|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.|
|Contents / Topics covered:
"Our presence, not his"
The Pacemaker Story
"Bhagwan" / Hinduism
|What Is an Osho?||Deconstruction|
|Of course we had heard him say many times that he was really just an absence, that it was our presence that was important not his, that his chair had always been empty....||Osho has indeed spoken on the importance of our-presence-not-his a number of times but also the reverse, that our presence is the problem, and what is needed is to see our inner emptiness. Thus, this "we had heard him say many times" is selective, serving the ideology being advanced. (This taken from the connecting paragraph between the Name Change section and Leaving His Body, not cited in the Main Page.)|
|On his last day, his heart was beating irregularly and obviously failing and he clearly needed a pacemaker. This would almost certainly have assured his being perfectly able to continue. With a gentle, smiling wave of his hand, he dismissed the idea, "Existence has its own timing," he responded, as if deciding to spend a weekend in the country.||The idea
only needed a pacemaker to continue is dealt with
in the Leaving his Body
section of the Main Page as more bogus history, not fitting with Amrito's
Statement in Buddha Hall on Jan 20
1990, which goes on at some length about Osho's inability to
because of intractable pain.
Quite apart from that historical shape-shifting, the statement is a self-contradictory clanger all unto itself. If Osho's health had really been so easy to salvage with a pacemaker, he would surely have seen existence as operating through his doctor to help prolong a worthwhile life and said yes. In fact his little weekend-in-the-country dismissal might even be considered somewhat life-negative if it were all really so easy.
Change section near the beginning,
referring to Osho's] announcement that he was dropping the name
Bhagwan, that "the
joke has gone on long enough."
No matter how many times he would explain that his use of "Bhagwan" was in the Jaina context of "the blessed one," no matter how many times he would say not only was he not a god, there were no gods, he still pressed the buttons of many in the Hindu majority in India. This name is also translated as "God" in their context. But then, who listens?
is used to
mean "the blessed one" in a Buddhist context
as well (not to quibble but to enlarge the legitimacy of this usage). In Hinduism, it translates as many things but it is very
commonly used in
address one's guru (see here).
Ramana Maharshi was called Bhagavan by his people but failed to offend
a single person with that. Osho of course pushed Hindu (and many other)
buttons in many ways but to emphasize this "God" meaning of "Bhagwan"
is a bit like a magician's
misdirection of your attention while the "magic" is done somewhere
The function of the spiel about "Bhagwan" is to launch the sequence of breezy, light, "non-essential" packaging for the difficult job of selling the bogus history of William James and "oceanic". The conceptual content of that "history" has to be communicated in order to establish a basis for the trademark thing, but it has to be done in such a way as to not arouse feelings of betrayal. The (higher profile re-)introduction of the WJV will not go down easily among those who remember the Japanese Zen version of nine years earlier as being more in tune with Osho's own words. So the bitter pill is humour-coated. The name change riffing continues, through all the fluff about Osho's Jacuzzi, the publishing dept's apoplexy and so on, so that the reader can be as relaxed and jolly as possible when arriving at the WJV.
|Of course, [we] have heard some people say this cannot be right, because when you sit listening to these talks, you are sitting with "him," so clearly there remains an "other." But [we] wonder about that. After all, Osho’s most revolutionary introductory meditation is Dynamic Meditation. And when we do that, aren’t we totally alone in that process? The accompanying music doesn’t create the "other," even though Osho was closely involved with the creation of this music It is just a healing sound if you like. And he has always been clear that once we have learned to listen silently, that same emptiness is with us wherever we go, no matter what we are listening to.||"Of
course", this specious argument about the "other" is just a "straw man". Yes,
we are totally alone, and yes,
we could certainly do well to be silent. And yes, maybe that Sony
Walkman will "do it" for us, if we happen to be among the 0.000129%
suited to such an approach and we've paid our multi-K $ and € for all
the courses and entry fees and © discourses where
No one will raise this idiotic objection about an "other" except maybe a sophomor(on)ic philosophy major, so why is this tract bothering to "address" it? And in a totally mediocre way, we might add ... "After all ... Dynamic Meditation"? ... What does any of this have to do with anything? Well, whatever. Perhaps it is all just fluff packaging for another way to bring in that soporific phrase, "healing sound", the haunting refrain that somehow is meant to replace Osho. Or perhaps it's meant to be the tract's token nod to logic, though in that regard it fails abysmally.