_____________________   

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.



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.

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

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 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

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.   

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

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

  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:


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:


   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:


    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:


  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:


  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:


  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:


  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?   

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

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


  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.