The Focus of The Newsletter

This Week's Newsletter Includes:

• Bhagwan Rajneesh: A Madman Or a Savior?
• The Complete Osho in the Eyes of Divinie

I have uncovered the secret of a lifetime.
Four great men have worked together across time and space to create a teaching of freedom to the one who seeks the truth. Each contributed their part and laid the groundwork for one person who could understand it to draw the complete thread.
The first man was the inspiration.
The second man wrote its doctrine.
The third man wrote its gospel.
The fourth man wrote its application.
Each wrote to the next. Each wrote from the one before, but in a way hidden to all but the next. This is a conversation across lifetimes looking for a real solution to an ultimate problem.

The third man was Dostoevsky. The fourth man was Rajneesh.

I have included The Complete Osho in the Eyes of Divinie in this newsletter because it is one of my best works and is a psychological analysis that covers what it means to have eyes of understanding,
what it means to be a heart, a light, a creative.
This piece captures the heart of the real and wise, and much of the human condition.

Weekly Pieces

Bhagwan Rajneesh: A Madman Or a Savior?

This was the title of a news article in 1985.

Rajneesh [Osho] was asked about the title.

Vishrant: "Are you a Madman or a savior, Bhagwan?"

Osho: "I'm a madman."

I wrote last week about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.
One reason for this is that the more you know your enemy, the better contrast you have of yourself. Your enemy gives you the gift of knowing yourself.

Osho could be an enemy. If so, there is a lot to learn on where he went wrong, as he got a lot right. Aside from upholding the ideals of Buddha, Christ, Dostoevsky, and others who fought for humanity, he's also the definitive source when it comes to a quality understanding of meditation. Why? Simply, he read a lot more books than others.
If Osho is an enemy, there is no need to worry, as he was a madman. Madmen are harmless, they are fools to laugh at. There is no need to worry because you don't have to fear believing in the ideas of a madman, you already know he is mad,
so we say, let the poor man talk and ramble on. No one knows what he is saying.

Yet, his explanation of meditations remains unparalleled, and as I only curate the best of meditation, most of the content on this publication has some relation to Osho. This insists an introduction.

The current public opinion from the highly successful Netflix Series: Wild Wild Country is negative, but this is not the final word on Osho.

The NEH, The National Endowment for the Humanities federal agency of the United States of America has this to say of Osho.  

The rapid rise and sudden collapse of Rajneeshpuram in central Oregon during the 1980s is surely one of the most remarkable tales in American religious history. 
Named after the iconoclastic Indian guru,
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (aka Osho, 1931–1990), Rajneeshpuram was a wildly creative religious community that brought together thousands of young devotees from all over the world to create a kind of free-love, New Age utopia in the Oregon desert.
Far ahead of its time in the use of organic farming, recycling, and the blending of Eastern and Western spirituality, Rajneeshpuram was—initially, at least—an astonishingly successful social and religious experiment that attracted thousands of visitors and generated millions of dollars in income.

Rajneesh and his movement represent something far more significant than just another curious anecdote from the Reagan era.
Rather, they provide a critical window onto some of the most important religious, economic, and political trends of the past 50 years, highlighting the complex transnational flows between India and the United States and the strange spiritual logic of global capitalism.

Despite its entertaining, provocative, and sometimes jaw-dropping narrative, however, Wild Wild Country does have some significant weaknesses that will be evident to anyone trained in the humanities. The most pronounced of these is a general lack of attention to the specifically religious nature of Rajneesh’s teaching (or more accurately, what he called a kind of “religionless religion”). 

Despite some efforts to describe his philosophy and some of the group’s practices in the first episode, the film does not give the viewer much idea of what was so compelling about this particular guru.

Why, we are left wondering, did thousands of people in India, Europe, and the United States find this eccentric teacher so persuasive that they would follow him half way around the world and build a utopian commune around him?
Despite his many flaws, Rajneesh did craft an original synthesis of Eastern thought (particularly Buddhism) with key aspects of post-Freudian psychoanalysis and a powerful message of sexual liberation.

In addition to missing the powerful appeal of Rajneesh’s iconoclastic philosophy, the film also overlooks his keen, biting, often merciless sense of humor. Rajneesh’s satirical wit and his often hilarious critique of the hypocrisy of mainstream religious and political institutions was surely a major part of his appeal—not just in the 1970s and 1980s, but still today, as his many books and videos continue to be hugely popular throughout the world.

The series fails to place this movement in the larger historical context.
The story of Rajneeshpuram ultimately extends well before and long after the brief experiment in Oregon..
Rajneesh himself was also an outspoken social and political critic, attacking the socialist policies of Nehru and the religious prudery of Gandhi, while also calling for India to open its doors to Western capitalism.
The move to Oregon was thus a fulfillment of his larger ideal of wedding East and West—what he called “Zorba the Buddha”—by bringing together the spirituality of the Buddha with the materialism and sensuality of Zorba the Greek. 

If the series had been able to capture more of this broader historical and religious context, the viewer might understand this movement as something more than just another oddball cult that popped up during the Reagan era.
Instead, it might be seen as a powerful reflection—indeed, even a microcosm—of much larger spiritual, economic, and global trends over the past five decades.

The full article: at neh.gov.

Notes of a Madman

A wiki reads: "well, some books are just more unique than others, no description will suffice."

In other words, this is the book of a madman high on nitrous oxide in a dentist's chair.

 Our tiny room was littered with paper. Vivek, who had never liked the idea of the notes from the outset, walked out of our room one day muttering, "Nobody's going to read this book. It's just the bloody notes of a madman."

Osho was truly mad. In writing these notes as a misunderstood genius high on nitrous oxide, he was mad enough to simultaneously take a gamble, a shot in the dark at the impossible.
He left a gift in this book to be unpacked by one who could hear. He could not be understood. All of the people who could understand him were dead. Now he is dead. He left this for the impossible chance that someone would receive it. I do not believe there is another person alive who could unwrap this gift. Today, I am the first person on Earth to hear this.

However, he writes,
One day what I am saying here, in the privacy of your Noah's Ark, will have to be declared, but wait.

I will wait until I build this ark. But I will share on truth.

I am a man of silence who only speaks out of necessity... of necessity because nobody speaks the language of the Real. Everybody speaks of everything else, endlessly about everything except the Real. Hence I have to speak. In the whole world there are very few who know, who can understand, who can speak of the Real.

All the great speakers are deaf. I am not a great speaker but I am certainly deaf. But what is happening now is so very beautiful I don't want to hear anything. My consciousness is beyond, far away beyond the clouds. I can hear you saying, "Stop, the time is over." Time is never over, cannot be.

I can understand why Leonardo da Vinci is Leonardo; why Michelangelo is Michelangelo; why Rabindranath is Rabindranath; and Khalil Gibran is Khalil Gibran. They have all touched this beauty in their dreams. Yes, only in their dreams - but they never knew the truth. What they knew was the object, but what I know is the knower... the subject, the Great Subjectivity... consciousness...

[Walt Whitman] was the right person to understand what I am saying.

I can talk - what does it matter if I am not in the body? One man is not important... but what I am saying matters. What I am saying will remain, it will stay; it is of the essence. I don't matter. What matters is what I am saying.

The Prophet

Of all the thousands of books I have told Vivek to carry only one. That is my only book now. It is written by a man who has not reached but has come very close, very, very close - Khalil Gibran. I wanted to talk about his book many times but did not. The time was not yet right.

It must be difficult listening to a man like me twice each day. It allows me a chance to share my vision. But I cannot share it in words. My tears show it. I cannot say it.

I cannot hear anything.

Everyone is so full of bullshit.

I don't want to hear.

I can relax again and face the rainbows.

This is the very essence of poetry.

This is the moment when Jesus delivered his parables, particularly The Sermon on the Mount.

It was spoken at such a moment.

It does not mean that it was spoken from a mountain, but from a very great height; from this height.

Only from this height is it possible to speak of truth and beauty. This is the beauty. This is the moment, the very moment that great riches are created. You are so close to that moment... but so far. It is there within you; whenever you dive within yourself you can reach. But I don't want in any way to interfere with your life....

In fifteen minutes I can produce a sermon on the mount. This moment is true enough. What should I speak of? I am not asking you, I am asking this beatitude surrounding me....

What should I speak of O Lord?

Of Beauty?

Of Bliss?

Of Silence...?

There is so much to say but it all comes to the same. Whether it is joy, beauty, silence, it means the same - silence....

My only experience is that of such great silence that in it even I am not... only silence prevails... I mean infinitely, without an end, without limits.

Words - they can do much, but not much really. If one remains beyond then one has lost words.

Osho wanted to wait until the right moment to read The Prophet by Khalil Gibran. The Prophet cannot be taught. It cannot be explained.

The Prophet could only be read in the perfect moment, when Jesus is on the peak of Mount Sinai, when God is there.

It could only be read on the perfect date, at the right moment. To read the Prophet and see it misunderstood is a tragedy.

I know this is so for a fact because I was more courageous than Osho, I attempted it long before I knew who Osho was. I recorded myself reading The Prophet and released it. I saved these files for my future self as my ultimate treasure.

I was received as a laughingstock. There could be no other way. The reaction was the same scorn and mocking when Jesus was jested and spit on by the crowd.

This is the reaction of the unconscious to pearls.

Osho hoped that the moment would come. It never came.

There are moments when one cannot remain silent. One cannot say much, but one wants to share it, express it. Nobody till now has ever been able to say what it is... neither has anybody ever been able to resist trying to say.

I have been continuously speaking for twenty-five years and only being misunderstood.

Osho was the world's literary genius and he could not speak the truth.

Not even Jesus could be understood.

Doestevsky is the only man who has ever succeeded. This is why he has written the world’s greatest book.

We are but shadows. Illumination can only be found in our tears.

The deepest human fear is known only by one who knows the deepest truth.

The deepest fear is to be free, to be a madman.

The deepest longing is to be fully, completely understood as the authentic one.

The deepest fear is of the deepest pain possible. The deepest pain possible is not any physical pain, not any physical crucifixion.

What is the deepest pain possible?

The deepest pain possible is to reveal the most beautiful, the most sacred hidden treasure in existence, the greatest secret of all secrets, the most vulnerable meaning,

and to have it unseen, unrecognized, misunderstood.

This is the ultimate nightmare. It is the worst possible outcome of all possible outcomes.

This is why Christ does not speak to Pontias Pilate.

This is why Christ says do not cast your pearls.

Osho was afraid to give his teaching of Khalil Gibran and be misunderstood.
If someone could not understand Khalil, who Osho says did not reach,
they would certainly have more difficulty understanding Dostoevsky.
Osho was even more afraid to give a teaching of Dostoevsky and fail in the act.
Osho knows that he does not hold a candle to Dostoevsky.
He tries anyway. He wants to be the next part of this conversation.

This piece will continue after all other pieces have been released.

The Complete Osho in the Eyes of Divinie

The complete capture of everything I understand and believe about Osho up to this point.
Expect this to be filled with inconsistencies, it's not meant to be perfect, it's meant to be total.

Osho's Mind

At this time, I find Osho to be more intelligent than any person I've encountered in this life.
The first reason for this is by means of comparison.
Every intelligent person I have ever known has been short-sighted.
They have had a scope or vision of reality which represents themselves and their world view.
I have found several kinds of truly awakened people,
- people who awakened due to their connection with God in the Christian tradition, in such a way that their eyes have opened to Spirit, their mind has become Spirit, they can see the true person underneath the human, they understand real love, they see God's will for this earth
- people who have awakened in the mystic sense, the poets, the dreamers
- people who have awakened in the Eastern sense, they have become Enlightened

All of these people I have found are still blind to one thing.
A part of them may recognize that the world is in need of changing.
A part of them may comprehend freedom or truth.
Yet, the rest of them is a part of their world. They are their world, and they cannot see it.
They cannot see it because they do not recognize how they identify themselves as the world.
The world they grew up in has become them.
They could never live free of their world because they love their world.
It's not only that they are their world, it is also that they are enchanted by the present world.
Their world view comprises the present world, they don't see outside of it.
They can't see the age that they are in, they are a part of the unfolding of that age. Everything they do further unfolds that age of human history.
This is the source of their blindness.
This has always troubled me, because there are so many historians, so many theologians,
there is always this moment when I recognize that a person has read many books or is well educated and I can see that somehow it has not clicked for them that they only see their current world.

[Even the people that can see this when looking at it from a perspective, they don't see it as it pertains to their real life.]

Osho as a Visionary

Osho was not blinded by this hallucination. He saw the world, he was not a part of it.
This is because he was a Visionary. I do not mean that he had a Vision for the future.
I mean that there is a kind of person called a Visionary that does not live in the present reality.
They don't belong to this world. That's the difference. Many awake people exist but they belong to this world,
they are of it, they are it. They don't know it but they believe that it is them.
This is so because the whole of their identity has been created by this world, everything they love nad are attached to.
One reason Osho had this was because he knew he was not part of this world.
When you truly know that you do not belong here, there is no illusion. You never see it, not for one moment of your life.
You always know this is not the world you belong to.
Osho had this because he had what humans call "a gift". That gift is the "eyes of a visionary."
That gift is the "eyes to see and understand."

Osho's Eyes to See

Osho had eyes of understanding. I have seen people with partial ability to see in this way, in specific areas or domains or subjects, but not as a whole.
These eyes to see must have some relation to the "not belonging worldview."
This understanding could be called meta-cognition, a level of comprehension or understanding.
This is what Christ called "ears to hear and eyes to see."
It is the hearing and meaning between the lines.
I suspect that many are capable of seeing in this way temporarily, but they forget later, and when they have it, they do not have the capacity to be aware of it,
and they do not have the voice necessary that could audibly speak their wordless understanding. It comes by in moments, and drifts away like a dream.
This is most apparent when a person reads the Bible or another deep work.
Other people hear the meanings taught to them. The person with the eyes of understanding immediately comprehends the underlying meaning in the words.
It is possible that some people refer to this as genius.
Or perhaps, the ability to recognize and articulate the underlying meaning would be the genius.

This does not seem like Osho's most important facet, but it is his superpower. It's comprehension. He comprehends.
It is this ability that allows him to see the world, to have a clear perspective, to learn and choose at a rate that scales.
This is the ability that allows a person not to read many books, but to comprehend which books to read.
The result of this ability is eventually wisdom. It is like comprehension + trial by error.

This is part of why a person like Osho will say, "I am not any special kind of awake, you are just asleep. I am just normal, you are sleeping."

I have one theory that what causes a person to have these eyes, is for a person to play out the archetype of the Divine Child.
If this happens, it seems the child will be exposed to high level wisdom at an early age, and because their original intelligence has not yet been disabled,
they are able to comprehend wisdom at the highest level, and then continue from there.
But most, even if this happens, will still become enslaved by the mind and fall asleep as they "grow up".

Osho as a Child

I believe that the reason Osho had eyes to see is related to a story he tells of him and his mother.
He comes home and his mother asks him, "What have you been doing all day?"
He replies, "I haven't been doing anything."
She replies, "Surely you must have been doing something all of that time!"

I believe that playing with in nature alone and unrestricted as a child can allow a person to know their true self and being.
This creates a reason to hold on to this as the true identity. Then, when the world comes, the true identity is harder to lose if it is held on to.
As the true identity and intelligence is retained, so also is are the child's eyes to see.

As the scriptures say, to be wise is to have eyes like a child. This is not a metaphor. The level of comprehension of the child has not been lost.

Something else here has occurred as well.
I said that all people become their world, but they don't know it.

I believe that what happens in a case like Osho's is, he becomes his world, but the world he becomes is the world that he is playing in as a child.
Then, when he enters the other world, this world we live in, he does not become this world, because he already has become his world.

This world can never be his world, and he will see it in total clarity, all of its intricacies that most people that are part of their world will not notice.

This makes a person appear to have a divine or special sort of intelligence.
As in, people will elevate this to a special status.

Osho as an Abandoned Child

I believe that the ego Osho developed when he entered the world was based mostly on abandonment. I feel that he felt very alone,
long before he would come to any books or teachings that involve beingness and isolation and aloneness and solitude.
I believe this initial sense of loneliness was reinforced by his entire experience of life and his own ego, and eventually his own spirituality and developed individuality.

It would first be reinforced by the connection he would likely find in the books he read, where suddenly he could read of people who also read, who also comprehended. I don't mean spiritual books, I just mean fiction, the writer who expresses his aloneness. If I recall correctly, Catcher in the Rye is a book people quote of the private feelings of life in this world.

It would then be reinforced by his intellect. I believe he would soon recognize that there was no one he could speak with that could hold a conversation with him. He was easily 100 times more intellectually capable then any regular person. This would be infuriating, like playing with dolls that don't respond.
It would drive the feeling of loneliness further.

This would create a belief that goes something like this, "there is no person on earth that could ever understand me."

I have heard Osho talk about his life, he manipulated anyone he wanted once he realized that people bowed to authority. He explains this when he talks about how he became a professor of some kind at a university.

It is likely he was frustrated that people didn't understand him, maybe even didn't listen to him,

So he became a debater and took pride in his ability to debate anyone. If they couldn't understand him, I imagine, he could at least win against them and make them know it. I have heard him talk of his pride of his ability to win a debate against anyone and his developed skill in this area.

He clearly learned from books persuasion, influence, and authority.

[ He also learned, I identified, likely much much later in his life, that by controlling his speech and tone of voice, he could channel the feeling of love towards himself and others, at will. ]

At this point, he would know he could make anyone do anything.

This further reinforces the belief that he is completely alone in this world, all of his interactions with others that are positive, which they are, [for him, in the case of if he feels like being rebellious and driving the principal mad, which he also talks about], are all only because he is intelligent enough to know how to present to get the appropriate response.

He talks about a principal, who he tells, "you will let me do anything I want"
and the principal tells him, "now why would I do that"
and Osho explains the trouble it will be for him if he doesn't, and so and so,
and the principal tells Osho, "I can't even hope to deal with you, you're a menace" [i.e.]
and begs Osho to just please leave him alone and so they strike a deal like this.

Now, for Osho's ego, this is a great victory to be proud of.
But for a wounded and abandoned inner self, this is more reinforcement.
It says, something like, you're a monster, you don't fit in anywhere, you are chaos itself, no one can control you, you're different, you're alone.

Here's the problem,

Getting everything you want from everyone is going to cause you to have a crisis of meaning, an existential crisis.
We need meaning to survive. There is no point, no purpose in a life like that. Just as the principal sees him, he's just a walking terror.
And on top of that his insatiable ego causes him to make a fool of others for their stupidity all the time.

Eventually a person that still has eyes to see cannot live like this.

At some point he would be forced to decide to help people.

Eventually he would find the traditions that spoke to him, to come into aloneness, into beingness.

I believe that there were two parts of Osho in Aloneness.
The first part was actual beingness.

Total devotion to the way of the Tao. Total no-self and no existence.

The second part was an ego that believed in spiritual aloneness.

This ego still carried the wound of the inner child.
I have proof of this. I heard Osho say it many times in many lectures, that "you are all going to come into my aloneness. But I am going to still be alone."
I have heard him speak it as a wounded ego. I am certain of it, because I can feel the resonance in voices,
and I could feel his inner pain, I could feel his wound, several times.

In many other lectures, when he is in beingness, I have heard him say the exact same thing, sometimes in only slightly different words,
saying that we join in aloneness, that it is beautiful, that my aloneness joins your aloneness. This is a different aspect of Osho saying this.

Osho as an Ego

Osho says to Vishrant he has no ambition. Yet his ambition drives his life. What could he mean?
He means that he has found the way of the Tao. The Tao does not have ambition, it flows effortlessly.
He is speaking of operating effortlessly and gracefully. He is speaking of the Tao, and he is speaking from the Tao when he says it.

Osho as a Buddha

Osho was not a Buddha, but he carried a buddhafield. The testimonies I have heard seem to indicate that he maintained his buddhafield, his field of loving-awareness perpetually.

Osho as a Master

There is Osho, and then there is Osho as a Master.
As Osho says to an audience, "I am either a fraud, or a Master, but it has to be one of the two."
He is not a fraud.

I will say how Osho is a master but language is not able to express how he is a Master.
I will say it in two ways.

The first way is one way Osho said it. He said I am Lao Tzu.

In comparison many times Osho said I am not a Christ or a Buddha.

Correlated to this, many, many, many times Osho said that Lao Tzu is not a Christ or a Buddha.
Osho is not a Christ or a Buddha, he is a Lao Tzu.
He is a Lao Tzu, but he is also Lao Tzu.

He is a Lao Tzu because he follows the Way of the Tao perfectly.

This is Osho in his aspect of The Master.

There are a few simple rules to this, as described by the Tao.
The first is that you don't speak of the Tao. You don't say directly that it is the Tao.

So if you ask Osho, "Who are you really, Master?"
He will never reply to you, "I am the Tao."

He is also not going to say to you, "I am Lao Tzu."
Although he does say this.

Osho as a Master in one aspect is that he is a perfect embodiment of the Tao.

Unlike his eyes to see, which are very rare in this world,
to be a Master in this way is not as rare.
It is only that most Masters do not reveal themselves to the world but live ordinary lives.

They cannot be known unless you can see them.

The second aspect of his saying "I am Lao Tzu" is more literal, but people would not be able to understand this because they don't understand what a mind is.
Because they don't understand what a mind is, they don't understand what it is to be a mind,
how it is not similar, not a copy, it is one and the same.

Osho is Lao Tzu. Sometimes. It is a choice.

Imagine that every possibility that exists has a fixed location. If you go to the fixed location, the same possibility will always be there.

This is how thought really is.

So when Osho says he is Lao Tzu, he means, I am the eternal mind of Lao Tzu.

and what that means is, the door of possibility Lao Tzu went to, the mind that Lao Tzu accessed,
is the mind that I access.

Every mind, every possibility is accessible.
He chose to go to the place that was Lao Tzu's possibility and speak from it.

The modern man hears this as "channeling", but there are too many associations and connotations with that world. It is not so supernatural.

The mind of Lao Tzu, the mind of Christ, the mind of Buddha, these are all accessible.

But you have to understand, that mind never "belonged" to Lao Tzu.

Lao Tzu chose a possibility that exists and claimed it for his voice.

Osho doesn't take from Lao Tzu, he chooses the same possibility that exists and uses it for his voice.

It was never Lao Tzu's voice, it is just the voice Lao Tzu chose.

Osho as a Creative

Osho as a creative is just like all other awake creatives, they create reality according to their vision.
The only difference with Osho is that he doesn't belong to this world, so he is able to paint the life he wants to live,
one that is as original as he wants. Artists usually paint this world, joining its lifestyle.
Osho is painting something totally different, radical.
In this way this causes others to label him as a "revolutionary."

Osho as a Light

Osho's eyes to see allowed him to see what very few people on earth can, to see that freedom and inspiration and such things are the essential human nature.
The second consequence of this sight is that the person is able to see that some things are worth more than other things, this first leads to discernment, then it leads to appreciation of value, then it leads to reverence for the sacred, the reverence for the sacred creates true religion.
This is what Osho meant by true religion.

This is also what separates the wheat from the chaff when it comes to large figures.

The ones that are totally ignorant and foolish cannot see and do not live a life that honors the sacred. They are either consciously ignorant and trying to help, or consciously wicked and totally corrupt. It is impossible for another option at a high level of consciousness.

The truly wise, without exception, all have the ability to recognize and value the sacred.

Osho as a Whole

It's worth noting that Osho knew his inner female counterpart.

Osho as a Thinker - A.K.A. The New Man

Osho was inspired by great thinkers. I don't see any fault in this but in some ways it could be seen as his largest shortcoming.

This was the one area Osho was not as conscious in, from my perspective.

This ultimately was Osho's long-term vision and dream. Not seeing this come to pass may have given him some despair.

What is interesting to me is to see people take this as Osho's main takeaway,
I don't feel that this was Osho's most valuable side at all.

Osho as a Believer

Despite his statements about Christ, including saying that he had outsmarted Christ in some ways, iirc, or at least that he could see Christ's mistakes,
he held a fondness for Christ and read him extensively. It was probably difficult for his mind to believe in Christ due to a strong Jainism upbringing,
I think it would be fair to say he agreed with Christ's ideal due to his love for The Brother's Karamazov.

Osho as a Heart

Osho as a Heart is the authentic Osho.
To be contrasted with "The New Man" Osho.
Osho as a Heart is truly that Osho with childlike eyes to see expressed spontaneously as a personality in his heart for the world.

This is the part of Osho that people who feel they know him say, "I know him."
This is the part that people who are only confused about Osho never see.
All of Osho's best quotes are from this authentic Osho.
An example quote,

"This whole universe is a temple, and the whole existence is trying to reach you in so many ways — through the sun rays, through the trees, through the birds — these are all messengers…When in the early morning, the birds start their song and the flowers open their petals and the dewdrop shines like any great pearl on the lotus leaf; when so many colors are spread all over the horizon in welcoming the new day — these are all messengers of existence. If you can be sensitive to these you will not feel sad, you will feel immensely grateful, understanding, fulfilled. You will feel at home, you will feel at peace."

Osho's Three Philosophies

1 - Synthesis and The Way of The Heart

Osho's main teaching was a complete synthesis of the Tao, Sufi Mysticism, Psychology, with "Abrahamic " [prophetic tradition] reverence for the sacred, and a Tantric way of life. This is his totality of awareness [love] teaching.
This is his philosophy that we should be totally spontaneous, free, our natural buddha self with our true nature of joy. The core of this is Tao + Buddha + Jesus. The extension of this is psychology, tantra.

2 - The New Man

Osho's 'idealism' for a future human. Although it may appear to fit his other philosophy, I do not believe it does. Interestingly enough, this seems to be the philosophy his direct students focus on.

3 - Spontaneity or Contradiction

Osho's spontaneity is included in his synthesis teaching, but the way he lived this as a philosophy differs.

There is the true arising of spontaneity, when that which from the deepest core of your inner being arises out of you like a flower.
If it were Osho's choice this would surely have been the case for him all the time.

He seems to have made a conclusion about this by his statements when people question him, about why how they love when he seems happy and joyful in his speech, but other times he seems sad, even lonely. He explains that this is just how it is.

Osho's actual philosophy of spontaneity in action was in what people saw as contradiction.
I believe Osho decided to take Ralph Waldo Emerson's statement as gospel and chose to live it out,
"Speak what you think today in hard words and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today."
Osho speaks in hard words something one day, then speaks again tomorrow what he thinks in hard words again, though it contradicts everything he says today.

Osho says that he only speaks in contradictions to break down the listener's mind. I do not believe this is accurate.
Osho states that following Tantra, he has decided to allow whatever arises.
This is as he explains that in following Tantra, if you allow everything, then you don't have to struggle with polarity, swinging back from dark to light.
This is of course easy from active meditation,
you rest in silence, enjoying, listening, open the mouth to speak and enjoy and listen as you sit in the background as the watcher.
Osho as the master of the master of course indicates he is also the watcher of the watcher, an enlightened one.

To Osho this allows him to be spontaneous. I find here that he has an imperfect science.
For one, to follow the Tao is graceful, flowing, but it also includes that reverence for the sacred.
The very distinction between the sacred and unsacred means that some things are less sacred than other things.

Secondly,
There is a wisdom in wise speech.
There is a distinction between wise speech and unwise speech.

There is a contradiction in Osho's philosophy of contradiction.

I could say it like this, to be conscious of the sacred is to be more conscious, and Osho knew this. His understanding of this allowed him Godliness, deep wisdom and understanding, a reverence for life.

A similar philosophy is All is Permitted. Osho's way of contradiction is more like
All is Permitted. As in, all speech is fine without question. There is no sacred. This is occult philosophy.

The obvious argument to make is that Osho was so conscious that anything he said was conscious no matter what it was.

This wasn't the case. Osho said many unconscious things.
He could have only said conscious things, but he did not choose that.

He wanted to be able to free flow.
I would expect that he felt that this was a kind of shadow work for himself,
that by allowing everything totally, it cleared out his darkness and allowed him to shine often.
It is also possible that he just didn't want to stop himself.

Note that there is a difference between releasing darkness to the light,
and just creating new darkness in the light.

If you can see it, there is a inaccuracy in this thinking.
The assertion that everything is permitted is in conflict with the art of wisdom itself.
Here's why, if I break it down.
Wisdom requires a focus of priority. You have to prioritize what you read, what you consume in order to be wise.
Osho curating 161 books from a selection of infinite books is an example of the application of wisdom.
It is less wise to focus on a less meaning-filled book when you could read a better book.
A choice has to be made, you can eat junk food all day, that's fine, but the indirect consequence is that you will feel less creative then you would have if you ate something better.

For Osho to choose to permit himself to speak about less important things because he has permitted everything is an inconsistency.
He doesn't permit everything. There is a selection. He has selected focuses. "All is Permitted" can't be fully enacted because he already has some selections.

Here's what I feel Osho's mistake was on this. If he had refined his focus even further than he did,
and focused on more highly conscious things,
for example, if he only focused on the way of the heart,
he would have been closer to his real goal.

His real goal was authentic spontaneity. This third philosophy was counter-productive to his highest goals.
Authentic spontaneity arises the more often your speech is aligned with your authentic heart.
If he had spoken on the way of the heart more often, and the ways of the mind and politics and the like less often,
his authentic spontaneity would have arisen from him more often.

Media Moment

Learn more about healing in two hours than you would from 20 years of med school:

The Body Keeps The Score - YouTube

P.S.

Be Blessed!