Paul, before calling me paranoid, let me remind you that it was Osho, not me, who first laid the charge of fascism against buddhists. That stunning revelation has left me completely wary of buddhism as an historical movement, Tibetan buddhists especially.
It would be nice to know if there is anything left of the buddhist path. And for that matter restarts like Oshoism.
We are at the point of trying to see how occultism interacted with the corruption of the left into fascism in the era of Mussolini up to the entry of figures like Hitler and his early milieu of brown shirts. The called themselves ‘socialists’! etc…
To commenter Paul: Your stance is frustrating because you can’t get the point, and in the process I am getting an answer to my question about Osho as a leftist resource.
I may be a ‘paranoid twit trying to get a life’ but I doubt it. I fear that if you can’t distinguish Osho and Gurdjieff you have no spiritual path whatsoever.
I have read virtually every Osho book in print and I am well aware of his few references to Gurdjieff, and of the ISOM reference you speak of. Osho read ISOM, and found it of great interest. And he must have read the ending where Ouspensky suddenly realizes he can’t follow Gurdjieff. He is beginning to realize he is a criminal. So what’s your point?
Nonetheless, the reactions of people like this Paul suggest the danger of taking Osho as an off the shelf source of spiritual information for a future left. The Osho circle is vulnerable to takeover by sufi trojan horse artists who wouldn’t mind screwing naive leftists. But this is just the kind of issue that needs to be considered.
I have no intention of forcing any ideology on sannyasins, and my remark about invading the commune in India was nonsense. Having said such a thing sannyasins would be right to void any communications.
I think actually this has been a mission accomplished: we have established a connection between communism and the Osho world, something Osho was the first to do. And we have recorded the lack of any response by sannyasins as a matter of public record.
The issue here is to find a way for a society of a new communism to deal with the ancient legacies. I think we are close to finding a first step. If the Osho world wishes otherwise so be it, one caN move in parallel without contact. However, in a communist society it would be necessary to examine the books of the commune, conceivably on the way to expropriation in the name of the larger ‘commune’ as the repository of private property. In fact I am curious as to the finances of this group.
One of the original ‘mas’, Sheila made off with many millions. That money belongs to the people, so there should be some future reckoning.
Anyway, quite unwanted we should simply drop the Osho deliberations, declare oneself de-guruized, reclaim control over one’s autonomy and return to the public sphere to work alone. There will be ample opportunity to study the ‘books’ at a later time.
Anyway, a serious student on the left would be able to do this better than I, so go for it.
This kind of ‘What’s the use’ despair is not helpful We should be glad Gautama Buddha did not take you advice here.
I think your attempt at realism is one thing as your opinion, but it can be harmful to others. Samsara is dangerous place.
The problem here is that death is not final: cycling through lives asleep is dangerous, and you may turn in circles until in one life you meet someone like Gurdjieff who will makes promises and then turn you into a ‘demon for the work’, lives and lives a prisoner of lower consciousness and an ‘energy drone’ slave’.
So you can’t really abandon the path once entered. A sentient human makes a good ‘energy drone’ to be milked for the small amount of spiritual energy each is granted by nature, but can’t use. The sharks are there to drain off your measure as you sleep in samsara. And in a new age the old magic circles of religions like Xtianity are crumbling.
Some still have the option of simply waiting, humble Christians or Moslems, or the passive members of many ‘faiths’, who are ‘saved’, i.e. simply transferred from one life to the next asleep, until they can finally enter a way. But in such a mechanical process many are lost. D,Once people approach the path they are stricken from the list of ‘saved’, they have been saved long enough, and must enter a real path with the clock ticking,…
I am a little unfair to the Osho group. But this post is perhaps misleading. The potential of the Osho spectrum is immense and doesn’t have much to do with contacting his sannyasins at his ashram. They are very difficult to deal with, befriend or talk to. The Indian compound is a clipjoint for Westerners by Indians who laugh at westerners behind their back.
My last contact with a sannyasin was so frustrating I spat in his face.
I think a leftist movement would simply bypass his India compound, and formulate Osho’s legacy as a library of information about Indian spiritual traditions.
This potential will reveal itself over time with an important set of questions: how can a movement of sannyasins based on sanskrit names generalize to larger world? Such questions actually betray the false consciousness of religion formation. The real issue here is 1. the creation of a library of information on spiritual subjects, and 2. the possibility of practical work on that basis. The creativity of the spiritual domain won’t feed repetition, so what the future holds is unclear.
It might help if someone else took the next step, but that seems unlikely, just yet.
Paul’s stupid remarks are frustrating, but, sadly, a warning of the way the world will judge Osho unfairly. The new movement is at desperation point. It has lost almost everyone.
My suggestions about Osho were to the effect that he was a straightforward Indian spiritual teacher, who happened to discuss Gurdjieff very briefly. Then along come idiots like Paul who want to mix the two.
The saddest verdict will be the dumping of Osho’s attempt to create a new way for the future.
People who dish out Gurdjieff propaganda should list a single case where his teaching has succeeded, produced anything, or clarified anything. Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of people are converts to enneagram bullshit. And Gurdjieff didn’t even care if he wrecked the spiritual life of the majority. All the better to destroy the populace. The esoteric teaching is for hidden fascists I guess..
The issues of Gurdjieff and then EJ Gold are fairly putrid, and the issue with Gold to conclude commentary on that score is the alarming way he seems to revive the old stereotypes against Jews and seem to give them some evidence.
Centuries of paranoid gentiles have made astonishing charges of occult malice against Jews, and just at the point where this paranoia has been dismissed on the borderline to a golden age of philosemitism along comes Gold confirming the stereotypes against Jews with some really humdinger strealth Jewish villainy.
This is strange. Gold is not stupid. It must be an attempty to manufacture antisemites. As warned, the fascist jews are a bit tricky: it must be their sufi milieu that evokes this.
Let’s not get paranoid: so far all we have seen is the dry rot in Xtianaity and Judaism, and finally sufism, driving these traditions into the ground.
The current Osho movement seems stalled, and not having ever visited the Indian compound I am not in a position to evaluate anything. The current regime now charges $20 a day just to enter the grounds of the ashram. That’s a long way from a communal/communist ethos. I don’t think such issues are decisive.
We are talking about a movement that could without much trouble become a study area for a communist movement. The Osho format would be ideal for that. But a full lineage of 24 enlightened teertankers/buddhas would be hard to bring off. But India did in once already millennia ago.
Compare it with a living tradition of opera: the immense scale of operations, the core of which is the training of singers, is a considerable task, to say the least. A lineage of 24 buddhas (hopefully with thousands and thousands of realized disciples) would be no mean feat.
Maybe a commando squad of neo-communist sannyasins could simply take over the ashsram in Poona in a commando raid, and open the doors to a few rupees entry fees.
We had a set of posts at Darwiniana on this: the point to be recast here (the world religion, the virtual church of the holy brick was a blessed non-starter) is that our critique of monotheistic religions last week, next to a plug for an Osho style spiritual movement fails to reckon with the intensive energy behind monotheism, despite its lack of any solid content.
The crux of the issue is the different ‘paths of being’, as in buddhism and the Indian paths of enlightenment, and the ‘paths of will’ that characterize the monotheistic religions. The problem is that man’s will is weak and vulnerable and cannot resolve itself in action without some kind of ‘higher power’. So the path of will is hardly that! The paths of the buddhist sort are the opposite, they work toward the negation of the will, in the path beyond manifestation. Nothing is that simple, and both paths assimilate a little bit of the other.
The point is that a larger spiritual context after the fashion of Indian yogas is confronted with the potency of the monotheistic religions. \
we need a way to be able to reach a mediation point between the two…not so simple….
More on this later…
Get the point: no real lineage is possible with Gurdjieff style gangsters: the temptation to create an esoteric delicatessen for an elite would be too strong, and that is the worst kind of nauseating fake spirituality, sufism as its absolute worst. It is disgusting.
So the question must be asked: why is everyone confusing Gurdjieff and Osho? Osho was clear: he was initially enthusiastic, and, apparently, a close reader of Ouspensky, but it is clear from his later comments that he became less than enthusiastic, and saw him as a failure. I am very leery of trying to speak for anyone else here. But the issue won’t go away.
Gurdjieff made it clear he wasn’t enlightened. That puts him in another category beside Osho. His teaching is not clear as to its intent. Its ethics is dubious, and its success rate so far is almost zero. The guru ratings website (one of Osho’s sannyasins) puts E.J. Gold in place as a successor, but that is bullshit, more of the fawning before Jewish figures who are given a green light without any careful thought.
But the question arises: was Osho actually honest? Is there something we have missed? The problem is muddled by endless false charges and accusations all of which are hard to sort out.
What was proposed here last week was the equivalent of a world religion (but better than that, not in that exhausted category) based on an analog of the Jain sequence of 24 teertankers, in place at the Osho compound, or elsewhere… An exciting possibility that could help Indian to showcase their spirituality without the entanglement of Hindu complications, and cultural degenerations. The latter is a kind of rich topsoil of decaying spiritualities and to this day produces more realized men than buddhism, or so I suspect. But it is getting to be a burden even for Indians, and we see Osho’s impatience with it. The problem was not hard to solve, and he solved it with a new framework outside the Hindu line: he wasn’t a Hindu in that sense.
The point here is crucial. If we can’t trust Osho beyond the level of Gurdjieff, and if Gurdjieff agents are going to try and enter the Osho sphere to extend the sufi slave trade, all bets are off, and we have to abandon the Osho context.
And the path to enlightenment remains unclear: the ‘guru’ factor can be false, and the ‘destruction of ego’ another profitable occult ripoff. I suspect the real path is nearly free of gurus, with a few intersections and interactions with realized men. I don’t really know. The problem is that the ‘negation of the will’, if it comes from the outside, instead of being an autonomous meditation, ends up being a road to zombiehood, not enlightenment. The guru/disciple relationship can turn into a farce.
But the project envisioned in the context of the Osho framework can’t be the kind of Fagin operation inevitable with Gurdjieff types.
So the question lingers, who was Osho and what is his true nature?
Paul, get with it. These mealy mouthed comments trying to restore the cred of Gurdjieff and match him with Osho are counterproductive. I having been trying to consider a future constellation of sannyasin neo-buddhists in an immense new lineage, not my idea, but a hope for future teachers.
But if Osho is in cahoots with or on the level of people like Gurdjieff, then that possibility will prove barren, and dangerous for those might get caught in an esoteric deception.
Our discussion of the place of the Reformation in modernity is important and tricky, and not the way the current set of secularists are thinking. I tend to agree with the secularists, in some ways, but the model shows the dynamics involved. The early part of the Reformations has amplified to swamp its own conclusion in the period of the Enlightenment and German Classical philosophy, and, indeed, communist leftism, marxist or not.
And I have been complicating the discussion with plug for the Osho phenomenon, because I was asked to try it out, butwhich can’t at first seem to do justice to the whole argument. That’s illustrative, at least, but it also points to the way that a leftist movement could be more adept with the complexity of civilization and also assist the fragile but crucial Indic tradition, which holds a key library of certain aspects of man’s evolutionary history. It needs help against being swamped by the monotheistic juggernaut. The recursion of a new/old Christianity in the modern transition with its Reformation is almost unfair, and an accident of history. The whole richness of the Indic religious legacy is in danger of being swamped by the resurgence of Christianity, the case of Islam being uncertain.
Christianity is a relatively crude religion. Christians believe in a series of historical miracles, of dubious facticity. They go to church, repent their sins, and then go out and re-sin. They indulge the extravagent forms of mythic theism, not indicated necessarily by any tradition. The history of Jesus shows a three year teacher interval followed by his death: no teaching emerged in that hectic period. A garbled version of buddhism in the confusion over a very unhealthy celibacy which turned into a total confusion over sex, an attempt to turn prayer into meditation, and in general a lack of any real program of human development. Behavior is judged by a limited ethical structure and produces the misleading category of saved and damned, etc… The mess of theology is as puzzling as the successful dynamic of expansion. This strange structure was/is far more powerful in its historical dynamics, in part due to its place in our system of transitions, and also its obscure but potent connection with Zoroastrian ‘end times’ mythology which is also a way to energize group action toward a goal. In the book Last and First Men the preface tries to intuit this dynamic in terms of the hyparchic future of J.G. Bennett.
Humanity can’t afford another epoch of the barren Christianity, I will set Islam to one side for a moment. And yet it is already on the way to a considerable global domination. And the original, and crucial distinction of Protestantism, is now fading: Catholicism is essentially a Protestant Church. Something doesn’t ring true here. Monotheism lacks the transparency of something like budhism. It is a set of magical operations constructed by supergnostics, which is about on the level of a Faustian pact with the devil to create a religion that can free you from the devil. Jesus has no further connection to the outcome. It is all ‘Christ’, which is what? It doesn’t work. And our model shows the problem and a solution: Protestant Christianity is only a phase of the Reformation, with its radical Munzerian revolution deleted. The Reformation rapidly moves past the tradition and into a new series of formats, the last of which reinvents the radical Christian communism from its beginning, now in the format of historical materialism, which is an inadequate outcome all over again. And it demands that its members be free of theistic mystifications of freedom and authority.
So our suggestion was that a new universal formation like the Osho combination could both enter the empty nothing of Christian churches with a real spiritual teaching, and/or enter into the last phase of the Reformation as a radical companion to the possible realization of a communist outcome to postcapitalism. All these hopes are likely to remain abstract in the endgame of capitalism in a global calamity. But they just may be able to bring a new exit strategy to the tragedy of economic globalization.
This is a strange and unfair situation: the dynamic of epochs will not pass the old formations. But one of the old formations, Christianity, went through a partial upgrade that is taking off as a new religion for a new age, while its real completion in modernity is sidestepped.
I merely gave a slight plug for ‘Oshoism’ because it a simple solution, already in secular format, for either a replacement or else of new interior context to the empty content of Christianity. And/or, of course, a new radical communism now with a spiritual content.
In the final possibility of outrageous syncretism a form of Oshoism could enter into the Christian/Zoroastrian church dynamics to create a real religion for the first time. It could equally well be a completion of secularism and not religion at all. It is a relevant idea because Oshoism, no ism, is a timely encyclopedia in motion of virtually all the spiritual legacies of man.
We can see that some earlier version of this idea came about in the history of Islam, which allowed an interior subreligion of sufism to emerge. In the modern secular world a more careful yet analogous possibility is conceivable as we have indicated.
The possibilities are immense, but we may see none of them. The momentum of old religions will take up a third of the new era. The grim combinations of scientism, darwinism, economic brainwashing with fake mathematics and the culture/politics of capitalism could sweep the world in a false future, graced by junk Protestantism, a basically archaic form that was strangely given a new modern relaunch. But I think the resolutions indicated here will slowly get their chance of realization. They must be ready with something that works and isn’t a rehash of the blather ideology of the Second Internationale or new age buddhism turned into a cult of fascist gurus.
All this leaves the intriguing question of ‘gurus’ and their ashrams, an archaic formation, but one that can be reborn in a new form. A new supercharged formation of a Oshoism-style ‘santana dharma’, marxism, and communism could create a robust secularism with a religious twist (the descendants of buddhism have almost no conflicts with science), with a lineage of futuristic ‘gurus’ now exemplars, after the fashion of the twenty-four teertankers of Jainism, of the first and last man evolution of homo sapiens, etc… These teertankers emerged at the fringes of society and the Forest. This could even juggle the Zoroastrian ‘end times’ slingshot effect into its action. The point is that the new age movement is a bit old age, and the real new age has to be able to navigate an immense new set of universes of discourse.
Finally this kind of formation needs, as does communism, a correct stance toward the crucial modern democratic revolutions. That is really a problem for communists, who need to resolve the question of democracy in the context of capital domination. An issue needing more discussion…
The format of Osho, unlike the corrupt esoteric labyrinths of buddhism, sufism, and occultisms like rosicrucianism is fresh, direct, practical, modern, egalitarian, and adaptable either to communist/commune style organization or else ‘open society’ secular situations, etc…