this man? None other than Albert Einstein.  

Needless to say, that leaves us with quite a bristly balancing act between the person and what that person has come to be known for and respected and admired for it. Whether Osho, Einstein , or even yourself, the contradictions of this life are like the sharp pebbles we feel underfoot as we cool our weary feet in a sparkling stream.

Desert

(note: I have to attend to the affairs of the day. When I return I will  answer Justin's reply.)

wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 1:59pm:

Does anyone feel this energy? When we do this the energy level drops. To me it feels like I am actually being weighted down when I read. Just a comment for those who will notice it. I'm off to other territories now. love, blink :)

 Yes Blink, to hear the below is potentially disheartening, heavy, and sad.  To hear a long term member of this forum describe and compare another long term member who is just simply speaking his truth, as this,
Quote:

"Hi Desert, sometimes "gurus" are not "gurus" anymore. Instead, they are footballs which get tossed about on the field. There have been cultures in which the young men played games with the skulls of the dead. I suppose the spectators enjoyed these games too, or they never would have occurred. Were these qualities inherited from others along the way, in some respect or another?....most likely. This is an interesting way of looking at it...and some do say that the sins of the fathers will be revisited among the children.

 He or she that is free from such transgressions could without hypocrisy say such things i suppose.  

 However, the above quote from you is just as critical, belittling, and judgmental as anything that i or others have said about gurus who lead people more to false self, than to Source.  

 Why you do not see that, i have no idea.   Selective reasoning i suppose.   I remember some of your words to another poster here, Tempest, i remember how you treated her, and the selective, convenient reasoning that went on there.  

 There is some relative difference between speaking critically but impersonally on the kinds of behaviors, teachings, and ways of being that some teachers who called themselves enLightened, than speaking on the negative attributes of others who happen to speak up about how they don't agree with those teachers, teachings, and the one sided promotion of same.  

  Personally, i prefer more direct and honest criticisms, and no wonder why your energy is dropping, you are partaking in judgment just as much if not more than some others on this thread.   Do not blame others for your energy decrease when you are just as party to it as anyone else is, don't fool yourself that it just comes from reading other people's words.  

Always respecting you, Justin, however I do see another long term poster accusing a new poster of "promoting" a "guru" at the first opportunity he is given. I also perceive the capitalized letters as shouting to a new poster.

You may not believe me but this is exactly how war begins.

However, I withdraw from this arena. I find it rather sad, and also futile.

None of us are immune to folly, Justin. However, I am now immune to what you and Recoverer are trying to vaccinate against. Physician, heal thyself.

love, blink :)

Desert wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 2:28pm:

I will close this set of replies reply with an interesting example that points out the issue of contradiction: This man became estranged from his wife. The biography reprints a chilling letter from him to his wife, a proposed "contract" in which they could continue to live together under certain conditions. Indeed that was the heading: "Conditions." A. You will make sure 1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in good order; 2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room; 3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk is left for my use only. B. You will renounce all personal relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for social reasons… There’s more, including "you will stop talking to me if I request it." She accepted the conditions. He later wrote to her again to make sure she grasped that this was going to be all-business in the future, and that the "personal aspects must be reduced to a tiny remnant." And he vowed, "In return, I assure you of proper comportment on my part, such as I would exercise to any woman as a stranger." Now, I'm not a woman but I don't think you have to be one to recognize the arrogance and ego that this man displayed not just to a woman but to another human being. Who was this man? None other than Albert Einstein.   Needless to say, that leaves us with quite a bristly balancing act between the person and what that person has come to be known for and respected and admired for it. Whether Osho, Einstein , or even yourself, the contradictions of this life are like the sharp pebbles we feel underfoot as we cool our weary feet in a sparkling stream. Desert (note: I have to attend to the affairs of the day. When I return I will  answer Justin's reply.)

 Yet more "selective" reasoning i would say.   Did Albert Einstein claim to be fully enLightened?  Making scientific discoveries, theories, and the lot is not directly related to one's treatment of others as ones supposed spiritual development, and whether or not they should rightly call themselves "enLightened".  

  You are comparing, or rather treating apples and oranges as the same, to make a point.  

 When a person claims themselves as enLightened, then their behaviors and treatment of others, becomes paramount as a consideration of that claim.  

Perhaps someone claims them self as enLightened, when they aren't, in the hopes that they will have more people listen to and support them, and as in Osho's example of fleecing others of both money and sexual favors?

 Yah, truly a wise and spiritually enLlightened teacher whom we should really listen closely too because their words must be full of pungent and pure truths.  


  There are 7 fields of growing Wheat.    Most of the fields contain both spoiled and unspoiled kernels of Wheat.    In those, you can get enough of the good and healthy kernels out without too much work of separating from the spoiled and unhealthy from the healthy.  

   But in two other fields, we find more unusual and extreme conditions.   In one of the two, we find that most of the Wheat kernels have wilted, molded, or otherwise spoiled, and though there only be some few kernels here and there worth picking, it would take too much time and effort to do same for a slower gain.  

 In the other field, we find a perfect harvest, every kernel of Wheat is golden, ripe with flavor and vitality, and health producing.

  Occasionally we need to go through the former fields, to eventually learn and know truly what is the healthy kernel from an spoiled one, i mean after all, if we get ergot poisoning enough we learn to avoid the ones with mold..

 But eventually, we become wise and learn to seek out those fields wherein we find only or mostly only the healthy kernels.   We realize that too concentrate on the others, while we can gain from same, it requires more work and effort than is necessary, and its a smart person who spends their energy and time pragmatically.      

 

:) :) :) :) :) follow  :) :) :) :) whoever :) :) :) :) you want :) :) :) :) the key is :) :) :) you be happy :) :) :) :)no matter how you get :) :) misled.  :) :) :) So what if we have to incarnate thousands of times :) :) :) often in very difficult lifetimes :) :) :)as long as the smiley faces keep coming :) :) :)and people believe we are hip :) :) :)along the way. :) :) who needs a true shining example :) :) :)such as Jesus Christ :) :) :)when we feel really hip :) :) :)when we allow ourselves to be conned :) :)taken advantage of :) :) :)misled :) :)as we smile the whole time. :) :) :)

Blink, I didn't yell once.

Or let me put it this way, without the smiley faces. If I or any former cult member was given the opportunity to go back in time and speak to our former cult member self, our former cult member self wouldn't be able to convince us to believe in the guru we used to believe in.  With a similar type of rational applied, people who haven't gotten around to seeing what the Oshos of the World are really about, aren't going to be able to con me back into a cloudy state of mind, that makes excuses for gurus such as Osho.

wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 2:38pm:

Always respecting you, Justin, however I do see another long term poster accusing a new poster of "promoting" a "guru" at the first opportunity he is given. I also perceive the capitalized letters as shouting to a new poster. You may not believe me but this is exactly how war begins. However, I withdraw from this arena. I find it rather sad, and also futile. None of us are immune to folly, Justin. However, I am now immune to what you and Recoverer are trying to vaccinate against. Physician, heal thyself. love, blink :)

 Nothing i said to Desert was personal.  When i wrote my reply to him, there was not one iota of negative, emotionally oriented, feelings towards either him OR to Osho.  

 I have the ability to impersonally disagree with something, without feeling negatively towards that person, their views, or teaching.  

 I would like to believe that i am in the process of healing mine self.  Perhaps part of that process is not being fearful, and worried what others will think of me, when i state things which could be as just criticism and causing trouble?  To go against the social mores of a particular group.  To take social heat at times for principles and understandings which i believe are important?   Perhaps i am here partially to learn how not to care about what others think of me in a social sense?

 That's what my astro. chart repeats over and over.   Libra Moon CON Saturn, South Node in 7th for example.

    Anyways, have you fully healed yourself?   If not, we still find that you are speaking against something you don't agree with, correct?

 How is any different than what i am doing?  I would not tell you to stop speaking against things you don't agree with.   I'm glad you can,  that you did, though i may not agree with your points of view.

 The only difference between what we are both doing is that i'm doing that without speaking against that very behavior to begin with, but you are speaking out against that and yet doing it at the same time.  

 To really and fully heal oneself, one has to be brutally honest with oneself at all times.   To me, its fine when someone disagrees with someone else when they do it respectfully.   However, when someone disagrees with someone about something and indicates or insinuate that we shouldn't disagree with others, to not criticize, and then turns around and does that, well to me that speaks of hypocrisy.  

  I've seen some folks here publicly say some critical stuff about a source that i highly respect and agree with.    No biggy to me, i didn't engage them because one i respect their right to disagree, two i'm not personally offended that they don't believe the same as i, and 3. i'm secure in the knowing that this source was more helpful and accurate then not though that is contrary to what a forum member has said publicly.  

:o Bloody hell!

C'mon guys. Step back a moment and take a look at the sort of fire this topic has drawn. It's great that positive and negative views on teachers get aired because they can be of great assistance to others, but for sure there's not much equanimity around on the topic.

Why are we arguing about this? It suggests there's a lot of projection and investment in beliefs, whatever they are.

To repeat. We're on a hiding to nothing if we demand uniform group acceptance of the validity or otherwise of a given teacher. It's flat out not practically possible, nor for real.

What matters is personal view, path and process - we have no choice but to take responsibility for ourselves. The broad information on Osho is already on the table and has been for a long time - he appeals to some, in my opinion has some good things to say, but has a certain hint of danger about him that suggests that discretion and care is required too.

To push beyond this in either direction is to attempt to force your view on somebody else, which has got to be wrong.

The perspective we all have to remember here is that everything in this reality reflects an aspect of universal Mind. None of it matters in the end. But any attempt to force what from  our selfish and personalised viewpoint as 'good' on existence, while trying to exclude what we consider from some mind made philosophical position 'bad' is doomed to failure, doomed to create more suffering. (which in the end doesn't matter either - but why do it as it seems pretty real from this viewpoint?)

God accommodates the bad the same as the good, and allows both to mix in the measure we each need to learn. There's no 'one size fits all' solution.

The problem is that when we get fired up and enmeshed in the intellect and try to force a solution in this way we lose touch with flow, and with natural wisdom or 'seeing' of the heart. Which is why so many genuinely well intended but intellectually originated acts actually do more harm than good - the persons pushing them get hung up on just one angle and cannot see the implications of what they propose.

To repeat. The challenge in this is not to win or lose some argument on teachers. The challenge is whether or not we can open enough to become easy with the groundlessness of the reality that there is no absolute right or wrong in this. That's not to say that there isn't an optimum course of action on the topic for each and every one of us, but that's a different matter...

Quote:

I was simply asking if you personally thoughts he was enLightened or not.   I wasn't going to debate the answer, but since you evaded the question so well, well i feel perhaps its an important thing to talk about.

            NO  NO  NO .............................................
alan    

Vajra:

If somebody decides to use somebody such as Osho as a validation of the over and over viewpoint of reincarnation, somebody is liable to object.

In a way it is good that his thoughts were brought up, because it provides an example of the source of such information.  

Just in case it isn't clear, my answer is NO NO NO too. :)

Justin? Rondelle? Can we put you down for some NO NO NOs?



Alan McDougall wrote on Feb 8^th, 2008 at 4:08pm:

Quote:  I was simply asking if you personally thoughts he was enLightened or not.   I wasn't going to debate the answer, but since you evaded the question so well, well i feel perhaps its an important thing to talk about.                 NO  NO  NO ............................................. alan

Is he "enlightened" or is he not?

And what, pray tell, is meant by "enlightened", and how does that differ from "fully enlightened"?

My definition differs from yours, and ours differ from theirs.

If a man walks up to you an the street and hands you a book with instructions for saving ourselves, a set of universally acclaimed to be good, tested, validated and agreed upon principles, it would be useful to look at the book and see if it could be applied to our own lives. Yes? (There are a large number of such books around, including one by Moses that only took ten lines. Patanjali wrote one that took eight lines. Others exist as well. I happen to like the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Mary - but maybe I'm kinda strange.)

Now let's say that we notice that in the other hand we find that this guy is carrying a freshly severed human head, still dripping gore. And, amazingly, we discover that in his rucksack we discover forty dozen sex toys and assorted dildonics, plus last year's output of pornographic magazines. Does this mean that what he hands us is worthless?

Add to that a yellow rubber raincoat that he occasionally opens, flashing us with gratuitous glimpses of his nether regions in a state of turgidity. (Who says size doesn't matter?) Does that mean that he is incapable of carrying anything of value?

And finally, we discover that this guy has a lot of disciples, a stable of Rolls and Bentley cars, and a daily schedule of prayer, meditation, Tantric practices that verge on cannibalism (use your imagination) and yet everyone seems elated with the notion that there is nothing more important than God, and hopefully this will be a path to lead them to God. Does this mean anything?

Not all paths lead through the narrow gate of Puritanism. While it is absolutely necessary that there be a staunch Calvinist to add up the beans in the collection plate, and to watch anxiously to guard against the possible fact that somewhere, somehow, someone might be having fun - it is also necessary that prostitutes, junkies, crazies and idiots also should have salvation brought to them in whatever form they can understand. Most of us would have little trouble with the Chapel of Our Lady of Sorrows, but there are many who wouldn't dare to approach the Temple of Our Lady of the Evening. And this is true even if the same salvation were equally dispensed in either place.

Are we such snobs that we deny God, even if the present manifestation happens to be in nocturnal activities of the bedroom? Or are we so much wiser than God that we can dictate the Proper Method of being holy?

I suggest that this thread illustrates several things, of which one is that nobody knows what enlightenment is - not even in terms of the discussion. A simple working definition would settle a lot of talk.

I suggest that we tend to follow the Doctrine of the Eye more than the Doctrine of the Heart because it is easier. That way we can dump on others for being inferior to Us. Yet every last one of us was born between urine and feces. From such an ignoble beginning, whence arises this arrogance? Is it not a matter of trying to build ourselves up, in worldly terms, as opposed to changing in other-worldly terms? And, given that, why do we argue that those who are sent to save the wretched in their own medium of wretchedness are any less than those who are sent to save the neat, clean, tidy and well dressed business world, those who are "doing the right thing, so conservatively"?

So here's a daring and dangerous thought - Perhaps it just might be true that social conventions are ultmately meaningless. That salvation can be spread through whoreing and promscuity just as through giving alms and titheing, both instances requiring the proper attitude, as opposed to the proper social medium of expression of plattitudes. I hapen to agree fully with Rajneesh or Osho or whatever handle this spirit uses in his life. I just don't have to use his methods these days, but 50 years ago they suited me just fine.

dave

Dave:

You seem to be suggesting that none of is worthy or intelligent enough to discern the fakes from the real deals. This a stance people take when they don't get around to doing so, but instead allow themselves to be taken in my immoral fakes year after year after year.

A person is able to reach a point where it is clear that anybody who is truly a spiritual master, won't have a life history as tarnished as Osho's.

A person is able to reach the point where it is clear that some of the things gurus teach just aren't true.

A person is able to reach a point where he or she knows that if a person really understood, there are some things this person would say that fake gurus never get around to saying.

A person is able to reach a point where it is clear that a guru is basically parroting what other false gurus have said in his own supposed unique way, rather than stating what he or she has learned through experience.

A person is able to reach the point where it is clear that a guru has chosen a means of delivering his message that a person who really knew wouldn't choose.

Don't you see that when you set things up as you do, you make it so that even gurus who are false and really harmful to people, can't even be questioned? This is dangerous. You allow that which doesn't serve the light to flourish. What's more important? To seem hip, or to do that which truly serves the light?

When in the opening thread I posted Osho's thoughts on reincarnation it was simply to show a different perspective on the subject; nothing more, nothing less. There was no intent or agenda to promote Osho, he was simply another human being with a particular perspective on the many variations of life especially as they applied to mind, spirit, and mystical aspects and the society that engages them. If Osho had been an obscure guru who never made it out of India chances are that I probably wouldn't have used him as a reference. But he did make it out of India and he did present his perception that eventually reached millions of people around the world. That fact alone qualifies him for study and examination.

Osho certainly challenged prevailing conceptions of what a guru should be and how he should conduct himself. But in some circles that challenge was seen as a threat and therein we see how Osho's story unfolded for the public via a media and government that we have come to learn are not the most accurate conveyors of the facts.

I quote the following from the meta-religion.com website:

Most of the media labeled him as dangerous. The governments of various countries joined hands not to allow him to stay in their countries, although as a person Rajneesh had no criminal convictions in those countries. It is the case of countries like Greece, Switzerland, Sweden, England, Ireland, Canada, Antigua, Bermuda, Holland, Germany, Italy, Uruguay, Jamaica, Spain, Portugal, etc. In his speeches Bhagwan has advocated drastic solutions to the problems of humanity, through nonviolent means and a creation of new power basis and new order.

Here we are at the core of the issue to say that Rajneesh was not allowed in those countries because of his ideas to challenging the social coherence of the country. Rajneesh's ideas were 'too much' for the establishment to find a better solution than trying to keep him at a distance. There was a wide spread belief that Rajneesh's philosophy was too anarchistic, although he did not intend to bring disorder but a new kind of order. (Appleton, 1987)

What I see there and what I sense by some of the comments in this forum is some type of fear even in just the mention of his person, let alone what he had to say. It almost takes on a tabloid approach to the subject such as has been increasingly seen in the media. It's no longer about the ideas, talents, intelligence or innovations of a person, it's about what drugs they did or are doing and who they're f--king.

If it had been the case that Osho's initial exposure to the public had been one of a criminal character and then he began espousing all his ideas, then it would have been similar to a serial killer who in jail says he has had a revelation and now is on the path of right thought and perhaps would even throw Jesus in as a reference. Regardless of his rebirth or even JC being his new best buddy the fact remains that he killed many people. Personally, I’m the type that would also be interested in what his new perceptions were but the first impression would be a tough one to dispel.  

Osho was not a criminal, yet some of the people on this forum treat him as if he had been one. If Osho had really been a criminal then the government would have locked him away forever. The activities of the government against Osho reached their peak with the salmonella poisoning incident in the Oregon county where Osho had the commune and with some of Osho's people accused of trying to murder an attorney. Consider that the media regarded the former as as a bioterror attack, probably the first one of its type in the U.S.

What was the outcome of both of these situations? Well, certainly nothing like an indefinite, expenses paid vacation at Guantanamo. There were some minor fines and Osho returned to India. The outcome of the case re the attorney shows that the principals involved were either put on probation and served at the most 2 to 5 years in jail and the latter usually reduced for good conduct. What these outcomes show is that there was a lot more to these incidents than what came to public view.

In short, what the majority of the public ended up with in regard to Osho is what particular elements in government and the media wanted the public to end up with. That, of course, is nothing new and as we look at something like 9/11 and all that has resulted from it, many have come to the conclusion that deception, lies and criminal activities are not confined to a few stereotypes here and there. Those activities can be operating anywhere.

I have not mentioned any of the above to promote Osho, what I do promote is an an awareness beyond the standards that are suspiciously promoted as awareness. What Osho promoted and did pales considerably when compared to what others have done in the guise of spiritual and democratic ideals. You think Osho is a fake? Well, if we're going to talk fakes then we'll find upon sober examination that we've been subjected to fakes of all types long before Osho and that we are still being subjected to them. It can even be said that some of the fakes have been established as institutions and that some of them have no trouble in enforcing their falseness.

Whether it be Osho, Billy Graham, The Seth channeling of Jane Roberts, Robert Monroe, Bruce Moen or anyone, anywhere, that has a view on what life is about or the potentials of what life can be, then where I go to immediately is what is being said. It is there where I will find the center of the story, it is there where I will either find some resonance or where I am repelled by the content. If someone came to me and said that Billy Graham was a spiritual con man or that Bruce Moen was in it only for the bucks, and I had not had any exposure to either, then I would go and read what that person has to say; I don't take what sheep say about the horse as gospel - I go to the horse directly.

Anyone who has taken the time to read even some quotes of Osho will recognize that there is a lot more there than fakery.  When he was once asked to summarize his teachings, Osho replied:

"My message is not a doctrine, not a philosophy. My message is a certain alchemy, a science of transformation, so only those who are willing to die as they are and be born again into something so new that they cannot even imagine it right now ... only those few courageous people will be ready to listen, because listening is going to be risky."

'To be born again into something so new that they cannot even imagine it right now'. That sure sounds like something for an afterlife forum, doesn't it? Well, apparently for some people such thoughts do not fit into their comfortable feelings about an afterlife; apparently, they've personally politicized something that should not be politicized, that cannot be politicized due to its monumental and transcendent characteristics.

When we are dealing with the concept of an afterlife we are dealing not with some pat and uniform stroll from here to there regardless of how desperate we may want that to be the case. We are dealing with a complete overhaul of our state of being. We'd like to think that in the afterlife we'll be reunited with so and so and that all our problems will be a thing of the past, life's a holiday on Primrose Lane; sure sounds sweet and even I would certainly enjoy some of that. But for all we know an afterlife could mean a transition into realms where locating so and so and problems are not even up for consideration, much less for resolution. Even the most critical aspect of self-awareness, of your identity, may end being no more significant than dust particles in a tornado. In other words, my friends, the universe in all its vast glory and power will do whatever it damn well pleases with regard to our little, self-important butts.

Osho was no more and no less another human being like ourselves who ventures into his or her mind and spirit to see what is what. He was no different in that respect than I or anyone else on this forum. If for some reason you don't think he is as virtuous as is needed for acceptance then ask of yourself how virtuous you are or have been in your own life. Have any of you come up with a body of work like Osho or for that matter like any other controversial teachers? Will any of you have the following be said about you once you passed from this life?:

"The legacy of his ideas will not be easy to disappear. Here we have a case in which a charismatic leader having an original philosophy dared to challenge what few of religious leaders have done. We wonder if we were able as humanity to understand fully his message, both from inside and outside the movement. Certainly, as history has shown so far, the radical ideas are those which produce a quantum leap for humanity. Jesus was also in the situation to be persecuted for his radical ideas in Judaism."

Well, like they say, anything is possible and maybe somewhere down the line your person and your ideas will be referred to in like terms. But I'm not holding my breath. What I've seen here from some in this particular thread is a type of closed-mindedness passing itself off as righteous appraisal. In a way I'm a little disappointed, not because of whether Osho is a viable subject for discussion or not, in the end he's really not the issue. The real issue is openness to ideas no matter where they're coming from. Examining an idea does not mean that you accept completely the person who puts the idea forth. One can examine the ideas of someone from the most saintly to the ruthlessly criminal and find knowledge that even in the least summation let's us know how the particular individual came to be, what led him or her to regard their life such as it is or was. That's the reasons why I used the example of Albert Einstein in a previous post. That I wonder at his theories and views on life does not mean that I would agree with the attitude he took with his wife.

When we regard ideas from others we are regarding ideas from those in our "family", the family of human beings. Sometimes some in the family end up in not so nice circumstances. Sometimes we can't make heads or tails as to what the situation is.

Allow me to give you an example of this:

When you mention the name of Charles Manson to anyone, it is doubtful that you'll receive no reaction unless the listener is either too young to know or has been living a life in some remote destination in the world. Even here on this thread if it was a toss-up between Manson and Osho then probably Osho would come up smelling like flowers. But anyone who has taken the time to study Manson's life as a child and young boy knows that much of what happened to him was decidedly not the best for a young innocent. Abuse, going from foster home to foster home, frequent juvenile detention, all of them eventually contributed to who Manson became.

Years ago, I lived in the Los Angeles area. I was a teenager at the time and like most others I would get together with friends and drive around town and even out of town for fun in the mountains, desert or seashore. On one of those occasions we went up to a large park area in the north of Los Angeles. We'd all hike around and generally act like teenagers. At one point I went off hiking by myself and came upon a house on the trail I was on. As I passed this place outside of the fence surrounding it I noticed someone on the porch squatting and looking off in another direction; he became aware of my presence and looked over in my direction. In my friendly manner I stopped for a moment and raised my hand in greeting. He nodded silently and gave me a smile. Both of us just stood there and looked at each other with no verbal exchange for what had to be a half-minute. What immediately came to me in this quick exchange was the energy that was coming from the individual, it wasn't so much that you could see the aura of this person as you could feel it. As I walked away and for a little time afterward I wondered about that person and the strange "vibes" that emanated from him. By the next day he was no longer a consideration in my mind.

It was only years later that I realized that the individual sitting on that porch was Charles Manson. I made the connection from the pictures I had seen and one of them showing the same hat that he was wearing the day I saw him. And the place where I was hiking in? The Spahn Ranch.

On that day long ago when Manson and I looked and smiled at each other I walked away thinking there was something strange about him but never did I equate it with the strangeness that would cause the murders of those people in Hollywood. To me he was simply another character in the cast of many characters in Los Angeles at that time with his own type of charisma. As I think about this and consider afterlife aspects it is inevitable that among the many people I've encountered that Manson also be considered. His life is a sense an afterlife of a previous life and so one wonders the whys and wherefores of the circumstances between them. Is it karmic that Manson ended up where he did? Or is it as Osho said something forced upon a being, someone who really had nothing in a previous incarnation to warrant such an inheritance? I really don't know. What I saw that day was a young man on a porch with a friendly smile and some different energy radiating from him. Nothing more, nothing less.

I tell this story because on reflection it, among many other experiences that I've had, shows me just how strange life can be. Maybe Alysia or Nanner would say that it was mean to be that I met up with Manson on that day, that there was lesson and knowledge however brief to be learned from the encounter. I can't say that there was a lesson or whether it was just chance coincidence.

In summation, whether it's Osho, Manson or anyone else, there is a part of the story that we simply cannot see or understand. Due to our temporal status we can make all manner of judgments about whomever, but in the big picture of lives and afterlives there is simply information that we cannot grasp due to our position in the scheme of things.

The only thing that we can really do is listen and learn, and like Osho said in the previous quote, the listening will be risky. Challenges are life-long propositions, every day we are challenged in one way or another. Sometimes the challenge is easy arithmetic and sometimes it's complicated algebra. But whatever type of challenge it may be, we simply don't have enough existence time to judge things to their utmost extent. What happens when we do that is that we are really judging our particular level of understanding. And in the context of the universe and possible dimensions of existence that are out there, our level is particular and fleeting indeed.

______________

I had thought about answering Justin and some of the other replies but I figure the above will do in a general sense. As one poster mentioned the low energy that this thread came to generate I see it simply as a case where the opinions exposed become more personal and what presents itself as a view is nothing more than reiteration of reactions to the peripherals of material than the material itself.

This is my last post in these forums. My reason for doing so is not because of differing opinions, different views are what a forum is about. But to my figuring I think that if someone like Osho ends up being reviled for who he was rather than considered for his knowledge, then it’s only a matter of time before someone else is mentioned and the boards are knee-jerking left and right. To me it’s all about knowledge and what it contains whether good, bad or indifferent. Hitler was at one time an artist, a painter. I know what Hitler is about but regardless I want to see those paintings, examine them, make some aesthetic assessments about them. Who knows, maybe even learn something different about an individual who has come to be considered a scourge on the world. Anything less would be parochial.

Personally, I don’t fancy having to go through the drama of attitudes in order to get to the core of an issue. I brought up Osho’s ideas on the afterlife and next thing you know I’m getting a version of Fox News as to what a bad, bad man he was. There are a lot of people out there right now with a lot more bad on their minds than Osho would have ever contemplated. Osho’s gone, those other people are still around; you do the math.

I know there are some who have enjoyed my presence in this forum and to them I humbly bow in appreciation of their sentiments. As some have said that I was meant to visit here so it is that I am meant to depart. Life and the afterlife are very big places and you simply can’t hang around one place trying to learn just how big it is.

For those that wish to pm me, please feel free to do so. I’m sure that by the energy and graciousness I felt from you that we’ll discuss much in some other places and times. To all the others, no hard feelings and all in all I don't judge you to be either this way or that; there are just some things I've become comfortably indifferent to and resolve likewise. Or to be more accurate, I've become very selective about the memes I engage with. :)

I'll let Bob have the final word:


"Crimson flames tied through my ears
Rollin high and mighty traps
Pounced with fire on flaming roads
Using ideas as my maps
Well meet on edges, soon, said I
Proud 'neath heated brow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now. ...

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats
Too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking
I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms
Quite clear, no doubt, somehow.
Ah, but I was so much older then,
I'm younger than that now."

Cordially

Desert

<<In summation, whether it's Osho, Manson or anyone else, there is a part of the story that we simply cannot see or understand. Due to our temporal status we can make all manner of judgments about whomever, but in the big picture of lives and afterlives there is simply information that we cannot grasp due to our position in the scheme of things.  >>

Desert-

Just in case you haven't left yet, let me ask you a question.

Since you bring up Manson, and the thread is about reincarnation, suppose that both Manson and Sharon Tate had an agreement prior to incarnating, and that agreement called for her murder by him.

Now, I'm not in any way agreeing with such a concept but nonetheless it's fairly common among those who accept reincarnation, as I'm sure you know.

Anyhow, suppose that was the case.

How then are we to judge Manson?

R

My response Justin would be to say: 'what or who is this ideal teacher?'. The one you are in a sense holding out for. Can we afford or are we in fact permitted to wait for him/her? And how if we meet him are we to recognise him? And how can his message possibly be pitched in a manner (even if it's 'true') that's simultaneously at the right level for everyone?

Realisation is no guarantee that a teacher can help you, only that he/she is seeing what's in front of him/her without the distortion of ego led delusion. Realisation is not some magic 'kazam' moment where the individual suddenly develops miraculous powers, it seems actually to be a very highly extended continuum that starts with the partial realisation demonstrated by quite ordinary people - possibly even some here. We all have our moments of true seeing.

Realisation is consequently claimable by all sorts of people at widely differing stages on the path without any requirement that they demonstrate infallibility.

Depending on the capabilities and life experience of such a person they may or may not have had time to fully integrate the new insight or have great teaching skills. Given time that's probably where they are headed as at least their experience and analysis will be true, but it's not a given.

It's only at very rare intervals in history that a Buddha or a Jesus capable of delivering a very widely applicable message is born. And even such people it seems while precocious still have to shed a certain amount of karmic crap to attain realisation.  And even then we are dependent on highly filtered texts and a most definitely not realised institutional culture for transmission of whatever view they espoused.

This is before we talk of the ability of the individual student to connect with and actualise teachings. There's so many issues of aptitude, intellect, stage of their view and so on that what they may take from them is highly unpredictable. Most could not accept Jesus' teaching at the time - he led a small group. Most ordinary minded persons entirely miss the meaning of even slightly higher teaching - it simply doesn't compute for them - never mind the highest possible.

The result of this is that it's not possible nor ever will be to create some one size fits all idealised universal learning environment informed by the input of only fully realised teachers. I'd be very cautious about any attempt to seek for that as it's unlikely to be very helpful.

My personal view is that at this level it's entirely relative and circumstantial. We each inhabit a bubble in what feels like a generalised reality but which is actually unique to ourself - with common factors limited only to those aspects we choose at some higher but unconscious level to make concensual.

At a given moment every single one of us has a specific lesson they need to learn. The magic of existence is that somehow the cosmos conspires to deliver precisely what we need at the time, no matter what shennanigans we go on with.

We don't have to grasp after a perfect teacher.

After that we're back to what I've been trying to post. Everybody can teach us, some are more helpful than others and some very helpful indeed by virtue of the higher and view altering truths they transmit. Our ability to learn from others is likewise peculiar to our personal circumstances in the broadest possible sense. And vice versa by the way in terms of harm and being led astray.

An ant stepped on by a realised teacher is not going to benefit from this. On the other hand as I've said before a starving man can benefit greatly from his worst enemy if he feeds him after taking him prisoner.

Our task is to navigate through this morass drawing on natural goodness/grace/wisdom to help us find our way - to recognise the lessons life presents to us, and to draw the right conclusions from these.

There's ultimately no guru but ourselves, but equally everybody and everything is our guru.....

Desert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2008 at 3:36pm:

When in the opening thread I posted Osho's thoughts on reincarnation it was simply to show a different perspective on the subject; nothing more, nothing less. There was no intent or agenda to promote Osho, he was simply another human being with a particular perspective on the many variations of life especially as they applied to mind, spirit, and mystical aspects and the society that engages them. If Osho had been an obscure guru who never made it out of India chances are that I probably wouldn't have used him as a reference. But he did make it out of India and he did present his perception that eventually reached millions of people around the world. That fact alone qualifies him for study and examination. Osho certainly challenged prevailing conceptions of what a guru should be and how he should conduct himself. But in some circles that challenge was seen as a threat and therein we see how Osho's story unfolded for the public via a media and government that we have come to learn are not the most accurate conveyors of the facts. I quote the following from the meta-religion.com website: Most of the media labeled him as dangerous. The governments of various countries joined hands not to allow him to stay in their countries, although as a person Rajneesh had no criminal convictions in those countries. It is the case of countries like Greece, Switzerland, Sweden, England, Ireland, Canada, Antigua, Bermuda, Holland, Germany, Italy, Uruguay, Jamaica, Spain, Portugal, etc. In his speeches Bhagwan has advocated drastic solutions to the problems of humanity, through nonviolent means and a creation of new power basis and new order. Here we are at the core of the issue to say that Rajneesh was not allowed in those countries because of his ideas to challenging the social coherence of the country. Rajneesh's ideas were 'too much' for the establishment to find a better solution than trying to keep him at a distance. There was a wide spread belief that Rajneesh's philosophy was too anarchistic, although he did not intend to bring disorder but a new kind of order. (Appleton, 1987) What I see there and what I sense by some of the comments in this forum is some type of fear even in just the mention of his person, let alone what he had to say. It almost takes on a tabloid approach to the subject such as has been increasingly seen in the media. It's no longer about the ideas, talents, intelligence or innovations of a person, it's about what drugs they did or are doing and who they're f--king. If it had been the case that Osho's initial exposure to the public had been one of a criminal character and then he began espousing all his ideas, then it would have been similar to a serial killer who in jail says he has had a revelation and now is on the path of right thought and perhaps would even throw Jesus in as a reference. Regardless of his rebirth or even JC being his new best buddy the fact remains that he killed many people. Personally, I’m the type that would also be interested in what his new perceptions were but the first impression would be a tough one to dispel.   Osho was not a criminal, yet some of the people on this forum treat him as if he had been one. If Osho had really been a criminal then the government would have locked him away forever. The activities of the government against Osho reached their peak with the salmonella poisoning incident in the Oregon county where Osho had the commune and with some of Osho's people accused of trying to murder an attorney. Consider that the media regarded the former as as a bioterror attack, probably the first one of its type in the U.S. What was the outcome of both of these situations? Well, certainly nothing like an indefinite, expenses paid vacation at Guantanamo. There were some minor fines and Osho returned to India. The outcome of the case re the attorney shows that the principals involved were either put on probation and served at the most 2 to 5 years in jail and the latter usually reduced for good conduct. What these outcomes show is that there was a lot more to these incidents than what came to public view. In short, what the majority of the public ended up with in regard to Osho is what particular elements in government and the media wanted the public to end up with. That, of course, is nothing new and as we look at something like 9/11 and all that has resulted from it, many have come to the conclusion that deception, lies and criminal activities are not confined to a few stereotypes here and there. Those activities can be operating anywhere. I have not mentioned any of the above to promote Osho, what I do promote is an an awareness beyond the standards that are suspiciously promoted as awareness. What Osho promoted and did pales considerably when compared to what others have done in the guise of spiritual and democratic ideals. You think Osho is a fake? Well, if we're going to talk fakes then we'll find upon sober examination that we've been subjected to fakes of all types long before Osho and that we are still being subjected to them. It can even be said that some of the fakes have been established as institutions and that some of them have no trouble in enforcing their falseness. Whether it be Osho, Billy Graham, The Seth channeling of Jane Roberts, Robert Monroe, Bruce Moen or anyone, anywhere, that has a view on what life is about or the potentials of what life can be, then where I go to immediately is what is being said. It is there where I will find the center of the story, it is there where I will either find some resonance or where I am repelled by the content. If someone came to me and said that Billy Graham was a spiritual con man or that Bruce Moen was in it only for the bucks, and I had not had any exposure to either, then I would go and read what that person has to say; I don't take what sheep say about the horse as gospel - I go to the horse directly. Anyone who has taken the time to read even some quotes of Osho will recognize that there is a lot more there than fakery.  When he was once asked to summarize his teachings, Osho replied: "My message is not a doctrine, not a philosophy. My message is a certain alchemy, a science of transformation, so only those who are willing to die as they are and be born again into something so new that they cannot even imagine it right now ... only those few courageous people will be ready to listen, because listening is going to be risky." 'To be born again into something so new that they cannot even imagine it right now'. That sure sounds like something for an afterlife forum, doesn't it? Well, apparently for some people such thoughts do not fit into their comfortable feelings about an afterlife; apparently, they've personally politicized something that should not be politicized, that cannot be politicized due to its monumental and transcendent characteristics. When we are dealing with the concept of an afterlife we are dealing not with some pat and uniform stroll from here to there regardless of how desperate we may want that to be the case. We are dealing with a complete overhaul of our state of being. We'd like to think that in the afterlife we'll be reunited with so and so and that all our problems will be a thing of the past, life's a holiday on Primrose Lane; sure sounds sweet and even I would certainly enjoy some of that. But for all we know an afterlife could mean a transition into realms where locating so and so and problems are not even up for consideration, much less for resolution. Even the most critical aspect of self-awareness, of your identity, may end being no more significant than dust particles in a tornado. In other words, my friends, the universe in all its vast glory and power will do whatever it damn well pleases with regard to our little, self-important butts. Osho was no more and no less another human being like ourselves who ventures into his or her mind and spirit to see what is what. He was no different in that respect than I or anyone else on this forum. If for some reason you don't think he is as virtuous as is needed for acceptance then ask of yourself how virtuous you are or have been in your own life. Have any of you come up with a body of work like Osho or for that matter like any other controversial teachers? Will any of you have the following be said about you once you passed from this life?: "The legacy of his ideas will not be easy to disappear. Here we have a case in which a charismatic leader having an original philosophy dared to challenge what few of religious leaders have done. We wonder if we were able as humanity to understand fully his message, both from inside and outside the movement. Certainly, as history has shown so far, the radical ideas are those which produce a quantum leap for humanity. Jesus was also in the situation to be persecuted for his radical ideas in Judaism." Well, like they say, anything is possible and maybe somewhere down the line your person and your ideas will be referred to in like terms. But I'm not holding my breath. What I've seen here from some in this particular thread is a type of closed-mindedness passing itself off as righteous appraisal. In a way I'm a little disappointed, not because of whether Osho is a viable subject for discussion or not, in the end he's really not the issue. The real issue is openness to ideas no matter where they're coming from. Examining an idea does not mean that you accept completely the person who puts the idea forth. One can examine the ideas of someone from the most saintly to the ruthlessly criminal and find knowledge that even in the least summation let's us know how the particular individual came to be, what led him or her to regard their life such as it is or was. That's the reasons why I used the example of Albert Einstein in a previous post. That I wonder at his theories and views on life does not mean that I would agree with the attitude he took with his wife. When we regard ideas from others we are regarding ideas from those in our "family", the family of human beings. Sometimes some in the family end up in not so nice circumstances. Sometimes we can't make heads or tails as to what the situation is. Allow me to give you an example of this: When you mention the name of Charles Manson to anyone, it is doubtful that you'll receive no reaction unless the listener is either too young to know or has been living a life in some remote destination in the world. Even here on this thread if it was a toss-up between Manson and Osho then probably Osho would come up smelling like flowers. But anyone who has taken the time to study Manson's life as a child and young boy knows that much of what happened to him was decidedly not the best for a young innocent. Abuse, going from foster home to foster home, frequent juvenile detention, all of them eventually contributed to who Manson became. Years ago, I lived in the Los Angeles area. I was a teenager at the time and like most others I would get together with friends and drive around town and even out of town for fun in the mountains, desert or seashore. On one of those occasions we went up to a large park area in the north of Los Angeles. We'd all hike around and generally act like teenagers. At one point I went off hiking by myself and came upon a house on the trail I was on. As I passed this place outside of the fence surrounding it I noticed someone on the porch squatting and looking off in another direction; he became aware of my presence and looked over in my direction. In my friendly manner I stopped for a moment and raised my hand in greeting. He nodded silently and gave me a smile. Both of us just stood there and looked at each other with no verbal exchange for what had to be a half-minute. What immediately came to me in this quick exchange was the energy that was coming from the individual, it wasn't so much that you could see the aura of this person as you could feel it. As I walked away and for a little time afterward I wondered about that person and the strange "vibes" that emanated from him. By the next day he was no longer a consideration in my mind. It was only years later that I realized that the individual sitting on that porch was Charles Manson. I made the connection from the pictures I had seen and one of them showing the same hat that he was wearing the day I saw him. And the place where I was hiking in? The Spahn Ranch. On that day long ago when Manson and I looked and smiled at each other I walked away thinking there was something strange about him but never did I equate it with the strangeness that would cause the murders of those people in Hollywood. To me he was simply another character in the cast of many characters in Los Angeles at that time with his own type of charisma. As I think about this and consider afterlife aspects it is inevitable that among the many people I've encountered that Manson also be considered. His life is a sense an afterlife of a previous life and so one wonders the whys and wherefores of the circumstances between them. Is it karmic that Manson ended up where he did? Or is it as Osho said something forced upon a being, someone who really had nothing in a previous incarnation to warrant such an inheritance? I really don't know. What I saw that day was a young man on a porch with a friendly smile and some different energy radiating from him. Nothing more, nothing less. I tell this story because on reflection it, among many other experiences that I've had, shows me just how strange life can be. Maybe Alysia or Nanner would say that it was mean to be that I met up with Manson on that day, that there was lesson and knowledge however brief to be learned from the encounter. I can't say that there was a lesson or whether it was just chance coincidence. In summation, whether it's Osho, Manson or anyone else, there is a part of the story that we simply cannot see or understand. Due to our temporal status we can make all manner of judgments about whomever, but in the big picture of lives and afterlives there is simply information that we cannot grasp due to our position in the scheme of things. The only thing that we can really do is listen and learn, and like Osho said in the previous quote, the listening will be risky. Challenges are life-long propositions, every day we are challenged in one way or another. Sometimes the challenge is easy arithmetic and sometimes it's complicated algebra. But whatever type of challenge it may be, we simply don't have enough existence time to judge things to their utmost extent. What happens when we do that is that we are really judging our particular level of understanding. And in the context of the universe and possible dimensions of existence that are out there, our level is particular and fleeting indeed. ______________ I had thought about answering Justin and some of the other replies but I figure the above will do in a general sense. As one poster mentioned the low energy that this thread came to generate I see it simply as a case where the opinions exposed become more personal and what presents itself as a view is nothing more than reiteration of reactions to the peripherals of material than the material itself. This is my last post in these forums. My reason for doing so is not because of differing opinions, different views are what a forum is about. But to my figuring I think that if someone like Osho ends up being reviled for who he was rather than considered for his knowledge, then it’s only a matter of time before someone else is mentioned and the boards are knee-jerking left and right. To me it’s all about knowledge and what it contains whether good, bad or indifferent. Hitler was at one time an artist, a painter. I know what Hitler is about but regardless I want to see those paintings, examine them, make some aesthetic assessments about them. Who knows, maybe even learn something different about an individual who has come to be considered a scourge on the world. Anything less would be parochial. Personally, I don’t fancy having to go through the drama of attitudes in order to get to the core of an issue. I brought up Osho’s ideas on the afterlife and next thing you know I’m getting a version of Fox News as to what a bad, bad man he was. There are a lot of people out there right now with a lot more bad on their minds than Osho would have ever contemplated. Osho’s gone, those other people are still around; you do the math. I know there are some who have enjoyed my presence in this forum and to them I humbly bow in appreciation of their sentiments. As some have said that I was meant to visit here so it is that I am meant to depart. Life and the afterlife are very big places and you simply can’t hang around one place trying to learn just how big it is. For those that wish to pm me, please feel free to do so. I’m sure that by the energy and graciousness I felt from you that we’ll discuss much in some other places and times. To all the others, no hard feelings and all in all I don't judge you to be either this way or that; there are just some things I've become comfortably indifferent to and resolve likewise. Or to be more accurate, I've become very selective about the memes I engage with. :) I'll let Bob have the final word: "Crimson flames tied through my ears Rollin high and mighty traps Pounced with fire on flaming roads Using ideas as my maps Well meet on edges, soon, said I Proud 'neath heated brow. Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now. ... Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats Too noble to neglect Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect Good and bad, I define these terms Quite clear, no doubt, somehow. Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now." Cordially Desert

  Hi Desert,

 I go much less by a person's words, then by the feelings and intuitions i get when tuning into that person or into their words.   Am i infallible when it comes to "tuning in", not at all, and the degree or depth of accuracy changes from period to period.   When i myself am generally more in tune, then do those senses seem to work more accurately.   Motivation and intent is another big factor.   The most psychic "gaffes" that i've seemed to have had, was when i was coming more from ego than not, and with intents and motivations that weren't particularly constructive.

   But, i've found that in general, i can and should rely on this tuning in ability.  So, when i speak critically about Osho, its not just because i'm brainwashed by the media and the pictures they have subjectively painted, but because when i consciously and unconsciously tune into him, i don't pick up on a pattern of a high degree of balance and unusually fast vibratory levels.  I've also tuned into him from looking up his astrological birth chart, and there are some here who can vouch for my ability to tune in in that regard.   To me and my perceptions, he wasn't even close to "enLightenment", much less so than quite a percentage of people i know of on this site i would say.  

  If my guidance "team" is ever interested in letting me know differently, then i will try to listen and be open, until then i knows what i knows and speak from that.   I don't always hear them very well either, so to speak, and again, that oft depends on how centered or not i am.   A year ago, i went through a very uncentered phase because of a lot of outer and inner challenge all hitting me at pretty much simultaneously and in increasing waves.    Lately,and speaking on average, i feel a lot more centered and intune, and a lot has opened up for me on many levels.  

 As far as reincarnation, and the info you specifically shared, i had thought about addressing that specifically to begin with, but like you, i felt that a more general and unlike you, a much briefer reply should suffice...because the source and the info is very much interdependent.  

 To sum it up, there are many points that Osho brings up regarding reincarnation and broader issues relating to same, that i would say are quite off and some are huge, sweeping generalizations, like his words about Western religions/teachings and that the concept of reincarnation do not exist in these.    For example contrary to what Osho claims, there are, and have been for a long while, Jewish branches of thought, who do believe in reincarnation.  

 To me, its just another case of a Eastern born "guru" who puts the East on a pedestal and tries to degrade the West to make the East look better.   I've seen that time and time again with Eastern gurus and some of their comments.    

 And personally, i don't see what's so complicated or inaccurate about the concept that a source and its relative degree of spiritual attunement (particularly in the consistent and longer term sense), is directly related to their ability to bring through more expanded, holistically balanced, and accurate info concerning spiritual ideas, ideals, and concepts.   Particularly when that person or source is transmitting info when they are consciously "awake", and the personality self is in full swing.  

 

 

wrote on Feb 9^th, 2008 at 8:11pm:

My response Justin would be to say: 'what or who is this ideal teacher?'. The one you are in a sense holding out for. Can we afford or are we in fact permitted to wait for him/her? And how if we meet him are we to recognise him? And how can his message possibly be pitched in a manner (even if it's 'true') that's simultaneously at the right level for everyone?

 Truth is truth, no matter how its worded or what form it comes into.   There are plenty of sources, that when i tune into them, beyond just reading their words directly or what others say about them, i get very positive, expanding, and more loving vibes than not.    Most of these, i would not consider "enLightented".  

 So, i'm not speaking against listening to "unenLigtented" sources.   I quite like Bruce Moen's work, some of Bob Monroe's, Rosalind McKnights, and much of Cayces for example and none of those "channels" do i consider fully and completely enLightened.    But then there is the perfect Teacher, Yeshua who transcends all time and ages in his simply put and more importantly purely LIVED wisdom.  

And that's part of the crux of the issue.  I care less about what a person or teacher actually says, then how they live their life.  It's the example that matters more, is more affecting, than the actual word teachings.  And again, the vibes i get from tuning into them.    

 I've run into plenty of sources who intellectually, their words sounded pretty interesting, sounded wise at points, etc. but because i felt an underlying offness, imbalance, or slower vibratory pattern, i decided to not get any more involved.  

  There is, such a thing as being too open minded, i believe.   Astrologically, its like the sign Gemini.    Extremely flexible and open minded sign pattern (not talking of individuals who have same highlighted), but because their energies are so diffuse, scattered, because it tends to think that everything and nothing has "truth" in it (Gemini is the ultimate, natural agnostic)...well oft it doesn't get anywhere deeper in it's searching.  

 It oft becomes curious george and jack of all trades in many things, but master of none.  


Quote:

Realisation is no guarantee that a teacher can help you, only that he/she is seeing what's in front of him/her without the distortion of ego led delusion. Realisation is not some magic 'kazam' moment where the individual suddenly develops miraculous powers, it seems actually to be a very highly extended continuum that starts with the partial realisation demonstrated by quite ordinary people - possibly even some here. We all have our moments of true seeing.

 Well said, and i mostly agree.  Did i say differently?   Btw, but wouldn't you say that a true "master" teacher would tend to have a higher success rate in reaching and teaching people than say a lower level guide type, or the average Joe who has his or her moments of clarity and very brief but fuller attunement?  

  Isn't there a relativity that needs to be considered?    When there are master teachers there to tune into, then why focus on those whose development is less than, about equal too, or only slightly greater than your own?

Quote:

Realisation is consequently claimable by all sorts of people at widely differing stages on the path without any requirement that they demonstrate infallibility.

 I guess we have different definitions of what "Realization" is and means.   Mine is quite simple.  There is a Source Consciousness, and when one fully and all levels, only resonates too and becomes a channel of that Consciousness, then can they truly be said to be fully "realized" or enLightented.  

 That Source is perfect, and one must become PUL incarnate to fully attune to that Source.   Such a person can fully and completely tap into any info they want too.  

 What they, or even Source cannot do, is to know how and what we are going to choose with our Freewill, because that is totally in the hands of the individual though of course there are probability patterns most always.  

 Certain outer "signs" and indications become apparent, btw, when a person is that attuned to Spirit, Source, and PUL.    They do not age, do not get sick, do not die natural deaths, they transcend completely space/time, just as the some 1800 year old person that Monroe met after asking to meet the most spiritually mature person living in his space/time.   That person could easily, say, appear to a thousand, a million people at the same time, both in the "flesh" as well as in nonphysical.  

 Seems to me, to some extent you are kind of parroting what you've read about realization from teachers who themselves were not fully realized and who also seem to be parroting from sources also not completely realized either.   Why i say that, is because in my more Eastern oriented and curious days, i read similar theories and beliefs as what you are saying regarding the issues of realization.  


Quote:

Depending on the capabilities and life experience of such a person they may or may not have had time to fully integrate the new insight or have great teaching skills. Given time that's probably where they are headed as at least their experience and analysis will be true, but it's not a given.

 Then they are still in the process of "relative realization" and still subject to space/time limits and illusions relatively.  


Quote:

It's only at very rare intervals in history that a Buddha or a Jesus capable of delivering a very widely applicable message is born. And even such people it seems while precocious still have to shed a certain amount of karmic crap to attain realisation.  And even then we are dependent on highly filtered texts and a most definitely not realised institutional culture for transmission of whatever view they espoused.

 I use to believe in my younger and less discriminating days, that there were somewhat numerous completely realized Teachers who have come to the Earth during slower vibrating cycles.   I now believe that they are much, much rarer as far as actual public teachers.    There is only one public and historical teacher who i have tuned into and believe completed the process of full transcendence of time/space while he "physically" lived and then he dramatically drove that important point home.   He's the only one that left behind possible physical "evidence" or suggestive proof of that dramatic point.  

There may be others who have, but who i haven't tuned into yet, or gotten repeated guidance verifications about as well as numerous credible and more accurate than not psychic sources also vouching for this person and their claims and life.

Quote:

This is before we talk of the ability of the individual student to connect with and actualise teachings. There's so many issues of aptitude, intellect, stage of their view and so on that what they may take from them is highly unpredictable. Most could not accept Jesus' teaching at the time - he led a small group. Most ordinary minded persons entirely miss the meaning of even slightly higher teaching - it simply doesn't compute for them - never mind the highest possible.

 Certainly, but all the above is not quite applicable to the points i'm trying to make to begin with.  

 You talk about the man i prefer to call Yeshua for example.   Well, he spoke and taught very, very simply, and mostly by living the example of the principles he less occasionally espoused via speeches, etc.

 If the person could be reached at all, he was the one to do it, because he could relate it to their relative and present level in the moment.  


Quote:

The result of this is that it's not possible nor ever will be to create some one size fits all idealised universal learning environment informed by the input of only fully realised teachers. I'd be very cautious about any attempt to seek for that as it's unlikely to be very helpful.

Again, truth is truth no matter the words and forms involved.   But at the same time, there is such a thing as relative degrees of truth and untruth.    Speaking on a whole, and on average, those who fully align, attune to and channel that which is TRUTH, LIFE, and CREATIVE FORCE and CONSCIOUSNESS ITSELF, will and can transmit the highest truths possible via the outer, but they also work with the inner of a person and peoples at the same time.  

Sometimes it's just enough to be in the presence of such a person, their radiation has a tendency to "lift up" and balance other people's energy fields, if they are at all open to it to begin with.  

  Sure, no teacher can "make" this happen for anyone.  It's always a freewill process, and dependent on many various intertwining factors when it comes to the "student".  

But again, what does this have to do with my point that it's just wiser and pragmatic for people to try to look to those have are fully Realized or at least near same?   Instead of spending needless time and energy on separating the Wheat from the chaff?    

 Again, how can they/we tell, when so many sources whether "guru", priest, channeled types speak flowery, wise sounding words?   By how the person behind those words and outer teachings, lived their lives for others, and by the fruits that they and their teachings have directly produced.    And i don't mean like Christ and  Christianity.   Christianity was highjacked a long time ago and isn't directly Christ's teachings anymore.  
 

Quote:

My personal view is that at this level it's entirely relative and circumstantial. We each inhabit a bubble in what feels like a generalised reality but which is actually unique to ourself - with common factors limited only to those aspects we choose at some higher but unconscious level to make concensual.

 It is extremely relative to the individual who is primarily and imbalancedly existing in the relative reality, and yet, there is another reality that co-exists simultaneously, which can be tapped into also.   It's largely a matter of an individuals spiritual developement towards that Universal Standard, which is Source and PUL Consciousness.  

 And more specifically and personally, there was one, a Spirit who took on flesh and became the perfect example while in the flesh, the Universal Standard if one would but open their hearts and minds to the non religious version of him.   Unfortunately, so many choose not too because they equate corrupt, political-religious forms and systems to his person as if he had anything whatsoever to do with the twisting of his ways and teachings.  ::)


Quote:

At a given moment every single one of us has a specific lesson they need to learn. The magic of existence is that somehow the cosmos conspires to deliver precisely what we need at the time, no matter what shennanigans we go on with.

 Certainly.   Yet we find as individuals and as humans collectively speaking...we tend to be quite a stubborn lot, wouldn't you say.    If we weren't, and if the whole thing was easier, there would be many more in physical who completely transcend space/time and who are fully attuned to Source and PUL Consciousness and who are, think, feel, and act ONLY from that "space" so to speak.  


Quote:

We don't have to grasp after a perfect teacher.

  There is no such thing as complete "non grasping".   I'll put it a different way.   A wise source, the Edgar Cayce's guidance once said something like, "The only way to transform destructive habits, is to replace them with constructive habits."  

 If one is going to grasp, and we all do from the most 1st chakra centered type people, to the very Elders to themselves, "grasp" at something.   Another way to put the term grasping, is to say what one concentrates and focuses on.  

 Its not the concentration and focus that is the problem in and of itself, it's what one is focusing and concentrating on which either facilitates expansion or limitation, see?  

 It is far better, speaking on average, generally, and holistically, to concentrate and focus on those sources who are fully enLightened, or at least near so.  

Quote:

After that we're back to what I've been trying to post. Everybody can teach us, some are more helpful than others and some very helpful indeed by virtue of the higher and view altering truths they transmit. Our ability to learn from others is likewise peculiar to our personal circumstances in the broadest possible sense. And vice versa by the way in terms of harm and being led astray.

Certainly, but again only relatively speaking.   A person struggling with alcolohism and who is very self centered and focused on that which is destructive in the outer and inner life, well to be sure they can speak truth and have their moments of clarity.  

 More often than not, though, they are what i call "unconscious" teachers.   We are not talking about unconscious teaching so much as folks who set themselves up as conscious teachers.

Again, if Osho hadn't proclaimed himself as fully enLightened (and an Avatar to boot), i would not address him so persistently as i've have.    But i see him, his example and teachings as relatively more harmful than quite a few others, and part of that is because he was not that which he claimed to be.  


Quote:

An ant stepped on by a realised teacher is not going to benefit from this. On the other hand as I've said before a starving man can benefit greatly from his worst enemy if he feeds him after taking him prisoner.

 I would refer you to my 7 fields of Wheat analogy or parable.   And again, we are not talking about the average interaction of people wherein mostly unconscious teaching and learning is done, but we're talking specifically as someone who deliberately, repeatedly set himself up as a channel of truth unqualified, someone who referred to themselves as fully Realized.

 I occasionally disagree with some of the things that people here say, but rarely, rarely do i address their deeper intents, motives, and them as a person...  Why, because not a single person here is claiming full Realization.    That in and of itself, speaks volumes for the teachers/students here, and its speaks volumes that so many Eastern Gurus have claimed this about themselves.  

 

Quote:

Our task is to navigate through this morass drawing on natural goodness/grace/wisdom to help us find our way - to recognise the lessons life presents to us, and to draw the right conclusions from these.

 Yup, and sometimes our gifts to others like on a forum such as this, believe it or not, is in disagreeing and pointing out things others would rather not  hear, see, or don't agree with.    Kind of like the saying that a true friend doesn't tell you what you want to hear, but tells you what they honestly think, feel, and believe.  

 I personally would much rather have a person speak to me in a direct, simple, open, and honest manner than a charming, silver tongue manner that so many politicians and other manipulators have adopted as their way to influence people...   Certainly by looking around, such folks who subtly and hiddenly manipulate have been a lot more successful than the very direct, open, and honest types?

 Says something about human nature and our collective degree of receptivity to greater truths, does it not?


Quote:

There's ultimately no guru but ourselves, but equally everybody and everything is our guru.....

 Relatively speaking, i agree.   We need to learn how to go within more, and stop relying so much on outer sources and info so much...

 And yet at the same time, if we didn't have the Yeshua's come here, boy with this world be even more imbalanced and slow going than it is.    We humans still yet need standards and examples, because the world and its influence seems too powerful for most.  

 Like Albert, the more i've opened up to the non religious Christ and Yeshua, the more i have gained.   If he or someone like him hadn't lived in relation to my space/time cycle, well i probably would be more confused than i am now.  

Meanwhile, yes, other individuals who have not fully attuned to Source like him, have been teachers to me both in a conscious and unconscious sense, and i'm grateful for their help.   As always, when the student is ready, the teacher appears.  

But to be honest, life itself and outer conditions and suffering has been much more the teacher for me than most individuals for the most part.   At the same time, that doesn't mean that we should become passive in relation to our fellow selves in the sense of not at least trying to help people understand the pitfalls of certain paths, belief systems, and ideals.  

 If i said to myself, "well, people will learn one way or another through mistakes, suffering, and through their own direct experiences ONLY." and then decided to only keep to myself, to never speak up about my truth, my perceptions, my understandings, relating my experiences, etc., then my energies would become stagnant within themselves, i would become over imbalanced to the Yin force.  

 It's in the way that you do the above which matters, its important to try to do it respectfully and more impersonally.    But sometimes its even necessary to act in a controversial and non p.c. manner.   Sometimes it's necessary to be direct and blunt.  

 If most everyone was only very Feminine, very gentle  and very subtle in manner, very passive and Yin in other words (too much imbalance to the Yin and one can become apathetic), well the World would soon become completely over run by those who seek to control and dominate the rest of their fellow selves.    Yang energy and expression, structure, firmness, activeness is just as important as the former Yin attributes and expressions.  

 The Right brain, the purely Yin polarized expression believes and says, "everything is completely alright the way it is, no need to change anything at all, Kum by yah...."

  The other side says, "No, everything is not alright, let's try to make the world and ourselves better (less limited and negative).  Let's be active."

Again, its an issue more of balance than anything.   I hope that some will read my words and at least consider more deeply and in a non prejudiced manner, what i am trying to get across.   I hope its a catalyst for those interested in various Eastern Guru's like Osho, to think more out of the box and to go more within and question more from that space and not mostly from an intellectual one which tends to mostly consider the outer forms more than anything.  

 Meaning in other words, the Apple can look very good and healthy on the outside (especially from a distance or at a casual glance), very shiny, plump, and juicy looking, but the inner flesh be rotten and/or riddled with worms.   I've learned in my own direct experience, and looking at the experiences of others, that the ability to discern more deeply between the outer form and inner truth is not necessarily easy and automatic for most people, particularly when it comes to written words and teachings from that perspective (like books, or reading stuff on the I-net).

  There is a family we can see and observe.   This family is fairly typical in some respects, they care about each as much as their false selves don't tend to limit the expressing of it.  There's an ever changing balance of give and take and yet certain noticeable patterns also.

  One of the family members-- outgoing, charming, likable uncle Frank is mostly liked by the rest of his family members and some friends.  

  Most of the family and friends of same, think he is a fun, nice guy, or at least harmless if they don't completely like or vibe with him.

  But, a more outsider type, one with a keen eye so to speak, while they see the outside, projected Frank that most of the family members and friends of same see, sees or senses that Uncle Frank isn't completely what he appears to be and tries to project.   In fact, this outsider can see fairly clearly that Uncle Frank has been molesting one of his young nieces.  

 Now, a couple other family members may deep down sense something off about uncle Frank, but because the outer Frank seems pretty likable (does them all kinds of favors for example), and because well they are connected to Uncle Frank in closer ways than the outsider, they tend to push these deep inner feelings and intuitions aside, to repress or suppress them.   These thoughts and feelings after all, are uncomfortable in general, let alone when you're one of the family members and connected to uncle Frank in a deeper way.  

  What should the outsider do though, knowing what they know?   On one hand, they know that if they directly bring up these issues, that some are going to not only completely disbelieve them, but some may react negatively and project onto the messenger who mostly only cares about the little niece and the overall health of the family.

 Should they keep quiet for the sake of "peace at a price"?   Or should they try to make others aware of what they perceive knowing that some won't believe them, and that others may throw stones back at them for trying to upset the family or for causing nice ole uncle Frank and the niece an unnecessarily hard time?

 Is it more loving to speak up in the hopes of trying to stop the abuse from happening, or is it more loving to be passive, to not rock the boat, to let the situation work itself out?   After all, the outsider messenger might not have concrete, hard "proof" that Uncle Frank is not what he appears.   And again, the outsider messenger could possibly get some heat for speaking out.


 Is it possible that some Guru's who claim to be something they are not, whether because they themselves are self deluded and/or because they are knowingly in the business of conning others, are akin to the Uncle Franks of the World even though they may not actually molest children?

 Harm is harm and to me, spiritual misdirection, dishonesty, negative-unspiritual examples and manipulation tactics such as claiming self fully Realized when one is not, can be just as harmful if not more harmful in the long run, to a greater percentage of people as the before scenario.  

 How extreme does it have to get, before we can claim it harmful in a more universal sense?   Does a person who has set themselves up deliberately as a teacher of spiritual truth to others have to make their followers commit mass suicide or repeatedly rape and molest others, before individuals can stand up and say without hassle to others, "hey, i don't think that guy is actually enLightened" or even, "he seems like he is causing harm to others"?    Does it need be so extreme and outer oriented?

 Is it more loving to not speak against the claims of a guru like Osho, or to just keep quiet and not rock the boat at all?

  Quietness or reserve is not always a sign of "wisdom", actually just like with over talking, too much can be an indication of non wisdom, especially when deeper and farther reaching principles are involved.  
Sure, it's pretty pointless to ever disagree with people about their favorite ice cream flavors, since that is such an unbelievably relative and in the long term sense, unimportant choice (as well as largely non influential in relation to their fellow selves).   But sometimes when some people prefer things like slavery, defending gurus or sources of spiritual info who are more false than not, and other deeper, farther reaching, and more directly influencing and destructive choices...then sometimes its good that some people do stand up, speak out, and disagree.

 On that note, i flinkle (feel and think at the same time), i've said all i can possibly say on the subject and anymore would be unnecessary talking, and just rehashing.    Or as one said, "beating a dead horse", though i'd much rather beat a dead horse than a living one to tell the truth.  

 Time to be quiet.  

My last on this also, in respect of both the 'Osho' and the 'proselytising' threads - although this question about the true and proper nature of teaching and learning is much broader.

The core view I've been struggling to get across is the idea that the reality of teaching and spiritual learning is in reality so utterly vast, varied and complex, and yet so utterly banal that we miss (or fail to recognise) what's all the time going down all around us. (we're so stuck in a narrow cliche of what this 'must' be)

And that having missed it we can be inclined to rush around in circles looking for the one great enlightened teacher 'who will set me on my way'. Which pursuit easily becomes a substitute for getting on with it, for taking responsibility for ourselves.

The master/pupil route is demonstrably not the way it is for almost everybody. It can of course happen that way for a very few, but the real work is done when each and every one of us is brought to the experience and lessons we need. In every manner and sort of situation. Your life is a teaching. Every person you meet is a teacher. Whether and how much they help is circumstantial, and depends on both parties. But it's happening now, and every now - not at some mythical point in the future when it's all going to somehow fall into place.

I'd propose that our task if there's anything we can do to help ourselves to open and accelerate our learning is to reach out to life. To take ownership of ourselves, to be pro-active, to engage with confidence that while it may get uncomfortable at times that basic goodness, Grace or whatever will see us right.

If we persist in resisting engagement, in sticking in some eddy of life while holding out for some mind made perfect ideal of a teacher or teaching context (the arrival of heaven on earth for example) we risk either deferring our own learning, or becoming overly attached to some belief system. Neither of which seems healthy,  but we can perhaps console ourselves that no matter what we think it's probably going to deliver the lesson we need anyway.

There's been various acknowledged Masters at differing stages in history, and they've been critically important establishing bodies of broadly correct teaching and the vehicles to propagate them throughout history. (all subject to the vagaries of language and those propagating - very little Buddhist teaching goes right back to the Buddha, but purports to represent his views. Ditto for Jesus) There's likewise been many other necessarily more mixed teachers like Osho who for a variety of reasons haven't necessarily received universal acclaim, but whose work has served to present and interpret these teachings in the required multiplicity of ways for many more people than otherwise would have been the case.

Which with again the involvement of an incredibly complex chain of cause and consequence has created the very rich (as well as very risky) learning context in which we (very lucky) people find ourselves early in the 21st C. Meaning that there's such a wealth of knowledge around for us to draw on in deciding just how we should engage with life.

Like advising the guy not to grab the hot handle of the pan my thought on this is that if we persist in denying life and learning while holding out for or attaching to some mind made ideal of the perfect teacher (that doesn't mean we don't look for 'good' teachers, but that's (a) a pretty personal call, (b) discrimination and openness means we can draw on all where appropriate without having to swallow everything they say hook line and sinker, and (c) it's right to warn other where we encounter what's dodgy) that we're setting ourselves up for an unpleasant lesson where we'll be taught the futility of this.

While warning is fine we likewise shouldn't become fixated on the task of 'saving' others who may fall into the clutches of those we regard as dodgy.

There of course seem to be absolute truths, and yes we sense these through higher awareness. But it seems clear that when stated or applied at this level the rules purporting to embody them are far from absolutes.

None of this is suggesting that we should blindly follow teachers that we don't 'get', or about whom there's a whiff of gun smoke. But it's equally saying that except in the more extreme cases that we should not reject all about teachers who get criticised - approach carefully yes, be selective but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I should say too that while as above we help others about to walk into trouble that there is a point (specific to every situation) where a limit is reached and where the individual's will must be respected. I was thinking more of examples like the church burning heretics at the stake to save their souls, or the child so insulated from life by his parents that he never properly develops.

I have to apologise Justin in that I didn't intend to be quite so confrontational. I should say as well that I don't claim any absolute knowledge (to do so would be against the very view I've just set out) in these matters - I could easily have sprinkled what I wrote with 'probablies' and 'possiblies' and made it much softer, but I didn't have the presence to do so.

But I was posing a very real question - specifically 'what is the alternative to the above, to living with this groundlessness and granularity?'. 'What the bleep do we know?'

I may have posted this before, but it seems apt:

Life unfolds
As time rolls out
While certain we decide the script
We circle endlessly in ego’s grip

The dream
Leads ever deeper into pain
Self reinforced but made from fear
Sees only what it deigns to see

And yet
Though blind resisting every step
Bathed in light all but ignored
Our path somehow revealed unfolds

Until
At last in retrospect
We dimly can discern the sign
That through life’s detritus spirit’s called

Lots of talk about someone saying uncomfortable things. Is talking about talking about talking ... really useful?

Am I the only one who has actually read any of this man's works?

dave

 No need to worry Ian/Vajra, i didn't feel you were overly confrontational.  In any case, i much prefer honest and direct communication to the kind that is nicey nicey on the outside, but you can sense gritted teeth, supressed dislike, and the likes in the inner of a person.  During my travels and communications in the New Age world, i've experienced more than a bit of the latter.  

 A thought occurred to me as well, that perhaps i don't know what i'm talking about anyway.   I've been told my whole life, since being a wee lad who occasionally moderately disagreed with someone about something (usually someone much older than i), continuing in the now, that i don't know anything because i'm "too young" to have any real wisdom and knowledge.    Spoken and unspoken, this has come across quite often for much of my life.  Perhaps "they" are right.
 Course, for most of my life, i was quite introverted and when i did speak it was usually quite brief.   Only in the last 7 years has "verbosity" been a trait and tendency of mine.  

 Anyways, i say perhaps and may, because i'm not totally sure either way, just something i'm entertaining at the moment.  

dave_a_mbs wrote on Feb 10^th, 2008 at 4:54pm:

Lots of talk about someone saying uncomfortable things. Is talking about talking about talking ... really useful? Am I the only one who has actually read any of this man's works? dave

 Dunno Dave.  As far as i know the person you are referring to talked and wrote quite a lot in his life, and i get the sense that this person quite liked the sound of his own voice and thoughts, much more so than any person here.  

 The stuff i've read from and by him, well sometimes i "resonated" with some of it, but a lot of it seemed to me to be chatter for the sake of chatter, oft contradictory, occasionally quite exaggerated, and more than a wee bit arrogant and overly presumptuous at times.  

 Just me though, and it seems most of us have those moments in our communications, me very much included.  Course, he wasn't someone claiming to be among and like "most of us", now was he?    

Anyways to be honest, i've not read completely one single book by him.  I've read some of his stuff on the I-net here and there, and i vaguely remember perusing his book "Oneness" in a book store years ago, again, some of which i did resonate with.  Perhaps i should just leave it on that note?
 
 

 Not talking about Osho, but related to what Rogerscott said in the off topic section in regards to the Holographic Universe theory and also related somewhat to what Vajra said in his last post here on this thread, i would like to add that personally, i just don't read any more spiritual type books anymore.  

Not because i feel like i know everything or anything like that, but because i've come to the realization that i just need to live certain basic, core, and universal to many belief systems, principles and ideals in my everyday life.   That's where the real work gets done, in service and in being what you believe is important.

 Part of me was even whispering in my ear, before going to the Gateway Voyage program at TMI, that "you don't really need or have to go, just live your spiritual ideals more, be more loving towards others, go within more, meditate and pray more, get your diet and physical body more intune with the mental and spiritual..."

  I mean, i'm glad i went and very much enjoyed my stay there, but i realized before and especially after that this part of me was very much right.  

 I need to stop seeking on the outside so much.    Now, if i feel the need or the inner impulse to read a certain book in the future, i am open to that, but it's just that i'm not actively seeking that which is seemingly outside of me.  

 But, it's more complicated and shades of gray than that, because at the same time, i still hold Yeshua and his example in my minds eye, and constantly check myself and that livingness in relation to that pattern.   It helps me to correct myself and to be honest with myself about when i am erring...   Because self, the part of us which desired separation from it all, is mighty tricky and crafty at times in leading one astray from true spiritual livingness.    I've seen it time and time again in my own example (usually more so in hindsight, but such is life) and observed the same in others pretty darn universally.  

 I'm humble enough to realize the above, and to know that i still need some kind of an example to keep me more straight on what i've come to find is a narrow path indeed (narrow, but filled with joy and peace if one really learns to walk on it, and after getting through the uphill part).

 And while i respect many other examples out there, for me, i just don't want to hold any example which i sense is less than, about equal to, or slightly greater than my own, because i know they are still dealing with the same issues of occasional skewing, self dishonesty, inaccuracy that i can and sometimes find in this self.   Maybe less or more than in my own case, but still there as a pattern.  


 To Dave:  I believe i understand where you are coming from Dave, because for many years i too put Eastern belief systems and teachers on a pedestal.  After all, they talked about things like karma and reincarnation which i came to believe in and accept early on.   Quite a long while, and to be more exact from about age 13 to 24 or so, i put almost everything "Eastern" on an largely undiscriminating and non critical pedestal.  

 But the more that i've gone within, the more i've attuned to Source and balanced the physical ,mental and spiritual aspects of being a human, the more sharp my discrimination has become in regards to what other teachers and belief systems say or don't say (and the inner vibes).    And while i still find ideas and concepts that ring true with me, in Eastern teachers and belief systems, well i'm also finding a lot of skewing, error, inaccuracy, and occasionally some downright slower vibrating patterns.

 Now, i've been critical of Western thought and belief systems for longer in life, so its not like i've been or am innately prejudiced against the more Yin oriented East--as mentioned, i thought the East had most of the answers.  

  When i started to give up my deep interests in science, i started to see a lot of arrogance in both Western thought and teachers.   But, as i've gotten more intune and discriminating, i've seen or sensed quite a bit of "arrogance" in a lot of Eastern thought and teachings, it's just that on the surface its more subtle, hidden, and more introverted.  

  I think part of the reason why i vibed so much with Eastern thought, belief systems, and teachings is because for a long time in my life, i was also very Yin and very introverted, quiet, and usually very brief in my words.   Of course, some Eastern teachers seem to believe and have actively promoted and taught that this must be a sign of true wisdom and all that.  

 Funny that now i'm a much happier person than i've ever been even though i have definite tendencies towards verboseness and being actively communicative (i'm not saying the latter is a sign or indication of wisdom either btw).  

Justin-

I appreciated your post.

I think it would be accurate to say that there's a generational issue at work here.  When I was younger, I too gravitated toward eastern religion.  Reincarnation to me was a given.  Also I loved new age stuff.  Seth, Ruth Montgomery and the rest of the crowd.

Now, in middle age, I have to say I'm more of an agnostic.  Meaning of course that I just don't know.  Desert hit the nail on the head.....we are truly peering through a glass darkly and it's hard, maybe impossible, to see clearly what's on the other side.

I'm pretty much content to accept that there IS another side and at the same time not worrying myself too much with the particulars.  It will be what it will be.

R

Recoverer-
I view God as having more than one hand. We look to the bright, the upright, the proper and the socially correct (which is ultimately where those ideas arise), and there we find nice tidy saints on plaster perches. From them we receive a well filtered, but known safe and palatable Party Line. And, by following those ideas we learn, eventually, that it is bad form to rape and pillage, and that love offers a far better way to live. Minor irregularities, such as the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, founding a church on the premise of convenient divorces, or on a need for a larger bank account, all can be swept under the rug.

The left hand works a bit differently. It gives us karma. It gives us the courtesan who rescued Siddhartha when he was starving, and nursed him back to health. It is the view of the perplexed prisoner who is to meet with the Roman Tribune, and who now wonders about the wisdom of tearing the Roman Eagle off public buildings.. This is the view of the murderer who awaits execution and whose mind turns to both rage at his capture, and regret for his victim. We also have the noble torturer who offers victims to be burnt at the stake the tender mercy of strangulation.

In between we have people who practice Tantra, the union of opposites by which to extract a truth.  Here is also where we discover a hippie whose approach to God is to OD on noxious substances, The Hindu who stands on one leg until the other is useless. We have the sexual union that replaces mystical union because that's all the body can provide, but which emphasizes the transcendence of orgastic states as divine. And we have the shamans and medicine men who practice their arts in a sort of shadow land of half spirit and half reality.

And we have a tremendous number of additional options. Perhaps that's why Hindu deities are drawn with four arms - they need to have enough digits to handle business on all fronts. ;-)

For every person in need, God arrives. The message that arrives might be in material, spiritual, abstract, or extremely material form. The point, at least for the needy person, is the essence of the message, and has nothing to do wth the medium The fact that we personally feel that these people are frauds reflects our posture in life, that they are inappropriate for us individually, a judgement based on our intellectual and ego-centric evaluation.

It is easy to reject. Unfortunately, as we reject God's works, however obscure and steeped in rotting blood, feces and semen, what we are doing is limiting access to God. As we reject Reverend Rapist, because he buggers little boys in the vestibule, we also reject the world in which God has placed us. "I am too good for that kind of thing."

We have the good fortune to be free of the filth that many others call home. But that is not because we are too good for that kind of thing, nor because we are too spiritually advanced to need further insights. Reincarnation suggests that we are free of it because we lived through it, got the message and transcended, so that we need less sexual and emotional "glue" to attach us to our task of learning the world. Now, from our superior posture, if we are to look down upon those whose lives, methods, and appearances do not suit us, we are dishonoring ourselves.

Like the Muslim who despises Jews, not realizing that by this both faiths are dishonored.

My readings of Rajneesh indicate that he had the basics of Vedanta well mastered, and that he decided to bring his message through a medium that definitely attarcted and retained a vast number of young people who otherwise would have gone off into the woods to exercize the same passions. By bringing them the message they needed, in a manner they needed it, he performed a service just as great as the Holy Spirit touching your heart in deep meditation. This was their langauge, their interests, their attachment to truth (sexual truth is still truth), and they learned to redirect their baser urges into higher ones.

That's the bottom line. - Rajneesh taught sexually active people to transform baser urges into higher urges.  - Is that not what all saints do?

More to the point, in between all this criticism, isn't that what we are supposed to be doing? How does all this negativity help?

dave

 Thanks for the appreciation S.S./R  

 Yes, it does seem very hard while involved directly in physical, but i guess i need to believe its not impossible.   Part of me also believes or senses that in order to transcend same, one must first believe that such transcendence is possible.  

 Mostly, i'm just trying to take it day by day, to enjoy life--even learning to appreciate the more difficult and challenging stuff like i just went through at work, and now have less hours than needed (thankfully i'm getting a new client later this week, which puts it back to 3, a balanced number i like and which i vibe with.)

    Meanwhile and mostly, i've been having a pretty good time in taking it day by day and am enjoying life.  

 Keeping my humor about it all, and i think especially this last part, keeping one's sense of humor is pretty darn important, and other than love, one of the best aids to spiritual development there is.

 Boy, have i met some very dour, heavy, and overly serious seeming folks in the spiritual and New age world, whom the only time they smiled was when they sarcastically belittled you or snidely snickered.   No wonder such folks, even with spiritual beliefs and knowledge, seemed so unhappy and cut off from others.   Boy do these also project a lot onto those who are joyous and filled with humor.    

 Such is life, and we need to learn how to love all equally, despite both harmonious and inharmonious personality reactions.    And above all, not to pretend to be fully enLightened when one actually isn't....yes, to even showing the human and vulnerable side sometimes.    

Hi Justin-
I think you've just expressed the reson that the Egyptians weighed the heart against a feather in the Hall of Maat.

Maybe the basic trouble with life is that we take it (and ourselves) too seriously. :-


dave

dave_a_mbs wrote on Feb 11^th, 2008 at 2:40pm:

Hi Justin- I think you've just expressed the reson that the Egyptians weighed the heart against a feather in the Hall of Maat. Maybe the basic trouble with life is that we take it (and ourselves) too seriously. :- dave

 True dat.

 Hey Dave, have you ever checked out this site before?   It was started by a guy who is very interested Eastern belief systems, in the Guru-Disciple relationship, and stuff related to same.

  He (or She?) keeps track of many Gurus, and lists a lot of their well known teachings, methods, known ways of living, etc.

Some is conjecture and some is well sourced and some is direct experience.  Apparently they have met in person, at least a few well known Gurus.  

 The site is found at http://www.kheper.net/index.htm

And more specifically, a list and short description of many different teachers is found at

http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/listing.html

 If you haven't already read and perused it, i highly recommend it and especially in relation to the list and to the guy in the above thread title.  

  Sure, its no concrete proof or what not, but it's clear that this person thinks highly of some teachers though they may criticize others.   But as i've said, beyond reading things by certain teachers or about them from others, its most important to move past an intellectual analysis and learn how to feel and atune to the predominant consciousness pattern associated with them.  

 You have said many times on this site that you have zero psychic ability, well i don't fully believe that anyways, but maybe it would be helpful to develop more what you do have?  

Hi Justin-
No, that's my first exposure to that particular site. However, I find it in essential agreeement wth my personal biases and ideas on metaphysics. I happen to play in emptiness, as opposed to "my awareness", but that's not necessarily a different thing, just a different way to look at it.

What attracted me here was that I do past life therapy as part of my clinical practice, and the regression methods that Bruce Moen uses are very familiar. In part, I'm interested in the essential nature of the emergence of reality, and in seeing just how much we can actually predict from reports of regressions.

The other part of my interests is to make sense of everything, which I do with multiply aspected models and physical science. My expression is rather obtuse, but not much different in nature from most Eastern perspectives.

One thing that I've noticed, there are literally millions of paths up the mystical mountain, but when we finally grasp enough of any one of them so that we can see both ends and the middle all at once, then we have a tendency to initially reject that specific modality and replace it with our own ideas. The result is that we have a personally viable perspective. Seems like that's about as good as it gets anyhow, since operational truth is situationally relative.

The reason that I claim no psychic abilities is that whever happens in my life seems to make sense logically. Example: I had a cyst that I tried one of Rei's Christian Science manoeuvres on, and it went away. However, I don't see that as psychic, because it was just a matter of going where the cyst was not. No big deal. On the other hand, I don't have Juditha's ability to go into a trance and talk to spooks. If I were an expert at self-hypnosis I might be able to do that, but I'm not, and I never learned to do it through meditation.

Perhaps it's all a matter of word games anyhow. ;-)

dave

All I can say is that I trust my discrimination and experiences more, than the words of a man who lived a highly immoral life as Osho did.

Even though I say I don't agree with everything eastern teachings say, this doesn't mean that I believe all eastern teachers are immoral. For example, the Dali Lama seems like a good humble man. I don't agree with everything he has to say. He has to speak within the parameters of his tradition. I figure the divine powers that be understood what was needed when they selected a spirit to incarnate as him. It seems like they did a good job. Osho on the other hand, he was a self serving self appointed type.

I read Osho (Rajneesh at the time) years ago. Perhaps he said some good things. If he spoke of reincarnation in a conventional/linear manner, I clearly don't agree with him. The below from another thread expresses why feel strong about the reincarnation issue.  Both Alan and I have experienced a higher realm. Is it just a coincidence that both of us are opposed to the over and over reincarnation viewpoint?

"Heart chakra blocks and other energetic blocks come in many ways.  It can be quite surprising when it comes to what kind of issues block us. Some may block us for many years without us realizing it.

One thing that keeps us going when life becomes difficult is hope. Even though things are tough today, if we hang on, our future will be bright.  How much hope can a person have if due to false teachings, they believe they are going to have to reincarnate hundreds or even thousands of times before they get to move on to a better way of life? Some might say life isn't that tough, but for many it is very tough. Just read the newspaper or watch the evening news and you'll see that what I say is true. This being the case, if a person is going to have incarnate many many times until they become a supposed enlightened Buddha, they are going to have to live more than a few very tough incarnations. Therefore, hope becomes an ultra-marathon competition.

When I belonged to a cult that was based upon eastern teachings, people were aware of the reincarnate over and over concept. They weren't concered, because they felt confident that they would become enlightened during this lifetime. Eventually most of us learned that not even our guru was enlightened, and we left the group. Since we've left the group, some members have found that other gurus they followed were also fake, yet they still never got over this idea of having to reincarnate over and over again until you become an enlightened Buddha.  Therefore, somewhere within their subconscious mind they have a collection of thoughts that don't enable hope and joy to flow completely within their hearts.  I believe it is tragic that so many people have taken on such an unnecessary hope sapping belief system, because some fake gurus decided to play the role of God."

recoverer wrote on Feb 12^th, 2008 at 1:53pm:

All I can say is that I trust my discrimination and experiences more, than the words of a man who lived a highly immoral life as Osho did.

Just wanted to say that I do not know what immoral things Osho did but I do know that if someone  was able to prove there is NO afterlife I would probably live a very immoral life. Oh I would try to keep myself healthy and alive as long as possible, but I would enjoy as many pleasures as I could in this world. (Meaning sexual and some drinking.) I would not be willing to limit myself to just one woman since there really is no consequence except death and nothingness. Might as well enjoy ones self!

That said I still am rooting for the afterlife theory being true.  ;D

 Hi Dave,

 I personally don't believe that beliefs in and of themselves, actually "get us anywhere" in a direct sense, let alone up a mystical mountain.    Granted, beliefs can potentially have a powerful affect, and certainly shape our perception of collective and individual reality, which indirectly can affect the way we end up living, but other than that beliefs are completely passive and inactive, it's the Will that matters.

 That's why i tend to disagree with the whole, there are many paths saying.   To me, there is only One true path, and that is living, being, and remembering what Bruce calls "PUL".     Sure, this can take many forms and shift from moment to moment, but that's the only condition and beingness which brings growth, or the lack of same fosters stagnation and limitation.  

  Applying that to wanna be spiritual Teachers, i don't care what they call themselves, it certainly need not be branded "Christian", they could call themselves, up down ding dong slap happy chocolate ice cream bringer to the masses.  

 I don't care what they label their beliefs or what others do, whether they're from East or West, West-East, South East, North West (sounds like Rumsfeld describing where the WMD's in Iraq supposedly were).  

  Look at parenting and children for a moment.   You can preach and teach to your kid via words all you want, but chances are that if you tell them one thing, but actually do another yourself...what are they going to follow most of the time?   Your actual example and not your flowery words, which after you contradict them yourself, start to sound pretty darn hollow to most thinking, independent type individualistic children.  

  So, a person's example is far, far more affecting on average, than what a person says or doesn't say.  

 Apply this to wannabe spiritual teachers and their teachings, especially those who actively seek those roles.   For the most part, I just don't care what they say, that's not where the real teaching is, its in the example and the way they themselves actually lived.  

 It's not their beliefs which matter to me, because in the end, nobody's beliefs actually brings anyone anywhere in a direct sense, but how a person lives.  This is such a simple, but so true perspective, but yet at the same time it seems like so many seem to forget or look it over.  

 This is the 1st and most important step in the 12 step program of approaching outside sources and teachers when one is looking to for insight, and catalytic info.   The 1st step in learning to discriminate, particularly in relation to those who set themselves up as teachers of spiritual truths, wisdom, or insight.  

 Because their example, their very consciousness and emanation, can either have the potential influence to strengthen our real self, or our ego tendencies, despite and contrary to what actual beliefs they are "teaching" or promoting.   Not always, but often enough.

 Ideally, one can find an outside source or teacher who achieves both, the more accurate words and teaching via same, and the living example of that which is and brings greater truths.  Usually a teacher who does the latter, will tend to do the former as well, simply because like Bruce here says, there is no other Consciousness, energy, and way of being which expands and balances our perceptions (thus our ability to communicate more accurate and holistically balanced truths) than tapping into and attuning to PUL.  

 Meanwhile, life in general and suffering is our best teacher for most, much of the time.   The daily relationships, challenges, testings, and overcoming of the former two, can be a good "teacher".

 But the harm and retrogression that a largely false, very ego centered, and manipulative teacher can facilitate in otherwise good hearted and minded folks... well, it's certainly not something to actively seek out is it?  Even more important or critical, its important and spiritual, RESPONSIBLE behavior to not to promote them as teachers or their teachings.   Everything relative influences to some degree, every other relative pattern.

  It's akin to telling a person who is looking to buy a used car, and actively telling them to go with someone who is most likely going to rip them off, a con type.    Why would anyone who actually cares about others, actually do that unless they themselves are deluded, hood winked and/or manipulated by the greedy and corrupt cars salemen with a known history of ripping people off.  

 We need to start approaching and talking about spiritual sources and teachers, like how more independent minded, discriminating, and smart folks talk about their gov. and politicians.   Even more so, because spiritual issues are in the long run far more important and personally influencing on so many levels, than even our gov., politics, and the like.    I've seen you say things that were critical of the Bush administration...well it seems you are using your discrimination and speaking out in those instances... why not start applying that discrimination and speaking out in regards to so called "enLightened"  spiritual type teachers?

 It need not be so complicated by putting realization on this super vague, completely indefinable, and anything goes pedestal.  By asking, "well what is enlightenment" and turning that into a mantra of its own....  Truly enlightened people are loving and responsible people who think of and live more for others than for the little self.   No other criteria really applies.   Many of the so called enlightened Guru's on that site i shared, that are listed, do not consistently fit into the former pattern whatsoever.    Why, because becoming a well known, looked to and respected teacher of spiritual truth, calling oneself or being called enlightened is a really powerful ego trip.   I'm sure a percentage may even start off with pretty good intentions and ways of living, but what's that saying about power corrupting?    

 And its much like politics, especially in India and its relationship with the West...  what kind of person tends to seek out positions of political influence in the first place?    Similar with the whole Guru thing, especially as related to Indians looking to come to the West.  

 

Desert sure knows how to get us stirred up..sorry don't have the time to read each and every post but wanted to wave at Desert, I am glad u stopped by and shared what you could.

yea, how about that Bob, he knows how to stir people up. I think it's sad what happened in his life that people tried to make him a guru, he is a great artist and they would put a false image on him, cause him pain like that.

it shows the human need, always looking for guidance "out there."  Everyone should look within, but thats not reality I suppose.

as for me, I think the words of that song "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"   thats a great hit among many.

I actually followed it's advice for my own, never to grow old and cranky! so you see music is a guiding light in our world to influence us as well that may be, it is a gift from the artist. and the great artists I suppose will always have to go through being put down by thoughtlessness in our society. Its just where we are at in human evolution right now, but hey, we're not getting older, we're getting better!

Just like Osho I'm sure knows how to take what is thrown his way; he knows how to not take it personally if he is as developed as he seems to be.

We all pay our dues here, is that not true? my mother was not intellectual, but she said you take the good with the bad.
I had to agree, she had a point. I like my life because all my senses have expanded and I know I wouldn't mind coming back for another time, although there was a time when I swore I never would return, things change you know.

I'm sorry Desert if you're still reading here, that Osho got jumped on...seems like everyone gets jumped on here as we have a pattern like this, as all forums have their ups and downs, negatives and positives.
the main point is we come together; we have a place to come together which the internet provides during this age.

wish Desert would stay, but I know he has other places to be at.

love, alysia

:) "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now"

That's a great motto Alysia. I've some work to do....

oh don't we all Ian? I think it's time we let ourselves have a little happiness while we work..oh dear, it's come to such triteness...let me take the time say how much you have meant to me.
I have been studying diligently ego definitions...we must talk. later my friend.

Desert wrote on Feb 9^th, 2008 at 3:36pm:

Well, like they say, anything is possible and maybe somewhere down the line your person and your ideas will be referred to in like terms. But I'm not holding my breath. What I've seen here from some in this particular thread is a type of closed-mindedness passing itself off as righteous appraisal.

It's true that everyone has a different opinion on the afterlife.....
Some firmly believe in God.
Some firmly believe in a karma / reincarnation system.
Some believe in a higher plane of existence.
Some believe in a permanent death. (What do you say when these people sneeze? You can't really say God bless you. Maybe it's like... ACHOOO!! Then instead say to them after they sneeze: When you die nothing happens.)

I can see your frustration but people will believe what they believe. I personally do not believe anything is true or false until proven as such. Which means any and all ideas are technically possibilities.

One thing I feel for sure is that if anyone wishes to meditate and attempt to connect to this focus 27 or any other idea of this type, reading too much information is probably going to effect your imagination and just put ideas in your head that you are seeing what you are supposed to be seeing.. because you read it. The only way to really use a system like this one is to do it religiously and blindly for a period of time and fully document what you experience and then see how it matches up after the fact.

>:( What do you mean ego definitions!!!!!

Errrrmmm.  ;)

To T's above, and mine too. It's very subtle business this question of ego, and whether or not we're being driven by it in our approach. And also in terms of how people interpret what we post.

I tend when I post to have a lot invested in 'rational explanation'. In not screwing up. A long story.

I've on the other hand many times had replies that read rigid beliefs into what I wrote which I'd hope is nothing like so much the case. Because it's an evolving path and 'what the bleep as I've been saying do we know'.

On the other hand I've found Buddhist thought hugely useful in making sense of myself and the world. Which implies belief too, even if not the standard Buddhist view.

::) And what do I truly know about me??

hey Ian here's my false guru, isn't he cute as a bugs ear?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/spiritvideo/Alysia/animated-purple-wizard.gif

listen, just between you and I, a true guru will set you free; he/she will never want you to follow them forever..if the truth is hard to understand, look deeply into someone's eyes and follow the energy...the truth is in the eyes..otherwise who said if u meet a guru on the road to kill them?

I say never let your dog bite the postman though, even if the advertisments are collecting up, he's just doing his 9 to 5.

definition of ego: a sense of being separate from others and a wish to gain control over their minds.

these days I listen to music for the right side of the brain. the left side of the brain is for intellect purposes, the right side is needed also for the use of melody is also something that guides the intellect. hemisync does this too.

There is obviously only one path, just as there is only one awareness of it. But there are so many versions that it looks like the world is filled with people, all speaking different languages, since that's how they express the one path. In fact, when we meet with some of them we cannot understand them.

As Recoverer says, best not to put your faith in those who appear deceitful. However, to reject someone else's approach, while that person follows the one path available for them in their unique manner, and according to the unique experiences of their life through which they think and understand in a specific manner simply proves the point, that we can't always understand what others gain from their teachers.

And, as Justin pointed out, the teachers aren't where it's at either. Theymerely stimulate us, as do the scent of flowers, bird song and the green grass waving in the wind. But no one of us can fully and accurately describe what IS universally real. Like the three basic yogas that converge into raja yoga, PUL is part, but not all. Joyous creativiy is part, but not all. Clearminded awareness is part, but not all. And those three together form satchitananda, which is part, but not all. It is not the yoga that one practices, but the practice that becomes yoga.

Because we come from every possible direction, some of us are going to learn through mechanisms that others will find distasteful, obscene, ridiculous, or whatever. It has to be that way, else there would only be one person.

In the end, maybe that's all there is. But who? - Hey, Alysia, maybe You're IT.

dave

PS: I'd change my brand if wine does that to you. :-)

well Dave, its like this  :) if I'm it, then we must be playing tag here.
I try to be original and think of a post thread, but others are inventive that way, and I've already told all of my retrievals so I'm redundant  ::)  so it must be I like you guys or something....it feels like time is short here...at least for me, but all good things do end and I hope I'm ready for that.
now, dearie, whatever do u mean if the wine does what to me?
I don't drink wine as something about alcohol puts me to sleep. however, I don't think thats what you meant.  :)
hugs

Go back 9 posts - It was a remark for Justin who seems to have a problem with me.

I know that feeling like things are coming to an end,. I have the flu and it's a tossup between hoping I'll die quickly, and hoping I'll somehow survive.  Meanwhile, I'm setting up a restaurant and still doing hypnoanalysis -  Next time you come through these parts we should be open. Giancarlo's Mediterranean Restaurant in Morro Bay on Morro Bay Blvd - Anyone else who reminds me that they're on the forum is welcome to a free dessert. ;-)

I get the feeling that you are a sustainer of the general thread of life. Arts and humanity - Little more could be desired.

dave

yes, totally correct, Im the general who takes care of the generalities.. ::) but say Dave, when one is sick, I noticed the mind is influenced towards more down type thinking, so I wanted to tell u to tell yourself that somebody loves you up there. and get in bed with a good book, maybe some hot cocoa...oh god...im getting off topic again.

look, just do it.  :D

 Hi Dave, i have no problem with you as a person.    To be completely honest, i was kind of surprised when you not only defended but promoted certain sources i believe to be misleading and corrupt.   In any case, i like you & and your voice here, i just did not agree with the defense/promotion of certain teachers.  

 Yes, the creation of my tag is connected to your tag, it was a joking retort, a humorous call for moderation and much broader than just the issue of sour or too much overly sweet wine.  

 A call also for discrimination, put in a light and subtle vein.   Not because i dislike or have a problem with you as a person.   Lordy, you can't seem to disagree with people around here without them thinking you don't like them on a personal level.

 Btw, hope you feel better.   I've found that if one really alkalizes the body, they can get over a cold, flu, etc. pretty quickly.     One of the tastier and most effective ways to do this, is to take orange juice and add some fresh squeezed lemon juice in with it, and don't take any foods or beverages anywhere near this time, not for awhile.  

  Orange is acid in its normal state, and lemon extremely so, but when digested right, they are very alkaline reacting and cleansing, because of the large amount of alkalizing minerals (like Potassium for example) and low calorie content (particularly lemon).  

 Or, easier on the stomach, a lot of some kind of melon would help too, and at later meals, just fresh leafy greens with no vinegar or salad dressing of any kind (except maybe a little extra virgin olive oil).  

Quote from Osho:
Your own consciousness has no wounds.
Your own consciousness knows nothing of misery.
Your own consciousness is innocent, utterly blissful.
To bring you in touch with your own consciousness, every effort is being made to detract you from the mind. The mind contains all your misery, all your wounds. And it goes on creating wounds in such a way that, unless you are aware, you will not even find how it creates them….

All our miseries are so superficial-and most fundamentally, they are all borrowed.

And everybody is giving his misery to everybody else he comes in contact with. People are talking continuously about their miseries, about their troubles, about their conflicts. Have you ever heard anybody talking about his joyous moments? About his dances and songs? About his silences and blissfulness? No, nobody talks about these things. People go on sharing all their wounds, and whenever you are talking about your misery to somebody, without your knowing, you are transferring a miserable pattern. The person may be thinking that he is only listening to you, but he is also catching the vibe of misery, the wounds.

When I said that you carry other people's wounds, my statement meant that your own consciousness has no wounds. If everybody becomes alert, meditative, there will be no wounds in the world. They will simply disappear. They will not find any house, any shelter. This is possible. If it is possible for me, it is possible for everybody.
_________

Osho is talking about a state of being. a state of consciousness Dave mentions as Sammadhi. (spelling?)

this is the future of mankind's state of consciousness. it is also a state of non-duality or balanced brain activity, the left to the right.

Ohso is right on, however he is not discrediting any other teacher or guru while he discusses this blissful type of consciousness that we are to realize ourselves to be. he says if it is possible for him, it is possible for everybody, that is his punchline, which makes him to be perceiving correctly. (my opinion)

perception is what we do here. perception is not the whole of knowledge. words are symbols of our own perceptions, that we share together in communion, or simple communication.

We do indeed share each other's wounds, and misery does love company. but we can move beyond that sharing of misery to something even better to share, in the near future if I can be so bold to say that. talking about PUL. btw, speak of JC, theres one who shared our wounds without much complaint, for we went on to think about his death so much, we shared his wounds too, through stigmatism, and mental ways, when we should have concentrated on his resurrection point he was trying to make from the beginning.

he came to give us life abundant, not death.

personally, I took on my stepfathers wound. it got made whole. I perceive that as destiny. I can see destiny as merging into the world, collective consensus area, where this is taking on the wounds of the world.
the way I reconcile this to reincarnation, is to go forth on the premise, We are One. Whether I want to be here or not, we are one in this regard, to share our misery or our joy, then this is free will, which one to share.

then, I would say to go into a nonduality 4rth dimension, Samadhi, enlightenment, ascension, whatever, "the end", to enter there is to choose to enter there, by graduating from the necessity of taking on another's wounds, thus creating more wounds by identifying with pain and separation from the heart of god, that blissful life abundant, Osho is telling us, is our inheritage.

as to reincarnating, this can be seen to be taking on wounds, yet it can be seen to be entering a movie set the same and taking on a role, as in entering a movie house, there is a beginning, a middle point, and an ending to all movies.
while in the movie, one becomes engrossed in the plot and identifies with the hero or the heroine, exercising their emotions and mental areas.
then when the movie ends, we get up, walk outside, and go home, but the memory lingers of the movie we just got out of.

I can view our lives as memories, and each new baby as a brand new consciousness, ready to absorb life's experiences. I can also view that there is a body before me that is part of god's heart and life that has lived in another flesh body and whose memories are kept in the akashic records for it's point of re-emergence into All That Is, god, home, starting place.

split mind is what we are talking about. the time will come, we all come back together within one mind, and for awhile, we may experience this wound carrying thing, we develop compassion this way.

there is one new thought here, that is of the question of new souls born. none of us can know how that occurs, but we do note a population explosion of bodies.

if the body is nothing and temporary, and dies, while we continue on as our snowflake selves, and even in our oneness, the same, then this mystery of new souls has to be relegated to a creator and to that state of blissful awareness, where it simply doesn't matter that we don't have all the answers yet, because that state of awareness of being alive and well, and in PUL, means we have gained our soul groundedness and can afford to be patient with one another.

I forgot, those others in my disc, who are me, they too, have life eternal, and life just keeps this expansion process whether materializing through the flesh or remaining as nonphysical beingness.

thats why, being so creative, we can create a fluid higher vibrating body of form around ourself within the astral layers. and the reason I saw my mother and grandmother in their younger bodies, versus the way they looked when they died. (they were real, my perception and experience. which in no way invalidates the people that they had been in another movie set, who also have their individuality in their disc.

it also explains how I perceived and experienced intrinsic being as an orb of light on one occassion, where I did escape the confines of my now body, yet retained nonphysical sensing of sight, hearing, etc. what a trip.

love rules, good post Desert. ;)

Desert's gone, Alysia.  :-?

He was run off by a gang of belligerent bellicoses who beat him up with their all-too-familiar verbosity.
Individually these gang members are wonderful fellows, but put them together and their contentious combativeness is enough to make one want to seal them all up in a back alley called "Off-topics." They do not bring out the best in each other and are resorting to repetition of the same comments they make in many of their other posts.

This community needs diversity of opinion, not shattered lights hammered down. How many more are you going to run off 'your turf,' guys?  :-/

Very Angry and Sad Bets  >:( >:(

don't kid yourself Bets. Desert is still reading, as he was just in my inbox today. if he's still reading, he's still here. however, I'm the one should be leaving, not him!

lol.  listen everyone, I was told by spirit if we just give our heart to one another we can settle our differences. so, hmmm.....I just checked, I still have a beating one.. :-/ :-*

now, let us proceed in a balanced manner, using both the left and the right hemispheres of the brain while we still have a brain!

love you guys

Alysia, that portion of the Osho passage was my favorite. I'm glad you pointed it out:

Your own consciousness has no wounds.
Your own consciousness knows nothing of misery.
Your own consciousness is innocent, utterly blissful.
------------------------------------------------------------

This, to me, is the truth when consciousness is expanded by meditation or by acceptance of life and love.

wrote on Feb 14^th, 2008 at 6:30pm:

Alysia, that portion of the Osho passage was my favorite. I'm glad you pointed it out: Your own consciousness has no wounds. Your own consciousness knows nothing of misery. Your own consciousness is innocent, utterly blissful. ------------------------------------------------------------ This, to me, is the truth when consciousness is expanded by meditation or by acceptance of life and love.

hey Blink, yes this has a lot of meaning for me too. I relate it to the experience of molestation. when the miracle of healing occurred (retrieval/forgiveness) seeming from outside my C1, but through me the power of god, that forgiveness, my wound was healed spiritually speaking, but the mental area would take a few more years to catch up, if you know what I mean. I knew there had been a miracle of forgiveness, but I didn't understand it exactly why PUL had taken me over to forgive...I wouldn't be having to know everything at once mentally.
____

since this thread brings up the issue of reincarnation, I looked up something from Urtext of ACIM. the Urtext is the unedited version of ACIM, where J is speaking with the two psychologists. this exerpt is from the teachers manual of ACIM.
Quote:
Does this mean that the teacher of God should not believe in reincarnation himself, or discuss it with others who do?  The answer is, certainly not!  If he does believe in reincarnation, it would be a mistake for him to renounce the belief unless his internal Teacher so advised.  And this is most unlikely.  He might be advised that he is misusing the belief in some way that is detrimental to his pupil's advance or his own.

 Reinterpretation would then be recommended, because it is necessary.  All that must be recognized, however, is that birth was not the beginning, and death is not the end.

Yet even this much is not required of the beginner.  He need merely accept the idea that what he knows is not necessarily all there is to learn.  His journey has begun.
      The emphasis of this course always remains the same; - it is at this moment that complete salvation is offered you, and it is at this moment that you can accept it.  This is still your one responsibility.
Atonement might be equated with total escape from the past and total lack of interest in the future.  Heaven is here.  There is nowhere else.  Heaven is now.  There is no other time.  No teaching that does not lead to this is of concern to God's teachers.  All beliefs will point to this if properly interpreted.  In this sense, it can be said that their truth lies in their usefulness.  All beliefs that lead to progress should be honored.  This is the sole criterion this course requires.  No more than this is necessary.

I'm putting this up here regarding what J is saying about Cayce because I thought perhaps Justin would be interested. I remember Justin and I had a discussion about Cayce. Justin was kind enough to straighten me out that the man was not a saint as I'd thought. however, he was directly a follower of J. Here in this Urtext of ACIM, (not found in the published works of ACIM) we have J talking about Cayce.
________

Because Cayce was a somewhat erratic listener, he was compelled to correct his own errors at very great length, and not always adequately. Consider the basis from which he started, when he began with "yes, we have the body." It is noteworthy that in all these readings, a large section was actually devoted to the body, even though he usually concluded with the caution that the body cannot be healed by itself. It would have saved an enormous number of words if he had always begun with this.

Cayce and his devotion to me are in no way underestimated by the realization that he worked under very great strain, which is ALWAYS a sign that something is wrong. One of the difficulties inherent in trance states is that it is very difficult to overcome the split which the trance itself induces through the medium of communications made while in the trance state. Cayce's whole approach put him in a real double-bind, from which he did not recover. When he spoke of a dream in which he saw his own rather immanent reincarnation, he was perfectly accurate. He was sufficiently attuned to real communication to make it easy to correct his errors, and free him to communicate without strain. It is noticeable throughout his notes that he frequently engaged in a fallacy that we have already noted in some detail: namely, the tendency to endow the physical with nonphysical properties. Cayce suffered greatly from this error. He did not make either of the other three. However, you will remember that it is this one which is particularly vulnerable to magical associations. Cayce's accuracy was so great that, even when he did this, he was able to apply it constructively. But it does not follow that this was a genuinely constructive approach.
(the full page of this reference is found here: http://courseinmiracles.com/urtext/chapter_3/section_3.htm

Don't be mad, Bets. If this is the worst they can do, well blow me down with a feather!

You know, boys will be boys...

Love on 'ya, blink :)



betson wrote on Feb 14^th, 2008 at 6:13pm:

Desert's gone, Alysia.  :-? He was run off by a gang of belligerent bellicoses who beat him up with their all-too-familiar verbosity. Individually these gang members are wonderful fellows, but put them together and their contentious combativeness is enough to make one want to seal them all up in a back alley called "Off-topics." They do not bring out the best in each other and are resorting to repetition of the same comments they make in many of their other posts. This community needs diversity of opinion, not shattered lights hammered down. How many more are you going to run off 'your turf,' guys?  :-/ Very Angry and Sad Bets  >:( >:(

 Hi Bets,

I have come to consider that perhaps there has been too much focus on "speaking against" and not enough speaking for.   I'm speaking for myself mostly.  

At the same time, when i feel moved too, i will speak in a critical manner regarding certain sources.  I don't believe that this innately wrong, destructive, or the like because it was something my Teacher occasionally did.  If it was good enough for him, then its good enough for me, i just have to make sure that i'm coming from a similar space.  

 It can become destructive when it becomes too much of a focus, too much of an attachment, if "self" is too involved.  

 I know i have spoken critically of Eastern beliefs here and there in a general sense, but truth is i highly respect and agree with much of what Buddha taught, particularly in relation to attachment and suffering, though i wouldn't say i completely agree with all teachings connected to him.

Anyways, i guess what i am saying is that i will try to tone it down in regards to speaking against and try harder to speak for in a more positive sense.  And by "positive" i don't mean necessarily, fluffy feel good p.c. words, but focusing more on what i believe and why and not at the detriment or focus of what i see as off, limiting, harmful, etc.  

Ironically, this last issue is one of the major issues i have with a certain channeled source that i've very occasionally have spoken critically about.   I've been, and this latter source is, too polarized.  

;D  Alsyia...  why do i get the sense that on some level, either consciously or more likely unconsciously, you are trying to bait me with the above?  

 Well, all i can say is, what does last reply have to do with either Osho or reincarnation?  

 I may start a thread in the OFF TOPIC section in response to some of the issues you brought up, in a more general way regarding what the body is and means to the Soul and Spirit, and relate that to the Cayce readings to some extent.  

wrote on Feb 14^th, 2008 at 10:36pm:

Don't be mad, Bets. If this is the worst they can do, well blow me down with a feather! You know, boys will be boys... Love on 'ya, blink :)

Thanks! ...i think...  :-? :-/ ;)

 Yes, us "boys" sometimes need to be put in our place by the wiser and more intune women of the world.   Personally, i would like to think its a two way street myself but....

 Well Blink, you have inspired me to start a thread in the off topic section regarding Yin/Right brain/Feminine/women expression and way of being and Yang/Left brain/Masculine/men expression and energy.

 Because, truthfully i sense more than a little of the "us women know better and are better than men", kind of vibe going on with your above quote.    I'm not saying it is, but it could be construed as another form of "judgment" which is something you seem to speak against somewhat consistently.

 I would like to put that in perspective and bring both more of a balance to it, and yet to get a a clearer understanding of the differences in expression and trends in tendencies so we can better recognize imbalance and projection in ourselves.




 Btw Dave, funny enough, i started showing symptoms of the flu towards the end of yesterday myself.   My wife and most of the people i work with on a daily basis, have already been and/or still sick, so it seems to be quite a virulent and adaptable strain.  I've held out for a long while, but i guess its time for me to practice of that alkalization stuff i preach eh.   ;D   I took the day off from work to rest, and to practice the above, and it already seems to be running scared.  (crosses fingers)

 Part of my job is fairly physical, and plus i don't want the risk of my client to get re-sick (nor my other client).  I have to do daily stretches with a youngish boy who has C.P. really bad.   Takes me about 45 mins. to do, and because of the nature of the process, is physically difficult.  Definitely can work up a  sweat.     Plus i carry him around here and there.

Justin -
Hey - no problema. -

Good dietary advice. Avocado and cottage cheese seem to do better than my usual spicier fare. This bug's a real bugger - ;-)

My essential point is simply that we can, and should, learn from anything, and that just because I don't like, understand, or feel I can tolerate some other person's trip through reality, that doesn't mean that they are worthless. I recall that when hanging a picture I often get a quick lesson about how to hold a nail - usually by whacking my thumb.

Hope it's all a false alarm for you!

dave

no I don't have time to bait you Justin, I thought of you when I was reading the material because of our discussion so long ago about Cayce. I felt then that I always loved Cayce since I read him as a teenager. I admired his work a great deal and wondered about someone like this, that he worked so hard to help others at the expense of his own self.

so I admired him and wondered about his soul. somehow theres a connection between him and yourself. don't know what it is, but I assure you, I'm not looking to bait you but I do feel you have some of his knowledge inside you, and that you either knew him or was living around him as a part of his disc, I'm just not sure but that u might even be his next incarnation. but I'm certain to get laughed right off the board for saying that.

take care, alysia

 Yes Dave, and i do agree with you.  But as i tried to point out to Kathy on another thread, there are subtle but important differences between emotionally centered judgment and speaking in a critical and discriminating manner from a detached, faster vibrating mental level.  The difference is all in the inner intents and motivations of a person, or as Yeshua would say, "man sees the outer appearance, but God reads the Heart of an individual."   Only those fully attuned to Source can do likewise.  


 The latter is what my "guidance" does with me sometimes, they see my imperfections, how i limit myself, and try to correct that by bringing these to my attention.   At the time, i may not like or want to see these, but often later on i'm grateful for it being brought to my attention.  

 Albert says the same of his guidance.  These do not always speak only fluffy, feel good, and positive messages.   Sometimes they are firm, persistent,  and even gently critical.   But always are they balanced, and if they mention a "negative" they have also spoke on what is positive, and i can feel their inner and underlying love.   I know they just want me to grow, and part of growing oft involves someone or something wiser or more aware than yourself, to speak on certain limiting thoughts, ways of being, etc. and better ways of doing, thinking, being, etc.

 Keep in mind that its the inner intents and motivations which matter more than the outer appearance of an action or words to someone.

There are very, very few people so attuned and balanced themselves, that can always accurately and fully perceive those inner intents and motivations in others from the outer appearances, particularly when we are talking about a person typing words on a forum.  

  A gruff manner and typing of words, does not always mean ill intentions and vice versa, a considerate, sensitive, and p.c. manner and typing of words does not always mean the inner is positive and loving.   There are those who speak kindly and positively more because they care what others think of self, a definite social awareness and need to be liked or accepted.

 I would refer you to my Teacher's example.  He did not believe any person was "worthless", but at times he spoke quite strongly and critically about other peoples certain beliefs, ways of teaching or being, and teachers of his times.  He knew he was more aware, intune, and correct than these.

If speaking critically towards or about others is only destructive and ego motivated, why would he speak critically, if he was one of, if not the most, PUL centered and attuned to Source public Teacher ever to publicly teach?

 Thanks for the deeper explanation Alysia.  

My understanding of people is that we are kind of like ice bergs, most of us that is, theres a certain amount above the surface but usually a lot more deep below the water and much, much harder to see (especially when looking at ourselves).  That doesn't make the below surface stuff all "bad", some is related to other life influences, etc.  But it does make the seeking of ever greater consciousnesses of the unconsciousness, a good thing.

 In our interactions with others, rarely are we only coming purely from the above surface stuff, the part that is conscious.  It's possible to become fully conscious of all of the ice berg, and thus the difference between below and above surface melts away, but it seems to be a rare human indeed who has done that.  Such folks are like the guy you call JC.  

 I wouldn't hold it against you, even if you were coming from that space unconsciously.  


 Truth is, our interactions with each other, more often than not, come from a mix of both conscious and unconscious, and these can be different and even quite contradictory in intent and motivation.   We consciously may think, believe and perceive we are coming from a positive space or we may want to, but unconsciously we may be seeking to sow the seeds of discord.  

 Self is the hardest book to fully and accurately read...  Probably why so many spiritual traditions seemed to have a similar motto of and emphasis on "know thyself".    I will try to concentrate on your conscious and positive motivation, and more so i have appreciation and gratitude for it.   After all, isn't it mostly in the try anyways where we grow?

 

I'm leaving soon. I know I've said that before, or at the least I'm slacking off here Justin. part of my motive was to be saying goodbye to you, with the post u couldn't tell what I was saying..so much misperceptions go on, on a forum where we can't utilize our tone of voice, our body mannerisms also, it's just a computer and the internet. so it seems we just assume certain things about others, maybe find out later, we just made assumptions.

so its not really a good mode of communication, but the internet does however, make worldwide communication more instantaneous so I can offer a positive there.

with that I took my subconscious into the conscious as best I can so we don't unnessarily sow those seeds of discord;  :) take care dearlite, although this may just be a vacation goodbye.
friends are important, even when they disagree, and I consider you a friend even though we've had some disagreements, they were not something to hold onto, not for me, I hope not for you. now, certainly its difficult to stay on topic these days and that is part of the reason I venture off somewhere else.

and thank you for all those posts you gave us, in case I don't get to say another goodbye.
and thank you Edgar Cayce!! and for the related topics of him you gave us. [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif]  

Alysia - I think that it was Sai Baba who suggested that spiritual awareness was the boat in which to cross the river of unknowing - And then, we have to get out of the boat. - A few on this forum seem to be playing boatmen, and a few are passengers. - To me, you have always seemed to be more the boatman type - or boat-person, if you prefer - and if there are other rivers to span, go for it! I've enjoyed your presence.

d