|This page is a part of a multi-page exercise in deconstructing a document, "What is an Osho?" (WiaO), that was an important benchmark in the progression of trends in Osho's sannyas after he left his body. These pages come in no particular order except for an Introduction and a central hub / Main Page. If you have got here somehow without reading these three linked pages, it will be best to visit them first.|
"And part of this struggle to try and define 'Osho' has been about dealing with the gap. No Master, no physical presence, just a healing sound...? Perhaps Osho is more a quality, a taste, a flavor, a way of seeing things, a door inwards.... Naturally for those who still want somebody to tell them what to do, who still want to play the Master/disciple game of old, this won’t do. So the rush is on to find someone, anyone – even if disembodied – with whom to play the safe game of disciple".A whole book could be written about this slick paragraph. Here we will steer a middle course between the few small things said about it in the Main Page and that magnum opus. While the Main Page mainly addressed the "safe game of disciple" canard – with that theme expanded on its own page – here we will expand on "struggle to try and define 'Osho'."
One newly arrived visitor to the welcome center of the Osho Meditation Resort in Pune, India will always be remembered for his innocent comment, "I don’t even know what an Osho is."
[We] could imagine Osho agreeing, with that particular twinkle in his eye, that he also doesn’t know.
For all of us, it is still an intriguing question. When you read what he says about biographies, about how he has no biography, how the East has never been into biographies, that one’s biography ceases with enlightenment, one cringes at any attempt to create one. It feels like an attempt to force the meaning of "Osho" into some conventional historical box.
But then ... "he agreed to Osho, from a
word created by William
James, 'oceanic'." First comes the bogus history, and with it begins
struggle to define "Osho". Literally. And with "Later he would say that Osho is
not even his name,
just a healing sound", a second piece of untruthiness is applied to
Then ... "So what is an Osho? becomes a
real koan". A last fig leaf
of innocent inquiry is brought out before the next wave of spin and
mind games used to define him:
Then ... "[Osho] happily doubts
everything [...] including all our
ideas about 'what an Osho is'." This is a perfectly good standard,
supplied by our master. Then why is it not applied to the conclusion
the authors come to? Why are they not doubting their own creation? The most concrete expression of their conclusion
appears to be "ultimate deconstructionist". Well, yes, Osho can be said
to be that, but is he limited to that? Hardly. Thus, regarding the
Krishnamurti / doubt / trust analysis (detailed here), the whole point is, or should be, to doubt everything, and
when one is total in that doubt, it must inevitably consume itself. Or
more simply, any particular "ultimate conclusion" drawn from that doubt
analysis must be suspect. But perhaps mgmt just liked this phrase,
deconstructionist", which became a part of osho.com's presentation /
definition of Osho. In fact, that ringing phrase appears in many sites
around the net, and far more often in connection with Osho than not, so
been a fairly successful definition, much copied. More below on this.
Then comes a rejection of defining Osho
as a "disembodied master",
with a complete non-sequitur purporting to relegate that idea totally
to the nutzo fringe: "Jesus re-run". Now there are certainly
disembodied masters one might feel not to trust, but Osho is a
master and also is currently disembodied, so it should at least be a
personal decision how to relate to this notion. Those who feel Osho in
their hearts are not served by mgmt's taking this stern position;
rejecting them in this contemptuous and snide way is a position,
definition, "definition" at the most basic level being drawing a line
around a word and saying inside this line is what this word means,
outside the line is not. This is an uncalled-for limitation, which
Osho, "the ultimate deconstructionist",
would surely have rejected and, since we are as entitled to speak for
him as anyone, we can say he does reject.
This negative definition – still a definition, just taking the form of "Osho is not X" – is called into
being and supported by the
flimsiest of rhetorical devices, then followed by floating out a few more
definitions: "Perhaps Osho is more a quality, a taste, a flavor, a way
of seeing things, a door inwards..." Nothing wrong with any of them if
the door is not closed to more. But make no mistake, the door is
closed; the "perhaps" that begins that list is just another rhetorical
fig leaf. The barrage of snideness that accompanies consideration of
anything else makes it abundantly clear that mgmt will absolutely
prefer this kind of definition and reject anything that doesn't match
up with their own criteria.
Which brings us to: "Perhaps that is
exactly the point. His work is
the gap. His work is to deconstruct all the games of the past, all the
attempts to put the responsibility onto others: God, masters, gurus,
teachers, therapists...whatever. And leave us with nothing but
ourselves." Now it is his work that is being
defined, but it is the same game, the safe game of anti-disciple.
"And could it be that [...] all any of us
would need is a Sony
Walkman?" Yeah, right! And you know how the wrap-up is going to go, so
we'll cut to our "Defining Osho" wrap-up, which brings us back to that
catchy phrase at the beginning – yes, we got caught on it – "this
struggle to try and define 'Osho'."
It should by now be clear that
WiaO has been struggling and
trying. Mightily. This is a struggle for the hearts and minds of
sannyasins everywhere, initiated by mgmt. The sad part is that they already had those hearts
and minds delivered to their doorsteps personally by Osho and they are
blowing them off in many ways. WiaO's definitions, lines in the sand,
saying this is Osho, that is not Osho, do nothing but place limitations
on his legacy and barriers among his people. Is this their intention?