|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.|
from "What is an Osho?":
Could it really be that sitting listening to Osho talking was enough? Didn’t we still need a master? [my emphasis]
[Osho talks] about how he couldn’t sleep the night before he initiated his first disciple.
So where does that leave us? It seems pretty clear that he gave sannyas to people because that was our expectation at the time, and as part of that process he accepted all our projections that here at last was someone who would tell us what to do. [my emphasis]
|1. "Someone who would tell us
to do": To call this a
distortion would be an understatement. This is
in fact the opposite of the "Osho's fundamental insistence on freedom"
the tract affects to lean on when that suits its purpose. To go further
into this fairly extreme departure from the truth, since it is a
matter not of pure factual truth but of interpretation, we can
consider the question from both sides, Osho and the seeker who arrives
on his shore.
First, Osho is constantly telling his people not to follow anyone, even him. He is well aware of any tendency we might have to "follow", obey and otherwise submerge our own inner voice and clear seeing.
Granted, he has given specific individual guidance to many people regarding their 1001 problems of attitude, feeling and thought, regarding spiritual progress, meditation, sex, mind, no-mind, metaphysics and so on. And fairly often that guidance includes some suggestions as to what to do. But just as often it doesn't. Arguments and claims about preponderance can go both ways, depending on investment and degrees of partisanship.
The clincher might be that even when he does tell us what to do, it will rarely be the most important aspect of his guidance. Many possibilities might be suggested for "most important aspect". The very variety of possibilities shows us that telling us what to do cannot be the essence of it.
His guidance may consist of hinting at where to look inside to find the source of a problem. Or it may be that what he gives us to do will lead to a situation where things will get clear. Or what he gives us to do will exhaust us. Or a way of looking at things will open up a door. Whatever, it will be varied and tailored to the individual and far from always tied to doing something. Far more often, its centerpiece will be a seeing into ourselves that frees us from the issue. And it will not be a seeing derived as a belief, but our own seeing, aided by the master, by his words, or arising out of the situation. In Pune One, that situation might well include a group suggested by him in darshan or by letter, where the seeker is thrown together with ten to a hundred others to interact with them in a multitude of ways from playful to cathartic to not interacting at all, and where situations will arise, as an organic co-creation of the group leader, the group's structure (if any), those other people and oneself. And of course Osho.
Second, there is the seeker who arrives on Osho's shore. WiaO has made generalizations about sannyasins that are not true. Of course some do come precisely because they want someone to tell them what to do. And truth is, almost everyone will embody such a tendency to some degree. But even before they arrive, would-be disciples will be a whole spectrum in that regard, and many will have been prepared to recognise or at least examine that tendency in themselves by reading his books. Any of his books will do, all will have something, expressed in some unique way, to point the seeker in the direction of not submitting blindly to "outside" authority. Or they will have talked to some of his people, who will similarly disabuse them, or they will have prepared in a multitude of other ways.
And finally, even the seeker who did want a master to tell hir what to do arrives at the point when the relationship with the master is more subtle than that, deeper, gone beyond. Gratitude flows toward the master for freeing us from even this dependency. It doesn't just stop cold.
|2. That "He accepted all our
projections" is the polar opposite of his
daily dismantling and hammering on them. No one who was there could
sincerely countenance saying such a thing, so nothing much more need be
about it. He did take us on a fast-forward journey through all kinds of
religious experience but he consistently rejected our projections from
get-go. To credit the people who wrote this with the slightest
intelligence, we have to treat this canard as at best insincere.
3. "He gave sannyas because that was our expectation". Many people expected it but so what? Some he gave it to, some he didn't, some he gave before they asked2, whatever. He was not a puppet of our expectations. This is really the same idiocy as "He accepted all our projections", or perhaps a special case. One thing that might make it special is that there would be expectations among many but not among others, and he couldn't counter the expectations of one group without going along with the others. So it goes. Perhaps "expectation" and "projections" are just stating the same thing from two different angles in the hope that one or the other angle will connect.
In the final analysis, the initiative did come from him both in general3 and in many particular cases. Our expectations do not matter at all and WiaO has come up with yet another major projection, which could be thought of as just silly were it not for the nasty use made of it, nasty most importantly because its perpetrators are the ones supposedly in charge of his legacy.