Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 2

Reality as I see it rationally
There is a lot of analysis about Osho, lots of judgement etc passed, lots of POV. My question to all of you is simple, if his books and talks have made an iota of difference your head, it is good enough. When I look at the world today, I feel all so called religions are failures as people have become more violent and animal like. None of the so called religious leader are more than attntion seekers or as we saw in the US chruches molestors.

So extract the best of what Osho had to say and worry about your own salvation instead of wasting time by micro analyzing an original thought provoker. Anandakshar 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC) AnandAkshar

Original research
You cannot claim that there was an attempt on his life because of "Provocative statements of this type" unless you back it up with a source. Sfacets 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/28605046.cms quotes the would-be assassin Vilas Tupe as saying he undertook the attack ‘‘because Rajneesh was a CIA agent.’’ (!!!) I believe during the actual attack (which is recorded on video) Tupe said that Rajneesh could no longer be tolerated because he was "against Hinduism". So the link to "provocative statements" was overstated and I am happy for this passage to remain as it stands. Jayen466 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Separation of Osho and his followers; change of article's title
I feel some of the content of this article might be better housed in the Wikipedia entries on Rajneeshpuram and the Osho-Rajneesh movement. While Osho was a guest at the Rajneeshpuram commune, he took no personal part in many of the matters detailed on this page, and indeed only came to know about them after the event, as did most other residents of Rajneeshpuram. Please let me know if there are any strong objections to migrating some of this content to the Rajneeshpuram and Osho-Rajneesh movement articles, or if you have ideas about how this should be handled. Jayen466 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively there could be a Ma Anand Sheela (or Sheela Silverman) article/biography, since she was the instigator and center of those events. Whichever, it doesn't really belong in this biography page as Osho was incidental. jalal 15:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. There is a "Ma Anand Sheela" page at present; however, it does not contain any information and redirects straight to "Rajneesh". If the page for Ma Anand Sheela is expanded, this will be a living person's biography and require extra care. Given this caveat, I am in agreement.

Furthermore, I feel the title of this present page is inappropriate. I suggest having "Rajneesh" automatically redirect to "Osho" and migrating this article's content there. Given that the vast majority of people looking for "Osho" in Wikipedia are likely to be looking for Osho, the author, rather than Osho, the Japanese Buddhist term, the Osho disambiguation, which is the present job of the "Osho" page, could be achieved more satisfactorily by including a line at the top of the "Osho" page saying:

This is the page for Osho, also known as Rajneesh Chandra Mohan and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. For the Japanese Buddhist term, see "Osho (Japanese Buddhist term)".

Hence I propose creating this latter page, entitled "Osho (Japanese Buddhist term)", with the information presently given at "Osho".

This, incidentally, is how the problem is dealt with in the German Wikipedia. Jayen466 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We had a discussion about a name change a while back. Can you show that "Osho" is more commonly-used in the Englosh-language than "Rajneesh". Our WP:NC says, in a nutshell:
 * Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
 * Checking what links to "Rajneesh" or to the "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh" redirect, it looks like that name is far preferred by editors. The relative usage is probably different in German. -Will Beback · † · 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's possibly an age thing. People under the age of about 30 will only know the name 'Osho', while people who were around in the 70s and 80s will recognise both names. As time moves on the name Osho will become more commonly known, so it makes sense to use it for the article. jalal 09:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Some google research (google.com), please verify for yourselves:
 * Osho -- 2,900,000 matches
 * Rajneesh -- 569,000 matches
 * "osho commune" -- 21,500 matches
 * "rajneesh commune" -- 430 matches
 * osho "times of india" -- 856 matches
 * rajneesh "times of india" -- 566 matches (note that rajneesh is a common Indian name and many of the matches are about other people)
 * osho "indian express" -- 1,300 matches
 * rajneesh "indian express" -- 1320 matches (note that rajneesh is a common Indian name and many of the matches are about other people)
 * Site search on the website of "The Hindu" newspaper (www.hinduonnet.com): 558 matches for Osho, 326 for Rajneesh, again many of these for other people named Rajneesh
 * In the contemporary Indian press, Osho is standard today. Samples of Osho's writings regularly appear in Indian national dailies, always with the attribution Osho. Hundreds of books by Osho are available in India and all around the world, all under the name Osho, none (or very few) under the name Rajneesh. Jayen466 09:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems reasonably persuasive, to me at least. BTW, when it's time to move an article please have an admin do it so that the article histories can be handled properly. -Will Beback · † · 10:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, will do. Sorry to have jumped the gun; I took the lack of response to the proposal for a lack of interest.
 * For reference, here is an example of an Osho quote that appeared this month as part of the Times of India Editorial: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1067673.cms Another Times of India quote is included in the article's references. Osho has considerable public standing in India today. "While many typically conservative Indians originally rejected Osho's eccentric ideas on sex, he is today held as a national treasure, with admirers including India's Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh." http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/01/1093938975666.html Jayen466 12:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Any other views then? If not, I'll put in a request for the move to be made. Sfacets? What do you think? Jayen466 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that Osho is a more popular form of referring to Rajneesh, agree to the proposal to move the article - however the name 'Rajneesh' should still be featured prominently in the article, as it is still widely used. Sfacets 16:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, we seem to have reached agreement. I understand Will Beback is an administrator -- Will, would you be able to perform the move for us? And are there still major NPOV concerns that need to be addressed in the article?
 * Sfacets -- I am looking into the newspaper question, have contacted a friend in India for up-to-date information. Unless I hear anything definite that we can use, I would say the passage is fine as it stands right now (and better than before for being more precise). Jayen466 02:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Move complete. -Will Beback · † · 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

OSHO is and was a controversial figure. Whether you agree with his teachings or lifestyle one thing is clear, he introduced many to the benefits of mediation and self discovery. Until you have experienced the bliss of silent meditation at a deep level and for a sustained period I think it is pointless to comment on this man. It is all too easy to be distracted by the hoopla and to miss the message. His aim was always to bring people to their silent center to their inner beauty. I never studied under him but in a much different 'school'. It is only recently I have been reading his discourses. Without meditation you will NEVER understand him, yourself or the world. Peace.

````Dougbm````02/02/07

I just included a heading to clarify visitors to the article about the original meaning of the word "Osho". It was missing and is IMO needed to avoid furthering the misinformation that runs amok. Luis Dantas 15:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I had it in the back of my mind to return to this. I created an article "Osho (Japanese Zen term)" a few days ago. (The info is the same as on the disambiguation page.) I have now put a link to "Osho (Japanese Zen term)" on the disambiguation page. Jayen466 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sfacets,

re the library, since the library is only accessible to subscribed members and there is a fee involved, I thought, on reflection, that the following from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links applies –

"Sites requiring registration Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers."

Hence I deleted that part of the link description that specifically referred to the charged library service. But if you'd rather have it as it is, fine by me as well. Jayen466 12:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you are correct, I hadn't noticed that you had edited the link itself, only the description, my bad. S facets 01:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Biased
This article lists in detail anything positive about the man, while barely mentioning the poisonings and making them sound hardly connected to him at all. The negatives deserve equal attention with the positives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.34.183.71 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC).


 * He was never accused of these crimes, so I think the mention is proportional. The article lists the facts -- what his philosophy consisted of, and what happened. Jayen466 18:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Steve Hassan and Rick Ross
The following text
 * Osho is listed in the lists of people and groups maintained by exit counselors Steve Hassan  and  Rick Ross . They however state that a group is not a destructive cult just because it is mentioned in these lists.

was deleted with the suggestion that this should instead be mentioned to the Osho movement article. On the other hand the second link talks about the person also, not just the movement. The issue here is the accusation of being a cult, and the leader is an important aspect of a cult. --Knverma 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

-- The links cover a lot of ground, but in the whole they focus on the group. In particular, much of the information pertains to a period after Osho died. It seemed more relevant to post it in the article about the group (or cult) Osho movement and leave this as a biography of the person. Osho himself had no interest in leading a cult. jalal 18:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will follow your suggestion to put this only in the Osho Movement article. Still I add a small remark here that a person's intentions, however noble, do not determine whether he is a cult leader or not. --Knverma 23:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yoga quote
Knverma, hi -- I removed the sentence about the importance of the master and the related yoga quote, which is from 1973; Osho ran the whole gamut of possible standpoints on the master-disciple issue, starting out with Krishnamurti's position (never become a guru or disciple) to becoming a fully fledged guru himself and then stating that the master-disciple paradigm was obsolete. So if we want to cover this topic, then I think we would have to cover the full range of his opinions on this. Jayen466 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think his views about teachers are significant enough deserving discussion. We could have a subsection giving his views on this topic and perhaps how they changed gradually. I have read only one book of his, so I invite further inputs from other books. -- Knverma 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, a subsection on this might make sense (any other views?); I have access to the online archive and could try to research some quotes in this regard over the next couple of days. Jayen466 10:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Have been busy with work ... will try to get onto it this week. Thanks for the revert earlier. Jayen466 01:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No rush, we all have enough other duties. --Knverma 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Knverma, Well, I have now done a little research ... the problem is, I could keep going for months and not exhaust it. :-) In fact, I think that the section would be too big to be included in the article itself, the overall balance would go. And there is really no way to summarise or systematise this material. So I suggest we leave it here. Best wishes, Jayen466 19:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC Here goes:
 * Yes, that's a lot (I have not yet finished reading it, will do it later!). Well, from the little I have read of him, I am not really in a position to know which quotes are representative from different time periods. So I won't comment further, for the moment at least, and see if others have any suggestions. Thanks for your effort! --Knverma 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In fact, one suggestion that I could give is to give one short quote from each of the three different time periods you mentioned. I will let you and others look into it further. --Knverma 20:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Osho on the master-disciple relationship
Below some quotes on the master-disciple relationship.

If someone is eager to be a guru and if someone is eager to get a guru, this state of dependency can happen. So do not make the mistake of becoming a disciple or making somebody your guru. But if there is no question of a guru or a disciple, there is no fear of dependency. Then the person from whom you are taking help is simply a part of your own self that has traveled ahead on the path. Then who is the guru and who is the disciple? (1970)

The relationship of guru and disciple is harmful. However, a non-related relating between a guru and the disciple is very beneficial. Nonrelated means there are not two; relationship is where there are two. We can understand if a disciple feels the guru to be a separate entity from him, because the disciple is ignorant. But if the guru also feels the same, that is too much. Then it means that the blind is leading the blind -- and the blind man who is leading is more dangerous, because the second blind man has total trust in him. There is no spiritual meaning to a guru-disciple relationship. Actually, all relationships are the relationships of power. They are all relations of power politics. (1970)

All relationships are binding, whether they be of husband and wife, father and son, or guru and disciple. Where there is relationship, there is slavery. So the spiritual seeker has not to form relationships. If he keeps the relationship of husband and wife there is no harm; it is not a hindrance because this relationship is irrelevant. But the irony lies in the fact that he renounces and drops out of husband-wife, father-son relationships to form a new guru-disciple relationship. This is very dangerous. (1970)

There are people all around who are out to destroy your individuality, who are trying to enslave you and turn you into their camp-followers. It is their ego trip; it gratifies their ego to know so many people follow them. The larger the number of followers, the greater is their ego. Then they feel they are somebodies people have to follow. And then they try to enslave those who follow them, and enslave them in every way. They impose their will, even their whims on them, in the name of discipline. They take away their freedom and virtually reduce them to their serfs. Because their freedom poses a challenge to their egos, they do everything to destroy their freedom. All gurus, all masters do it. This statement of Krishna is extraordinary, rare, and it has tremendous significance. No guru, no master can have the courage to say what Krishna says to Arjuna, "Be immaculately yourself." Only a friend, a comrade can say it. And remember, Krishna is not a guru to Arjuna, he is his friend. He is with him as a friend and not as a master. No master could agree to be his disciple's charioteer as Krishna does with Arjuna in the war of the Mahabharat. Rather, a master would have his disciple as his charioteer; he would even use him for a horse for his chariot. (1970)

A sect is not going to emerge in the wake of our efforts, because no one is my disciple and I am no one's guru or Master. And if I am offering to be a witness to some people taking sannyas, it is because, right now, they cannot connect with God directly. And I ask them to be on their own and not to disturb me any longer when they become directly connected with the supreme. I don't want unnecessary troubles, I have no axe to grind. It is great if you can relate with existence on your own; nothing is greater than this. Then the question of someone being a witness does not arise. And it is of the highest. (1970, on the day he first initiated disciples into neo-sannyas)

He who is revered with instinctive spontaneity is a guru. He who has to make known his gurudom, knows well, within himself, that he is not a guru. (1972)

Surrender means to be yielding, to allow faith to happen. It means to be receptive, to be unguarded, to be vulnerable, open. If you come in contact with a Buddha, with a master, yield to him. Don't resist him, because you are resisting yourself, you are fighting against yourself. If you resist a master you are not allowing him to work; you are not helping him to help you. You are creating problems, unnecessary anxieties, unnecessary barriers. You already have too much nonsense. Don't create more barriers. The master will have to do much work upon you as you are, even if you have surrendered. If you are non-surrendering, you are creating unnecessary troubles and it will become impossible to help you. You are working against yourself. (1973)

A disciple means one who is centered, humble, receptive, open, ready, alert, waiting, prayerful. In yoga, the Master is very, very important, absolutely important, because only when you are in a close proximity of a being who is centered your own centering will happen. That is the meaning of SATSANG. You have heard the word SATSANG. It is totally wrongly used. Satsang means in close proximity of the truth; it means near the truth, it means near a Master who has become one with the truth -- just being near him, open, receptive and waiting. If your waiting has become deep, intense, a deep communion will happen. (1973)

If one knows how to be a disciple, the master is revealed everywhere. The real question is of discipleship. This is why Nanak called his disciples sikhs. 'Sikh' derives from shishya -- disciple. Learn to be a shishya, and the master is available everywhere; even a stone wall will become a master, even a rock will become a master. And if one does not know how to be a disciple, then even a master is no more than a stone wall. (1974).

You ask me, What type of play are you playing with us? Certainly, it is a play. I am not serious. And if you are serious, there is not going to be any meeting with you. Seriousness does not cross my path at all. I am absolutely non-serious. This is a play. And I would like to call this play 'the mad game'. The word 'mad' I have coined so: 'm' stands for the master and 'd' stands for the disciple. The master-and-disciple game! It is a mad game! I am an expert in being a master. If you are also ready to become a disciple, here we go! (1976)

Between the master and the disciple -- if the rule of the game is followed rightly -- devotion arises. That is the fragrance, the river that flows between the two banks of the master and the disciple. That's why it is so difficult for the outsider to understand. But I am not interested at all in the outsider understanding it, it is a very esoteric game. It is only for the insiders, it is only for mad people. That is why I am not interested even in answering people who are not insiders, because they will not understand. They do not have that attitude of being in which understanding becomes possible. (1976)

The ordinary victory is always wrong victory, wrong, because it is not really happening; you are only imposing it on the other. It is a coercion, it is violence. The other is silent but will wait for its time. The other is silenced but not won over. The other is not yet a friend... and this is no way to make friends; this is the way to make enemies. Then what is right victory? Right victory is totally different. It is out of love, it is through love; it is not coercion on the other. It is not in any way a rape on the other's being; on the contrary it is a surrender. When a lover surrenders to his beloved or a disciple surrenders to a master or a devotee surrenders to god or a poet surrenders to the beauty of the world, whenever there is that surrender, it is right victory. (1978)

The function of the master is precisely that: to call the disciples to the real life -- ordinarily they are dead. Ordinarily you only appear to be alive; don't be deceived by the appearance. You function like a robot, efficiently, but it is not life. You have not tasted life yet. Life has the taste of eternity, not of time. Time is death. In Sanskrit we have one word for both, for time and death -- kal. It is very significant. It must have been because of the mystics' experience. time is death. To live in time is not to live at all; to go beyond time is the beginning of life. That is the meaning of the parable; it is a metaphor. Lazarus represents all the disciples, Jesus represents all the Masters. and what transpired between Jesus and Lazarus transpires again and again between every Master and every disciple. The disciple lives in his grave; the Master calls him forth, wakes him up. (1980)

The day I started initiating, my only fear was, "Will I be able to someday change my followers into my friends?" The night before, I could not sleep. Again and again I thought, "How am I going to manage it? A follower is not supposed to be a friend." I said to myself that night in Kulu-Manali in the Himalayas, "Don't be serious. You can manage anything, although you don't know the A-B-C of managerial science." (1984)

I would have loved not to be associated in any way with the word religion. The whole history of religion simply stinks. It is ugly, and it shows the degradation of man, his inhumanity, and all that is evil. And this is not about any one single religion, it is the same story repeated by all the religions of the world: man exploiting man in the name of God. I still feel uneasy being associated with the word religion. But there are a few problems: in life sometimes one has to choose things that one hates. In my youth I was known in the university as an atheist, irreligious, against all moral systems. That was my stand, and that is still my stand. I have not changed even an inch; my position is exactly the same. But being known as an atheist, irreligious, amoral, became a problem. It was difficult to communicate with people, almost impossible to bridge any kind of relationship with people. In my communing with people, those words -- atheist, irreligious, amoral -- functioned like impenetrable walls. I would have remained so – for me there was no problem – but I saw that it was impossible to spread my experience, to share. (1985)

I had always wanted not to be a master to anybody. But people want a master, they want to be disciples; hence, I played the role. It is time that I should say to you that now many of you are ready to accept me as the friend. Those who are in tune with me continuously, without any break, are the only real friends. (1985)

I am not going to create popes, shankaracharyas, Ayatollah Khomeiniacs; each and every sannyasin who loves me individually inherits all the treasures of my being, experience, love, blissfulness. Nobody is going to be the priest. Then you create another Vatican. We are tortured by these popes, shankaracharyas, imams, rabbis. It is time that man is freed from all these fetters. It is out of my love that I want you to be free, totally free, no dependence, no father figure, nobody between you and your truth, no mediator. That's why I will destroy everything that can create the old mistake all religions have fallen into. (1985)

... the spiritual evolution of man has passed through many stages. Its ultimate stage is where the master and the disciple should be just friends, because the whole idea of the master and the disciple is based on a subtle spiritual slavery. The disciple surrenders. The master provides all kinds of devices so that the disciple disappears as an ego. But there are dangers. The danger is – and it is not only theoretical; the danger is very practical, and it has happened almost all over the world throughout the centuries – that instead of the ego disappearing, the individual disappears and the ego remains. Instead of disappearing, it becomes very subtle; it becomes holy, it becomes religious, it becomes spiritual. (1986)

In the silences of the heart, there is a meeting between the master and the disciple. Both know that something has moved, some energy has been transferred, transmitted. The flame that was asleep in the disciple is asleep no more; it has jumped into aliveness and consciousness. This is the transmission of the lamp. But you can do it only if you have it. A strange situation is needed: the master has to have it and the disciple has to be ready to receive it. Nothing is said, nothing is heard and the dialogue is over. (1988)

The master's function in Zen is to force nothingness into your experience, or in other words, to bring you to your own nothingness. The master devises methods, and when they become old and routine he drops them, finds new methods, new ways. (1989)

The master functions as a friend. He holds your hand and takes you on the right path, helps you to open your eyes, helps you to be capable of transcending the mind. That's when your third eye opens, when you start looking inwards. Once you are looking inwards, the master's work is finished. Now it is up to you. (1989)

"Unknown hidden interesting information"
To the anonymous editor at 80.254.135.177 repeatedly posting a link to a pdf download claimed to contain "unknown hidden interesting information" about Osho's work: "unknown hidden interesting information" is, by definition, "Original Research", i.e. precisely the type of information that Wikipedia is NOT for. You may not be familiar with the term "Original Research". Here is its definition, as given in the Wikipedia policy document on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Original_research –


 * Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

This is exactly what your document amounts to. It is a synthesis of published material which advances your personal position and reading of Osho's oeuvre. And your personal position is no more important than that of anybody else. Therefore, it deserves no special place in an encyclopedia article, which should be a balanced reflection of reliable, published sources, rather than a platform for personal theories. Jayen466 19:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Followers
Any mentions of Sloterdijk or other famous personnalities who continue to discuss and support the Rajneesh' philosophy/thought ?


 * I've added a mention of Sloterdijk, with source. Jayen466 16:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Rich man's guru quote reinserted
Hi, re the rich man’s guru quote, the context in the source quoted originally is this:


 * Q: IF I MAY FIRST FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION CONCERNING COMMUNISM THAT A COLLEAGUE OF MINE ASKED YOU BEFORE. YOU SAID THIS MORNING THAT MESSIAHS, PROPHETS, INCARNATIONS OF GOD ARE CHEATING US, KEEPING US REPRESSED AND PREVENTING US FROM REBELLING AGAINST THE STATUS QUO. YOU SAID THAT POVERTY AND HUNGER ARE NOT A BLESSING. BUT COMMUNISTS HAVE SAID THESE SAME THINGS FOR MANY YEARS AND HAVE TRIED TO DO SOMETHING TO ELIMINATE POVERTY AND HUNGER. WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT?


 * A: Yes, they have tried to eliminate... not poverty, but richness. And they have eliminated it. Now the whole of communist Russia is equally poor. That gives a certain satisfaction, of course, but it is not my goal. I want to destroy poverty.


 * I am all for the rich man. I am the rich man's guru.


 * The Last Testament, Vol. 1, Chapter 3

This is clearly a reference to “material richness”. Other quotes relating to this matter are:


 * Q: THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT YOU AND YOUR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWING ARE EXTREMELY WEALTHY. IF IT'S TRUE, WHERE DID THE MONEY COME FROM?


 * A: My people are rich. In fact, only the very rich, educated, intelligent, cultured can understand what I am saying. Beggars cannot come to me. Poor people cannot come to me. The gap is too big. They can hear me but they cannot understand me. So it is natural: I am the rich man's guru.


 * The Last Testament, Vol. 1, Chapter 1

In the following quote Osho himself refers to the controversy around his "rich man's guru" status:


 * I cannot say that, that meditation will fulfill your physical needs. It is impossible for me to cheat in such a way. So even in India, while I was traveling, I was speaking only to the very rich people. I was condemned as the rich man's guru. I said, "This is not a condemnation, this is really the fact. I am the rich man's guru because only the rich man can understand what I am trying to say, to convey.


 * "The poor man has needs, I know. But what I can offer to him will not meet his needs. I am not for him. Mother Teresa is for him, I am not for him. What can I do if I deal in some higher things? I don't own a grocery store. I cannot give you anything less than ultimate consciousness. But for that you have to be hungry -- and you are not hungry for that. I have something to offer to you; but you are not ready to receive it, so it is not my fault."


 * Naturally, people from all over the world started coming to me, but these were all from rich countries, rich cultures, well-educated, very intelligent people, young people. To them I could convey. Something was possible now; they were ready, they were open, they were finished with the marketplace, the pleasures of the body and the pleasures of the mind. They had had enough of it. They were at a point that if something else was not possible then only suicide was the way to get rid of this whole nonsense called life.


 * From Darkness to Light, Chapter 29: History repeats itself, unfortunately, Question 1

He explains further what he means here:


 * That's why I say if a rich man does not become religious he must be extraordinarily stupid, and if a poor man becomes religious he must be extraordinarily intelligent. Because when you have, it is very simple to see the arithmetic that nothing has happened; but when you don't have, then just to visualize and just to think in imagination that even by having it nothing is going to happen, is very difficult. A lurking doubt will remain inside... maybe there is something in it; the whole world is running after it: "Are they all fools? Am I alone the wise man? Then why is the whole world running after riches, money, power, prestige?" It is very difficult. When you live in a palace you know that life does not happen just by living in a palace. But when you live on the road, you live in a slum, it is very difficult to understand that just by living in a palace nothing happens. That's why I told you I am a rich man's guru. But only for that rich man who has understood that he is not rich is there the possibility of opening into the religious dimension. When he has understood his inner poverty, only then. So whosoever understands that he is poor, and he has nothing, and this world cannot give you anything, is capable of making a contact with a Master. There is no other way.


 * Sometimes it seems very hard. Listening to me, sometimes you become very disturbed. The moment I say that I am only a rich man's guru, of course you become disturbed. You are not rich; then am I not your guru? But you misunderstood me. You could not get the point of it.


 * Many times it is happening: I say something, you hear something else.


 * The Discipline of Transcendence, Vol. 4, Chapter 2, Question 3

So I have reinserted the quote, since it was an actual controversy surrounding his name (this is, after all, the Controversy section), but have changed the reference to From Darkness to Light. Jayen466 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurdjieff (citation request by IP, June 9 2007)
There are 1865 references to Gurdjieff in the English-language Osho archive. Jayen466 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This is not a neutral article. This is damn near a "love letter" to the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and it glosses over the crimes the man committed and attempts to present this criminal in a positive light and sell his "message". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coelacanth1938 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)


 * You create the impression that Osho had committed a number of crimes for the article to gloss over; this is not so. The immigration issues (and even these were subject to a plea bargain, see p. 233, Carter 1990) are mentioned, and Osho has never been accused of anything else (ibidem). Osho is seen very much in a positive light today, at least in his home country, India (see for example India Today cover celebrating 60 years of Indian independence). -- Jayen 466 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He is surely _not _only seen in positive light, both in the US and in India. A magazine cover does not prove the opposite as for example Hitler has made many covers in connection with German history and most people would not claim this makes him stand in positive light. It is merely an acknowledgement of his impact on his followers. It is obvious that this article is written by a bunch of people on a crusade distorting reality beyond the point of being bearable. Let me stress that I have no interest in editing content on wikipedia for exactly that reason. Why were there allegations against his followers in Oregon, in Amsterdam, etc.? Why did all this happen around one person? Why did some of the followers in Oregon amass weapons and threaten neighbours? Why would any reasonable person look at anything about him in a positive light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.37.229 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * One reason they may have amassed weapons is that circulars appeared all over Oregon at turkey shoots and the like, declaring an "open season on the central eastern Rajneesh, known locally as the Red Rats or Red Vermin", offering advice for "dressing out", "gut shots" and the use of "a Rolls Royce as bait" (Carter, 1990, p. 203). A Rajneeshee-owned hotel in Portland was the victim of a bomb attack a year or two prior; several attempts had been made on Osho's life in India.
 * As for how Osho is seen in the Indian subcontinent, I cannot think of anything that would make a philosopher more mainstream than the endorsement by several current or former prime ministers and presidents. Study the sources given in the article, or survey the Indian press for yourself for a while. To give you an example, this is the Prime Minister of the world's most populous democracy, speaking in 2000 (he was then leader of the opposition): 'Dr. Singh described the guru as "the most modern patron saint of India" as he had expressed his thoughts on all the problems perplexing mankind today, including environmental degradation, gender equality, human rights and so on. Releasing a compact disc of Osho's analysis of Japuji, which encompasses the basic thought that pervades the Guru Granth Saheb, the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha said analysis of this kind would inspire future generations of people in all parts of the world. "Whenever human beings ask these questions on how to improve human condition, I am sure Osho's thought will be uppermost on their mind", he added. While he had never met Osho, Dr. Singh said that he had always increasingly found that "his is truly a psalm of peace which gives me contentment. It also enlightens me and it opens up new vistas of exploration about the redemption of the human condition." Later Dr. Singh wrote in the Osho World visitor's book that Osho's "life and work will continue to inspire future generations of humankind and his powerful message of essential unity of mankind will equip us to evolve a new global ethics for the improvement of the human condition."'  --  Jayen 466 16:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a neutral article but more of a love letter by fanatic followers. It should be rather rewritten completely than making minute corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.7.180 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, guys! Let's talk about it.  ...hmmmm, but these comments were unsigned so I guess you may not want to talk.  Murftown (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If all that was said above about the massive amounts of weapons, as well as the threats to the various individuals, and this can be referenced in secondary sources - then that should all be presented in the article. If not, I agree with the other anon-ips from above, that it seems like this is a "love letter" that "glosses over" criminal activities, as that person put it.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC).


 * I disagree. If the surrounding environment made violent threats against sannyasins, and the official Rajneeshpuram Peace Force (built up and trained under the auspices of the State of Oregon) increased its defence capabilities accordingly, then this should be covered in the article on Rajneeshpuram. Yes, to the extent that Osho was directly impacted by the presence of weapons (e.g. in latter years, his Rolls-Royce was accompanied by an armed guard, and he defended the presence of armed guards in his discourses), this can be covered in the article. As for glossing over criminal activities, this is the article about Osho, the individual, not the article about Rajneeshpuram or Ma Anand Sheela or the Osho movement. -- Jayen 466 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * some links with infos that should be at least critically mentioned: 1) Jim Weaver, congressman for Oregons 4th district at the time ; 2) Although I do not agree with all of the authors statements, the following article contains interesting pieces of information . Its just the tip of the iceberg. There are many critics out there with valid points. It just gets drowned by all those who heard what they wanted to hear and who want to beleive it so badly. Its fundamentalism at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.37.229 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Weaver article is nowhere near reliable, claiming, as it does, that Sheela and Osho left Rajneeshpuram together (!). Neither Carter nor FitzGerald, who spent months on site before and after Osho's leaving, report anything like it. As for the other website, see Verifiability. -- Jayen 466 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The entry - as is - excludes most of the criticism raised. Mentioning an article critically could include commenting on open questions. The entry is perceived as a "love letter" as it voluntarily makes assumtions in favour of Osho but does not mention the far spreat criticism in any detail. Furthermore, if one single wrong statement would discredit the complete source almost no article in wikipedia would be useful or stand up to its own demand. But what to expect in an article about a person with whom interviews seem like discussions with a common forum troll?


 * I have added a review of various criticisms, sourced, to the criticism section, as a "quick fix". More revisions will follow; both the Poona and Oregon sections require expansion. -- Jayen 466 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely, the question to be asked is the opposite one: Why should an article in a small-circulation local paper, recording evidently faulty reminiscences of an elderly gentleman, be considered a preferred source for encyclopaedic information, given that there is a wealth of well-researched academic sources available? I'll gladly add a summary of criticism, based on reputable secondary sources. As I have said elsewhere, I had intended to revise the article for some time, to remedy its primary source bias, but have been busy with other things. (In particular, I bought the book by Fox recently, which covers all of Osho's life, rather than any specific episode.) -- Jayen 466 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * An interview with Osho for the German political magazine "Der Spiegel" (in German - shortened). It can mildly be perceived as self contradictory. . Also the full article in DER SPIEGEL Nr. 32/1985 contains some very questionable comments not contained in the short version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.37.229 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable info to add to the article
Previous to this, Mr. Greene served as deputy district director of the Portland District in Oregon. In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers. For his action in this investigation Mr. Greene was awarded the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 1986. I do not know how often the "Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service" is awarded, but this should be mentioned in the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Leadership, Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Joseph R. Greene, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
 * That same info is also corroborated, here. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Isn't Mr Greene's getting a medal rather peripheral to the article's subject? Or do you mean there should be mention of the fact that there was a major criminal investigation of Rajneeshpuram by the US authorities? The latter is certainly true, and could be expanded. -- Jayen 466 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd think that certainly if it is rare for the "Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service" to be awarded, then that could be worth mentioning. Certainly the source itself could be used in the article, and most definitely, yes, the issue itself of "a major criminal investigation of Rajneeshpuram by the US authorities" as you put it, is undercovered in the article at present, if barely at all.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC).


 * Btw, well done for sourcing a public-domain picture! -- Jayen 466 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is an interesting presentation, if you have the time to take a look.  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Lacks Objectivity and Neutrality
Any human event can be perceived in a variety of ways, thus subjective by the eyes of the beholder.

What seems to be missing here is objectivity. What is enlightenment? And who can define it except the enlightened? It seems that an enlightened one would never see themselves as such, or proclaim it publically. The ego itself can deceive as to enlightenment, so to use one's own judgment in this regard is using ego.

A person in their early years of life, if enlightened, does not change from night to day and become egoistic in later life. If power has corrupted them, they could not have been enlightened to begin with. It just hadn't surfaced yet.

Just as we see that Hitler had good intentions at one point in his early years with creating more jobs and commonwealth for the German people, the power corrupted. He himself did not personally murder countless Jews. His employ did so in his stead.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that even if Osho/Rajneesh did not personally spray salmonella on salad bars, rape minors (but did rape adults), tape conversations in the compound, carry weapons, carry out suicide bombings to Oregon legislature buildings, he employed those who did. He entrusted his staff to do as he wished. There are taped recordings of these facts.

Egolessness would mean non-attachment to results. The fact he wanted to be elected mayor, had material attachments to numerous high priced luxuries, was "seduced" into drug use, was a very sick man (diabetes, etc.) not only showed his human and ego sides, but his true non-enlightenment.

Humans that are enlightened do have their ego sides and human frailties, but they do not dominate as in the case of Osho. They leave behind a true legacy of love, compassion and acceptance of all people - whether the people agreed with them personally or not.

If one is attached to a guru, it means they are not enlightened nor self sufficient. If one is not self sufficient, they could never be enlightened. Getting angry over criticism of a guru is attachment. If one cannot live without their guru, they are not self sufficient nor self realized. Nor will they become as such. Dependency can not lead to non-attachment and is a form of desire.

The best that can be said about Osho's religion is that it was a hedonistic religion. It speaks to the most basic and crude of human nature, that of sexuality and desire. It's an easy religion in which one follows their ego's every whim and desire for self gratification. There is really no effort involved in such a religion, as it's much like letting a child loose in a candy store.

So bantering back and forth about if Osho committed crimes or not seems futile. To leave it up to one's own opinion (the ego and its own subjectivity/attachment/desire) seems the only option, as this is a highly subjective subject that won't be agreed upon universally. People who can't and won't face facts and the truth will always see Osho as innocent because their own egoistic desires are fulfilled through belief in hedonism.

It seems the Simpson's episode, where Rajneesh was depicted as a white gloved guru driving his Rolls Royce down a dusty commune road as his disciples felt joy at eating his road dust seems appropo. In the cartoon, the great guru tried to escape the commune with bags of cash in a homemade peddle driven flying machine. Solarain (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please spare us your ramblings on this talk page. Wikipedia articles are based on sources, not idle philosophising. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is your source for enlightenment? The only source is Osho's own words, which is no validated source. Because enlightenment is subjective, this article is as well. Every comment related to his criminal or immoral activities has been refuted or glossed over. Even the statement, "The only charge ever filed against him..." is a biased whitewashed recollection that serves to purposely thwart the topic. If stated unbiased, it would give the facts. It does not. This is only one sentence in a long article that is being refuted as unbiased. It's a daunting task to address every sentence, thus why people are complaining about its lack of neutrality. Credible coverage of negative points is lacking entirely. Solarain (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are problems with the article you should discuss them, not go off on a tangent rambling about Hitler and goodnessknows what else. If Osho claims to have achieve enlightment all we need is a source that verifies this. It is not necessary in fact it's rather silly for us to try an find additional third party sources claiming he achieved enlightment. We should not (whether about Osho or anyone else) say that he achieve enlightment simply that he claims to have achieve enlightment. Indeed failing to mention that he claims to have achieved enlightment would be a MAJOR failing on our part since for many people, the fact that he claims to have achieved enlightment does not put Osho in a good light. Also, please mind WP:NPA. Do not attack editors. If there are problems with the article you are welcome to discuss that but attacking editors, especially one who was simply telling you to stay on topic is unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article states "Osho courted controversy throughout his life, appearing to challenge many traditional assumptions about enlightened behaviour." This is formulated in a way that suggests Oshos enlightenment. The article is full of suggestive formulations like this which should all be removed for a more neutral language. (Tarsilion (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia articles also should be neutral . This one is clearly not neutral in various ways. Notice that contents should be both verifiable AND neutral. A biased selection of citations also clearly violates the principle of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.20.83 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Government sources also describe Osho (AKA Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) as "deported" and not simply "allowed to leave"
Bolding is emphasis added to quotes :
 * "1985 - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh deported and fined $400,000"
 * "The Bhagwan was indicted on federal immigration charges and deported to India."
 * "In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers."
 * "The Bhagwan was indicted on federal immigration charges and deported to India."
 * "In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers."
 * "In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers."


 * The very website of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement refers to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh as being deported from the United States, not "allowed to leave." Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Added here as well, because obviously Osho's deportation from the United States (as per the website of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is relevant in a biographical article about the individual himself. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Please do not remove these sources from this talk page.

Was not "allowed to leave" United States, but rather was "deported"
According to Rajneesh's biography in Thomson Gale : Nevertheless, Rajneesh's activities were brought to the attention of the federal government. The religious leader was soon charged with 35 counts of deliberate violations against immigration laws. On a plea bargain, he admitted his guilt in two of the charges and was deported back to his native India in 1985.



This is not the same as being "allowed to leave the United States" and if acceptable sources say he was "deported" then that should be present in the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology : The authorities were never able to connect him with crimes on the ranch, but he was found guilty of immigration violation and conspiracy to evade visa regulations (charges his followers claimed were entirely bogus). He was fined $400,000, given a suspended prison sentence of ten years, and ordered to leave the United States for a minimum of five years. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Newsmakers 1990 : Rajneesh arranged a plea bargain and was deported as a result. After being rejected from 21 other countries, Rajneesh settled again in Poona. He had changed his name in 1988 from "Bhagwan," which is a deity's title in Hindi, to "Osho," a Buddhist term meaning "On whom the heavens shower flowers." Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Almanac of Famous People : Cult leader known for preaching blend of Eastern religion, pop psychology, free love; deported from US, 1985, for immigration violations. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the "deportation" of Rajneesh, as per a Forbes article from 1991 : Rancho Rajneesh collapsed following the deportation of the guru to India in 1985 and the subsequent guilty pleas of top lieutenants on charges including arson, attempted murder, wiretapping and immigration fraud. Several Rajneeshee leaders are wanted for conspiracy to murder a U.S. Attorney. Rajneesh died in India last year. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

These sources are relevant to this article, as Osho's being deported from the United States and arrested on thirty-five counts of immigration fraud is relevant to a biographical article about him and should be mentioned in it, if we are to avoid a whitewashing. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Please do not remove this from this talk page.

In summary, the following sources state that Osho was "deported" from the United States: Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

This issue -- of whether Osho was "deported" or "allowed to leave the country" -- came up in another talk page, and arose in response to wordings present in various other reputable sources. These are the relevant posts from myself on the other talk page that Curt's posts above relate to:

The wording "allowed" is present in Carter, marked as a quote, leading me to assume that this was the official wording of the verdict. Carter was very close to events at the time and researched this more thoroughly than anyone else (have a look at the citations listed in his book), and so I believe that in general, his account should be given preference in such matters of detail over accounts published 15 or 20 years after the event. Cheers, -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just checked FitzGerald. She also does not use the word "deported"; her wording is "He received a ten-year suspended prison sentence, and agreed to pay four hundred thousand dollars in fines and prosecution costs, to leave the country within five days, and not to come back for at least five years without the explicit permission of the United States Attorney General." (The New Yorker Sept 29. 1986, page 111). I think that may be technically different from being deported, since in deportation there is to my knowledge no question of the deportee "agreeing" to anything, but I don't know, so I will have to look further into this. Fox (2002) btw also has "deported". Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Curt, I am simply drawing your attention to a discrepancy. I don't believe you have access to the Carter, so I'll give you the complete quote here:
 * "He was fined $400,000, given a ten-year suspended sentence, "allowed" to depart from the country voluntarily, and placed on probation for five years. An effect of this arrangement is that he is ineligible to reenter the United States for five years from the date of entering the plea."
 * The wording in the September 29 1986 issue of The New Yorker was: "He received a ten-year suspended prison sentence, and agreed to pay four hundred thousand dollars in fines and prosecution costs, to leave the country within five days, and not to come back for at least five years without the explicit permission of the United States Attorney General."
 * So in this case, yes, I believe it is possible that the other publications are wrong, simply because we have two extremely reputable, well-researched, temporally and physically close-to-the-event secondary sources substantially agreeing with each other, and contradicting various tertiary sources compiled years later. Frances FitzGerald is a Pulitzer prize winner, The New Yorker's fact checking department is legendary and unparalleled in the history of journalism, and Carter was an American sociologist from a reputable university who I believe spent more time researching Rajneeshpuram than any other scholar anywhere in the world. Compared to that, the "Encyclopaedia of Occultism and Parapsychology" or the "Almanac of Famous People" simply don't cut the mustard. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Carter refers to a "bargain arrangement" in the preceding sentence, FitzGerald refers to Osho's lawyers "cutting a deal" with the US Attorney's Office in the preceding sentence. What they describe, therefore, are simply the terms of the plea bargain. These included Osho's undertaking to leave the country, which he did the same day that he entered his plea, i.e. November 14 1986 (FitzGerald, p.112 The New Yorker 9/29/86 and p. 365 Cities on a Hill). This means that no deportation procedure was ever initiated; there simply would not have been time for one. Likewise, FWIW, the answers.com biography has: "He pled guilty with the understanding that he would be allowed to leave the country." Cheers, -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have since accepted that the wording "deported" is very frequently found in the literature, and even on US government websites, and may, at least as a loose expression, be defensible. Even so, I still see no reason to doubt the veracity of the presentation in the excellent accounts by FitzGerald and Carter. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Methinks Jayen doth protest too much. All your jibber jabber over verbal constructions of phrases that basically and obviously indicate he was forced to leave -- it walks like deportation and quacks like deportation, so you may as well call it deportation as call it anything. Get real, already. Brian, 1/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.236.132 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Images
Has anybody got a decent image of him to use. Two pictures of cars, and a mirror don't do the article any favours. 78.151.245.185 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, a good question. I am currently looking into getting some free-use "public domain" images related to this topic, from government sources in the United States.  We shall see what turns up.  Cheers,  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

I'd be grateful if people would stop deleting the picture of the Osho Commune. As I've pointed out before, I inserted it at the request of a reviewer, User:Nichalp. The place is notable; I believe it is, after the Taj Mahal, India's second-largest tourist attraction and mentioned as tourist attraction on Indian Embassy websites. In addition to its foreign visitors, it has hosted numerous cultural events involving leading cultural icons of India, and is regularly mentioned in the Indian press. Whether you like Osho or not matters diddlysquat. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing

 * I'm afraid there is a neutrality issue here as there is with a lot of wiki pages representing religious organizations. This item runs like a full page advert for the Osho International Foundation and I suspect this particular page is being policed by said group. This is essentially a POV pushing issue. There also is an over-abundance of links to Youtube videos produced by OIF, this is unsavoury.


 * Osho, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, David Koresh, Ted Haggard, Louis Farakhan, Aum Shinrikyo etc. etc. varying degrees on a megalomaniacs scale. Disciples of any religious group will lie and twist the truth to keep up appearances and that is what is happening on this Wiki page dedicated to Osho.


 * To a secular individual such as myself this is simply another control obsessed religious organisation. As with all such entities, they have a tarnished reputation which they are doing their utmost to polish up. Part of this effort involves manipulating perspectives through damage limitation measures (such as including the controversy section, but sweetening it in a manner that de-emphasises particular issues, while ignoring others completely). I find this similar to the way Scientology followers have attempted to manipulate any Scientology related entries in Wikipedia.


 * The controversy surrounding Osho has been downplayed considerably. There is no mention of why he left India (tax evasion) for the US (entering by claiming he needed urgent medical treatment), no mention of the often violent group therapy sessions that were later suspended because of negative publicity, no mention of the issue with the school at Pemberton in Western Australia (children suffered deprivation, threats, and coerced into sex play), the link to the Rolls Royce parable as justification for Rajneesh's overindulgences (93 Rolls cars, jewel encrusted watches, planes, etc.) and then allege that "his followers bought [them] for his use" is ridiculous, no mention of the arms cache that was acquired (that's a real message of peace) and the private army trained to use them, and what about the AIDS and general sexual health policy that arose from the positive testing of two commune members at Rajneeshpuram (the condoms, rubber gloves, and alcohol spray), no mention of Osho doing a runner with cash, jewellery, and his throne, and nothing about the acrimony between Rajneesh and Sheela: it boils down to his word against hers, irrespective of alleged lack of “evidence”; why do they never manage to get Mafioso bosses? because someone else does their dirty work, Osho was not a stupid man).


 * Also, aside form all the Youtube links to OIF propaganda there is a direct external link to the Osho International Meditation Resort this is unacceptable as it amounts to advertising (it is a commercial organisation).Semitransgenic (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercial conflict of interests

 * Lets be clear about this, what we have here is a commercial entity using wiki to further it's business. Note that the word OSHO is a registered trademark, it is a brand. The various meditative practices they claim to have developed, they are all trademarked. Any links in the text that point to You Tube go to OIF produced videos, or more precisely,  OSHO advertisements. I believe this infringes wiki policy and I am requesting that someone with the appropriate editorial authority address this; as it compromises the integrity of the Wikipedia service. It is not here to sell OSHO goods and services.

Please do not remove this post until the issue is resolved.

Semitransgenic (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope you'll apply the same rigor to the Coca Cola and eBay articles. :-) -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Kindly review What should be linked:


 * 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
 * 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 * And FYI: I do not "own, maintain or represent" osho.com or any other related website. And I get the impression that you have a distinct bee in your bonnet about this individual. Cheers, -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What's in my bonnet is none of your concern. POV and advertising is the issue here.

Please note wiki states:

'''Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order: 1. Clean up per Wikipedia:neutral point of view 2. Delete remaining advertising content from the article 3. Delete the article, by listing it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains.

Interesting that you should mention the Coke page because it's a good example of how external links should be dealt with, they are at the end of the page, and not strewn throughout the main body of the text.There are no links to Coke video adverts.

Arguably this is essentially a spamming issue. If you go and look at wiki guidelines regarding advertising you will note that it warns against "adding excessive external links to one's company"

Now, OSHO is a company, this is beyond dispute, as such, in relation to guidelines on company articles it should be noted that: "It is often better not to write an article about the company you work for or own. Firstly, you may have problems maintaining a neutral point of view, and secondly, it may be that your article will be quickly deleted. If your company is notable enough, someone else will write an article about it".Having reviewed this it should be clear that if members of OIF participate in the editing of this item there is a serious POV problem.

I'm not sure what your particular position is in terms of association with OFI but if one were to assess the level of engagement you have with the editing of the OSHO item then you may indeed be a member of OFI (or one of it's international offshoots). If it can be verified that you are an associate of OFI there is then a conflict of interest as you are seen to be "foregoing the advancing [of] the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests." Semitransgenic (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assertion that OSHO is nothing but a registered trademark, a brand, fails to acknowledge that Osho was a person and the founder of a religious movement. It is this person that this article is about, not a trademark or brand.
 * As for links to video recordings of the man, please refer to WP:Linkspam: Generally, a video is not a spamming video if it is posted by the official site associated with the Wikipedia article. For example, if the Wikipedia article is on a movie named "xyzMovie" and the official site for the movie is "xyzMovie.com" then links or references to "xyzMovie.com" are legitimate for a video at a video sharing page—however, all other links at that video page still must also be legitimate. Some judgement is needed here. If the posted video just advertises a bunch of products associated with the movie, then it is a spamming video even though it is posted by the official site. :The video links in question contain a reference to www.osho.com, nothing else. osho.com is the official site associated with the subject of this WP article, hence I see no violation of the linkspam guidelines. Such violation would be the case if video links of this type were placed in other, unrelated articles, but not here.
 * I could add that Osho videos fulfil a scripture-like function within the Osho movement; they are shown on a daily basis in the Meditation Resort in Pune. Hence I see no difference between linking to an Osho video that backs up a specific statement made in this article, and linking to an online Bible or Koranic reference in an article on a Christian or Islamic topic. For example, you will find links similar to the ones here in articles like Nontrinitarianism, Sahaja Yoga, American Jews, Protestantism and Catholic Church. As for the alleged commercial nature, I don't think you understood my point. The article on Coca Cola shows images of various Coca Cola advertisements, the article on eBay has in-line links to various commercial eBay sites, even though there is much less reason to include such links than there is here, as these links do not back up statements made in the article. Overall, I see no reason not to reinstate the links. However, I welcome further discussion on this. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in understanding your point. You are a cultist with a hidden agenda, discussion is futile. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad you are finally admitting that the page is being controlled by Osho International Semitransgenic (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility
In view of the fact that the edits made by the IP numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.12.240.186 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/143.117.78.169 etc. all track to the same geographical location and match the edit history of User:Semitransgenic, I would like to point out that edit summaries like this one are absolutely unacceptable.

Likewise, this edit summary raising the accusation that the link to 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack had been "intentionally obscured" is a gross violation of WP:AGF, in particular since I was the one who introduced the link in this article a few weeks back. I would therefore appreciate it if henceforth we could work constructively on this article, without the abuse and innuendo. Thank you. -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, don't come in here waving some WP:AGF flag when you have lied about your background; in relation to this article. You are a worm. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW weren't you the one who got wrapped up in a dispute about the bio-terror article? bit of a coincidence. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You will note that this was a very civil dispute, which was resolved to my and Cirt's satisfaction. We have the barnstars to prove it. The article subsequently achieved GA status. ;-) -- Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)