|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.|
|What Is an Osho?||Deconstruction|
|There is another key
in a talk [we] remember
Osho giving about
Krishnamurti, and the mistake he made in starting with
doubt. That his
listeners always remained in the "doubt" mode, while Osho began with
trust, and then could easily introduce "doubt" later1, which, when based
on trust, has a very different quality. And when Osho starts on doubt,
he really lets you have it. He happily doubts everything: God,
religion, beliefs, all our conditionings, all our programming...
including all our ideas about "what an Osho is."
A top New York copyright lawyer who was surveying Osho’s work, at one point looks up and says, somewhat amazed by her own discovery, "He is the ultimate deconstructionist."
|Osho did not
"introduce doubt later"1, he "happily doubts everything"
all along, though of course always accompanied by trust, and a
multitude of devices to help us process this difficult dichotomy. And
copyright lawyer is not necessary to attest to Osho's deconstructions.
Osho does that all by himself, for example in these classic words about a
Jungian analyst named Habib, who left after Osho attacked his beloved
Jung too much: "Habib missed the point. If he was a Freudian I would
have attacked Freud, if he was a Marxist I would have attacked Marx,
and if he was a Rajneeshian, I would have attacked Rajneesh! It is not
a question of Jung! Jung comes nowhere into it. The attack is on
Habib's ego! Because the ego is Jungian, so poor Jung has to be
The Krishnamurti / doubt / trust paragraph seems to be a lead-in to WiaO's "Evolution over the years" theme. To assert this "key" about Krishnamurti is an angle which can be spun into a progression, from "primary school" to "grad school", if you like. But Krishnamurti's mistake is not so much starting with doubt as staying there. His approach is one-dimensional. Osho's vastness is that he can handle more than one aspect of a dialectic, and the rhythm and dynamic tension of doubt and trust is what he teaches, not starting with trust and ending with doubt.
It looks like Osho's org cannot handle such vastness; the best they can do is make a progression out of doubt and trust, making doubt the great end-product and trust primary school. The progression theme is indeed the theme of the remembered discourse, but many older discourses can be found that make it clear that he did not begin with only trust, no matter what he says in the "key" quote. More about this below3.
And the lawyer? It has been suggested that the mention of the lawyer is a kind of "shadow of the whip" to keep readers in line, certainly as good a guess as any since she is otherwise peripheral, but no strong case can really be made of this. One detail that doesn't quite ring true about the lawyer is that it is not so easy to imagine a "top NY" lawyer spending enough of her $500+ an hour time reading Osho to be able to come to such a sweeping understanding, but who knows?
Osho's Teachings:As mentioned in the introduction of this page, the "digging deeper" into this matter turned up some very interesting material, illustrating some of Osho's more difficult teachings. The last paragraph above is a beautiful description of dialectics, "the movement from one pole to another", without inconsistency. And "this is what I am interested in." Yes! He celebrates both the poles simultaneously, and the dynamic tension of these polarities is something we can not only learn to deal with but flow with and enjoy. And the same is true of any pair of "opposites" (except when it's not). And when we can learn to flow equally well with either polarity, we come to find a "dynamic middle", where they meet (and merge) and become both and neither. "Neither" by virtue of being transformed. Mmmm!