|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
nearoanoke
USA
525 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 24 2005 : 7:54:58 PM
|
I read the below from an online link about OSHO/Rajneesh who had true mystical powers (and displayed them publicly) but was corrupted morally:
-----------------
Rajneesh's disciples thought they were following an authoritative "enlightened master." In reality they had been mislead by a highly fallible human animal who was still a little boy at heart. Rajneesh had not only misrepresented himself personally, but he misrepresented the phenomena of enlightenment itself. The idealized fantasy of perfect enlightenment does not exist anywhere in the real world and it has never existed. The universe is far too big and complex for anyone to be its "master." We are all subjects, not masters, and those who pretend to be infallible and all-knowing end up looking even more the fool in the end.
"Nature does not use anything as a model. It is only interested in perfecting the species. It is trying to create perfect species and not perfect beings." U.G. Krishnamurti
The famous sages of old seem perfect to us now only because they have become larger than life myths. The long passage of time has allowed their followers to effectively cover up their guru's flaws, just as Rajneesh disciples are currently rewriting and censoring history to cover up Rajneesh's great failings. Rajneesh was never more infallible than any other human being. What we call enlightenment is not a cure-all for faults and frailties that cling to human animals even after they achieve maximum possible consciousness, which is perhaps a more realistic definition of the term 'enlightenment.'
The contradiction of corruption and enlightenment (as in Rajneesh's case) can occur because the individual is only the lens of enlightenment, not the source of cosmic power itself. The enlightened only allow universal energy to pass through them unblocked, untouched, and uncontaminated. In a way, no one ever really becomes enlightened personally. Enlightenment happens at the place where you are standing, but you cannot own it or possess it. All the words of so-called enlightened men come from the human brain which interprets the phenomena of enlightenment like a translator. The words do not come from the enlightenment itself. By definition enlightenment cannot speak. It is absolutely silent and beyond any need to speak.
---------------
Please share your opinions on this
God might not always give you what you WANT, but he will always give you what you NEED |
|
|
Manipura
USA
870 Posts |
Posted - Sep 25 2005 : 1:03:42 PM
|
I've read some of Osho's writings - he has a wonderful book on Creativity which isn't particularly well written, but the message comes through: Get out of the way and let creativity come through you. I'm not convinced that he did this. Another of his books, Meditation: The Art of Ecstacy, was not helpful at all. He must have gone to the same school as Krishnamurti, where already-enlightened beings are taught to explain it to the rest of us. My impression, particularly in the latter book, is that ego played a big part in his work. But he did have a lot of good things to say, wouldn't you agree?
Then again, a lot of power was given him by his disciples. From our vantage point it's dificult to know which came first, the giving or the taking. Time may be kind to Osho, and his message may be heard above his reputation. History is overrun with many unsavory saints.
meg |
 |
|
|
david_obsidian
USA
2602 Posts |
Posted - Sep 26 2005 : 11:21:32 AM
|
quote:
[i]
The contradiction of corruption and enlightenment (as in Rajneesh's case) can occur because the individual is only the lens of enlightenment, not the source of cosmic power itself. The enlightened only allow universal energy to pass through them unblocked, untouched, and uncontaminated. In a way, no one ever really becomes enlightened personally.
Hi Near,
I tend to agree with the views put forward in what you quote.
I'd also add that many different things are meant by the word 'enlightened'. So people have to be careful to get their particular notions right, or in agreement with those of the people with whom they are speaking.
It is important that we, as a species, "grow up" about our spiritual teachers. They aren't perfect, and they should be expected to make mistakes. We should be smart enough to throw their mistakes away and pick out what is best from them. And they should be in a process of continually learning their mistakes and, at best, telling us about them. But almost all of them prefer to cultivate the greater awe that gullible people hold them in if they appear more infallible. In so many cases, when mistakes are made by the teachers and they figure them out, they are covered up and the past is rewritten to continue to cultivate the impression of infallibility. Note that this may happen even if infallibility is officially denied --- impressions of infallibility can be inculcated and cultivated while it is officially denied, so official denial of infallibility is no proof of being mischief-free in this regard.
Thinking that they will be absolutely perfect, correct and wise in everything causes two major problems. One, when if the teacher lives in an environment in which people don't call him/her on his errors, he almost always eventually goes Cuckoo and the whole Sangha starts to dysfunction.
The other problem is that people operating from the mistaken point of view that teachers will be perfect and right always, when they do eventually see the imperfections, may tend to throw away the teachings of that teacher as a whole and go on looking for some other (nonexistent) perfect teacher. And so jewels are needlessly thrown away.
Here is an interesting lesson from Yogani on the topic:
http://www.aypsite.org/260.html
So I see Rajneesh as being a very gifted yogi who can give you a lot of good material if you know how to separate the wheat from the chaff. Morally, he seems to have become very corrupt for whatever reasons, and got worse and worse. So I would say we can make use of the best of him but must not imitate his worst, whatever we do.
>>> The contradiction of corruption and enlightenment (as in Rajneesh's case) can occur because the individual is only the lens of enlightenment, not the source of cosmic power itself. The enlightened only allow universal energy to pass through them unblocked, untouched, and uncontaminated
I think that is very nicely put. Buried inside the errors discussed there you can find the myth of Lucifer (which means light-bearer). Once Lucifer started thinking that he (not God) was the source of his glory he, well, he really started .... well, going to hell.  Note, ironically, on the last day of his life, Rajneesh is supposed to have said 'My body has become a hell for me'.
Likewise, as people become illuminated light-bearers, there is a temptation that there will be a residual sense that they (individually) are the source of the light. And that sense (if unchecked) can become a great source of darkness.
Best regards,
-David
|
Edited by - david_obsidian on Sep 26 2005 6:54:06 PM |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Enlightenment and morality
