Talk:Rajneesh/Archive 6

Informal article review
I was asked for feedback about the state of the article. In general, the article is well-written and well-referenced. It is certainly among Wikipedia's better articles. However, some issues remain:

Overall, the quality and referencing is excellent. However, the views of both supporters and detractors come across in the editorial voice of the article, sometimes relying on poor referencing and original research to push the claims. The article needs a solid rewrite and fact-check, but the amount of work needed to bring it up to GA standards is relatively minimal, even if some of the needed changes are drastic. Vassyana (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The lede is a bit long and needs some trimming.
 * Some well-referenced sections are a bit long. It may be wise to consider spinning off some subarticles. Since they are well-written and well-referenced, using clearly reliable independent sources, notability should not be a concern at all for the split articles. Shorter summary-style sections should be left in-place, if spin-offs are undertaken, touching on the central points.
 * The "Teachings" section occasionally falls into a fawning or promotional tone. The tone also occasionally becomes a bit informal. It should be revised for a more dispassionate, professional and consistent tone throughout the section.
 * There are a few references directly to Osho's writings. Since his work is complex, changed over time and self-admittedly contradictory on occasion, such citations should be avoided except for clear and uncontroversial illustrations of facts/claims made by independent sources. This is not a criticism per se, but rather a exhortation to caution.
 * Image:Mirror.jpg is a nifty image, but does not seem to reflect the accompanying text (mind the pun).
 * The quality of the article writing sadly declines in Osho and the whole section needs some rewriting and reworking. As a start, the section should be simply named "Reception". The article already clearly establishes that he is a controversial figure and was involved in controversy, making the section title a bit polemic and redundant.
 * Osho is a clumsy stitchwork of quotations and needs a serious rewrite with concise prose & quotations reserved for emphasis. The following section of "Charisma" similarly needs less quotations and a rewrite.
 * Osho seems to be based entirely on the opinion of one scholar, which is a serious concern of proper weighting. It is even more concerning considering the potentially inflammatory nature of the claim and also considering that this is a biographical article.
 * The one or two statements unique toOsho should be merged with the previous discussion of the issue in the article.
 * Osho seems to contain unreferenced claims and also seems to inappropriately stitch together sources. It needs better referencing and use of sources.
 * Osho seems to about his teachings and beliefs, giving the appearance that it is placed in this section as a point of criticism without the support of the sources for that presentation. It would probably be best to move this material to the section on his teachings, particularly his criticisms of movements that he felt glorified poverty.
 * Osho is poorly referenced and comes off like a hit piece.


 * Thanks Vassyana, I'll do some work on these points in Talk:Osho/Drafts. It's a difficult article to stay aloof in, without straying to the one or the other extreme, given how polarised his reception his. P.S. The mirror thing -- it's interesting how Sloterdijk, the philosopher, describes him as the "Wittgenstein of religions", while Singh, the erudite agnostic, describes him as an erudite agnostic, etc. Perhaps a bit too subtle (?). Cheers, Jayen 466 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've incorporated the Rich man's guru section in the Teachings section as per your suggestion, and deleted the alleged drug abuse para, as I could not find really solid sources to put it on a proper footing. I've added more scholarly references regarding the alleged narcissism; this line of thought is not unique to Clarke, though he provides the most detailed English-language analysis. Jayen 466 22:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sex guru section now incorporated into main narrative. Jayen 466 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Drug abuse
I suggest that the following be reinstated, it does not "read like a hit piece" as suggested above and the allegations are documented across a number of sources, including Milne, which for some reason has been excluded.

Osho dictated three books while undergoing dental treatment under the influence of nitrous oxide (laughing gas): Glimpses of a Golden Childhood, Notes of a Madman, and Books I Have Loved. This led to allegations that Osho was addicted to nitrous oxide gas. In 1985, on the American CBS television show 60 Minutes, Sheela claimed that Osho took sixty milligrams of Valium every day. When questioned by journalists about the allegations of daily Valium and nitrous oxide use, Osho categorically denied both, describing the allegations as "absolute lies".

Semitransgenic (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll stick it back in for now. Milne's reliability is questioned; not just by Osho's followers, but also by people like Storr. Let's see if we can bring this section up to scratch somehow. I am open to suggestions. Jayen 466 12:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple of sources; it's better than it was before. Jayen 466 13:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * this is not simply about Milne, American authorities made other allegations based on what they found at the commune, this is not covered, also another woman, who's name I don't remember - will root it out - also alleged drug use. Whether or not there was any truth to the allegations is not the point, they were made, and there were various responses from Osho, I think this can all be presented in a fair and balanced manner. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * also, regarding Milne, I think it's important to note that: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true Semitransgenic (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You must also consider that we should not be going beyond the sources, nor should be be placing more emphasis on a matter than the collective body of reliable sources. In this instance, the removed section is problematic on a number of levels. The suggested controversy as related above is inappropriately composed of unsourced negative claims bookended by sourced material from positive sources. Also, the reliability of the sannyasworld.com article is deeply questionable. The obvious intent is to cast a controversy about the matter. How it uses positive sources to cast negative claims, uses a very questionable source and the complete lack of sources for the negative crux is what gave the impression of a "hit piece". If the matter is that important, it can be sourced completely and reliably, without an obvious editorial voice pushing the point. Vassyana (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You may not have noticed that I added a couple of sources (neither of them top drawer) for the negative claims earlier today. This still does not help with the SYN problem, but FWIW. Perhaps parts of this section could be replaced and sourced to the actual Spiegel interview, which I note is now online. The sannyasworld cite is not essential; it's just an ancillary source, clearly not up to RS standard, and nothing in the present para is sourced to it exclusively. Jayen 466 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is the actual wording in Anthony Storr's book:

Carter, who wrote the most voluminous and highly regarded book about Osho's history and stay in Rajneeshpuram (published by Cambridge University Press), does cite Milne a number of times as a corroborative source, but also expresses occasional reservations about his reliability. Carter mentions neither Milne's nitrous oxide nor Sheela's valium claim in the 300+ pages of his book. Another sociologist, Fox, mentions that critics allege (among many other things) that Osho "was vain, self-absorbed, and at least in later years, addicted to nitrous oxide" (p. 48); she concludes, however, that there "is no hard evidence to support any of these allegations" (p. 50).

I'll add the Fox cite for now. Jayen 466 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

So the present wording and sourcing now are as follows:

Osho dictated three books while undergoing dental treatment under the influence of nitrous oxide (laughing gas): Glimpses of a Golden Childhood, Notes of a Madman, and Books I Have Loved. This led to allegations that Osho was addicted to nitrous oxide gas. In 1985, on the American CBS television show 60 Minutes, Sheela claimed that Osho took sixty milligrams of Valium every day. When questioned by journalists about the allegations of daily Valium and nitrous oxide use, Osho categorically denied both, describing the allegations as "absolute lies". ''


 * In terms of the wording of the item written above it suggests that it was Osho allegedly writing books on nitrous oxide that lead to further allegations regarding drug use; this appears to be synthesis. It would be better to present what was said and by whom, with the sources, it can then mention that the allegations are unproven and were denied by Osho.Semitransgenic (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * the sannyasworld.com cite is unusable, I don't know why it was included in the first place. But there other remarks about Osho on valium by Deeksha, and about him on nitrous oxide by Guest. Gas inlets were found in his quarters, and spent canisters were allegedly stacked at the rear of his residence (they may have simply been for oxygen, or they may have been for an oxygen/nitrous mix). The substance abuse thing may be a myth. There is no hard evidence either way, that's the point, speculation exists, and has been published, it's not the job of wikipedia to make judgments regarding validity; based upon appraisals made by other individuals in the field. No one is going beyond the sources, there is a question of alleged drug use, there are suggestions that it contributed to his eventual demise. This is not something that has been synthesised here. It would seem to be relevant and should perhaps be included, but without undue emphasis. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Deeksha: Often she said he was high on valium and incoherent. At times, he seemed to be praising Hitler who he called a 'genius' and Goebbels, whom he declared the 'greatest pracitioner of mass persuasion'. from Modern Godmen in India: A Sociological Appraisal, Uday Mehta, Akshayakumar Ramanlal Desai, Popular Prakashan, 1993, p.121, ISBN 8171547087.
 * Guest: As he spoke, Bhagwan inhaled nitrous oxide from a canister by his chair. My Life in Orange: Growing Up with the Guru, Tim Guest, Harcourt, 2005, p.58, ISBN 015603106X.


 * (Should point out here that Guest was about 6 years old at the time, and 6000 miles away) jalal (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, speculating abut the validity of sources is groundless, if you have verifiable information that refutes Guests claims, that can be presented to counter balance the allegation. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote as you present it gives the impression that Tim Guest was an observer, which is not the case, I just wanted to clarify that. jalal (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As the book goes on, the communes become increasingly desperate and corrupt places; we watch as Bhagwan accumulates Rolls-Royces (he ended up with 93) and as he dictates his work, high as a kite, sitting in a dental chair and sucking laughing gas from a canister. From 'Spiritual Fraud', a New Statesman review of My Life in Orange, William Leith, Published 16 February 2004. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Guest is not a good source for Osho's biography, for the reasons Jalal stated. It is a personal memoir by someone who was a small child at the time, not a piece of scholarship; and we have better sources available. The same applies to reviews of Guest's book that do not benefit from the reviewer's independent research. Jayen 466 01:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Scholarship is not a requirement, it's a source, it's published, and it is the opinion of someone who was allegedly there, admittedly he was young, but discounting his observations is again speculating abut the validity of sources. Simply provide published sources that counter Guests claims and the issue is solved. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Our article states clearly that Osho dictated three books under the influence of NO, and which books these were. It is a generally accepted fact which, as far as I am aware, is disputed by no one. (No one, Guest included, is alleging that Osho delivered lectures in public with an NO canister by his chair.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does the allegation that he delivered lectures in public while using nitrous fit in? If you got the impression I was implying this, I wasn't, I presumed the canister by the chair reference related to a private encounter. The Guest item was simply in addition to other examples of a view that represents his consumption of nitrous oxide as being recreational. I'm still not sure why such an allegation is percieved so negatively. However, there are other allegations that claim he gave discoures mashed, and there is video footage that would seem to support this charge. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Storr: We have seen that some gurus, including Jim Jones and Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, manifested obvious mental deterioration toward the end of their missions. Jones dosed himself with large quantities of amphetamines and anti-depressants; Rajneesh used valium and nitrous oxide. Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners, and Madmen : a Study of Gurus, Anthony Storr, Free Press, p. 151, 1996, University of Michigan, ISBN 0684834952. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the quote I gave above ("In studying gurus ...") is from the same book, from its chapter dedicated to Osho (p. 59). The US publisher was Free Press (publisher), which to my knowledge does not have any link to the University of Michigan. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake, no link to University of Michigan, that was the source of the original used by Google books in their preview. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In terms of the wording of the item written above it suggests that it was Osho allegedly writing books on nitrous that lead to further allegations regarding drug use; this appears to be synthesis. It would be better to present what was said and whom, present the sources, but it clear that the allegations are unproven and were denied by Osho.Semitransgenic (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right, we should strike the "This led" phrasing. Basically, Sheela made claims to the press about excessive valium and nitrous use after her flight from the ranch, that's it. What is universally agreed is that Osho dictated the books mentioned during dental sessions, and while under the influence of laughing gas, and that info should probably be there too. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. I also removed the sannyasworld cite, there being apparent consensus that it falls short of RS requirements. I think the section as a whole can still do with further improvement, though. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it needs to be clearer and present more regarding the allegations that were made and by whom. When I have pulled my sources together, and get a chance, I will present a rewrite of the paragraph here for general consideration. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Should also add that Urban's assessment alleges drug use issues: Rather ironically, few if any of Rajneesh's disciples appear to have ever achieved this godlike status; on the contrary, most of his followers appear to have faced intense disillusionment and despair after their once powerful movement collapsed, their guru had deteriorated into a drug-addicted recluse, and their dreams of total sexual-spiritual liberation transformed into tools of greed, manipulation, and exploitation. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states that these allegations were made. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Rich Mans Guru
I suggest that the following also be returned.

Osho said that he was "the rich man's guru", and that material poverty was not a genuine spiritual value. He was photographed wearing sumptuous clothing and hand-made watches. He drove a different Rolls-Royce each day – his followers reportedly wanted to buy him 365 of them, one for each day of the year. Publicity shots of the Rolls-Royces (93 in the end) appeared in the press, apparently as a deliberate taunt.

It is valid, and is not written in a critical manner as seems to be suggested above. In removing the items listed the article is moving backwards. Semitransgenic (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Religion is the ultimate luxury. Either you have to be very rich to come to this luxury, or you have to be tremendously intelligent. But in both the cases you are rich—rich with money or rich with intelligence. I have never seen a person who is really poor—poor in intelligence, poor in riches—ever become religious.Kabir becomes religious. He was not a millionaire, but he was tremendously intelligent. Buddha became religious because he was tremendously rich. Krishna and Ram and Mahavir became religious because they were tremendously rich. Dadu, Raidas, Farid, they became religious because they were tremendously intelligent. But a certain sort of richness is needed.Yes, you are right: I am the rich man's guru. It's pretty clear from this what his attitude is, he also holds the view, expressed in the same discourse this is taken from, that it is very rare, exceptional for a poor person to become religious.  Semitransgenic (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC


 * Hi Semi. Most of that paragraph is still there unchanged, but now moved to the Teaching section, as suggested by Vassyana. I agree with Vassyana that it's really about what Osho did, rather than about how he was received. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree, we are again back to problem of downplaying the man's controversiality, it is POV to ignore this fact. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * He frequently praised capitalism, saying in a 1982 interview that 'I don't condemn wealth, wealth is a perfect means which can enhance people in every way, and make their life rich in all ways.' He is, as he continued, 'a materialist spiritualist': a point he also justified by claiming that 'The materially poor can never become spiritual.' (The reasoning here seems to be Maslovian, the materially poor supposedly having to devote their attention to 'lower order needs' rather than to spirituality.)
 * Wilson, Bryan R. New Religions Movements : Challenge and Response. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1999. p 66. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That Wilson quote is a good cite that we could integrate in the Osho section. In fact I had toyed with the idea of including it in the past, because the Maslovian rationale adds useful background to the "rich man's guru" statement. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I sell happiness. I sell enlightenment.
 * Rajneesh, interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes (1985). Urban, Hugh B. Tantra : Sex, Secrecy Politics and Power in the Study of Religions.Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press, 2003. p 235. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * OshoRajneesh was one of the first Indians to travel to America and import his own brand of 'neo-Tantrism', marketed to late-twentieth-century American consumer culture. Whereas Bernard's version of Tantra represents a kind of sexualization and scandalization of Tantra, Osho-Rajneesh?s version is a commodification and commercialization of the tradition. Urban, Hugh B. Tantra : Sex, Secrecy Politics and Power in the Study of Religions. Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press, 2003. p 236. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that Urban's views are cited in the Reception section. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Urban is quite explicit regarding the "rich mans guru" tag but his views in this regard are not dealt with. Perhaps the most explicitly capitalist and consumer-oriented of all the modem Tantric masters was the "Guru of the Rich" and undisputed leader in the "God Man Business," Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Indeed, Rajneesh made it quite clear that his ideal of the self-realized human being or "Superman" was by no means some pure, otherworldly ascetic, but rather what he called "Zorba the Buddha-one who could combine the worldliness and financial success of Zorba the Greek with the spiritual realization of the Buddha: "I teach a sensuous religion. I want Gautama the Buddha and Zorba the Greek to come closer and closer; my disciple has to be Zorba the Buddha. Man is body-soul together. Both have to be satisfied."
 * Not only was he unopposed to economic success, but he was actually an open advocate of American capitalism and consumerism. "I sell contentment, I sell enlightenment," Rajneesh quite bluntly put it in a famous television interview with Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes. Capitalism, particularly the American variety, was for Rajneesh the natural condition of the human being, for it is the triumph of the powerful few, who are willing to struggle and succeed, over the weak masses, who remain jealous and lazy: "The creation of wealth is the task of genius...Socialism is the jealousy of the masses, of the have-nots against the few who succeed in doing something for mankind." As Rajneesh put it, in his typically unapologetic style, "I don't condemn wealth. Wealth is a perfect means which can enhance people in every way and make life rich in all ways. The materially poor can never become spiritual.". "People are unequal and a fair world has to give people full freedom to be unequal. Capitalism has grown out of freedom. It is a natural phenomenon." And at least until his investigation by the federal government, Rajneesh appears to have been quite successful in realizing his Tantric wedding of capitalism and spirituality, financial prosperity and otherworldly transcendence. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is touched upon in the Teaching section, under "On renunciation". Do you think we should include an explicit mention that Osho was a supporter of capitalism, and an opponent of socialism? (Note though that this is a somewhat simplistic summary of Osho's views; for a more rounded discussion see e.g. Mehta/Desai 1993, p. 89.) Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In keeping with the opening of this thread I believe the Rich Mans Guru sub-section should be reinstated. There appears to be enough information to present an outline of the accusation, what it was intended to imply, and how it actually fits with Osho's world view. It was one of the popular perspectives and was part of his controversial image as presented by the media. The tag was aquired, the source was external, he simply responded to the accusation, but in doing so revealed aspects of his world view. To package this with the discussion of renunciation obscures the context of the original allegation. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with doing that, as Vassyana – correctly, IMO – pointed out earlier in his informal review, is that there is nothing in that old section wording that deserved to be listed under the heading "Reception".
 * Here is the wording again:
 * The para was moved to the Teaching section because these are all things that Osho said, did or had others do, rather than statements of how this behaviour was received. And as for the latter, Urban's views on how Osho marketed himself are covered in the first part of the Reception section, along with a mention of similar views expressed by Gita Mehta. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * as far as I'm aware Osho said he was "a rich mans guru" in agreement with someone who was criticising his conduct (can't remember who, will look), therefore the characterisation stems from reception of his behaviour and was not something he was explicitly "teaching" prior to the allegation being made. I agree that the wording does not fit with the requirements of the section title so a new paragraph will be required. Will deal with it at some point. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Such examples do exist in the Osho archive:
 * The earliest reference to this concept I was able to find in his works occurred in 1970/71. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but who is asking the question here and what led the individual to make this query? Semitransgenic (talk) 11:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to America
I also have issues with the following Then, in mid-1981, Osho went to the United States in search of better medical care (apart from his other health issues, he now suffered from a persistent and very painful back problem).[52] The move to America seems to have been a unilateral decision on the part of Osho's secretary, Ma Anand Sheela, who wished to ensure the availability of medical facilities in the event of any further deterioration in Osho's health.[52][53] Others attributed the move to the various conflicts that had marred the period preceding his departure from Pune.[54] There is evidence that Osho had not initially intended to reside permanently in the United States.[55]

This is unbalanced, the citation attribution leads one to believe this is a statement of fact. Other sources suggest that Osho's move had to do with the escalating trouble in India, and that it was part of an expansionist vision he was seeing through but this is ignored. I would like to see inclusions such as according to etc. What evidence is Fox pointing to? please provide text in the footnotes. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that you having issues with the article is reason enough to rewrite it. It has been stable for quite a while now and reviewed by many within Wikipedia, where it is generally accepted as being a balanced article. If you do have issues you will need to provide a little more information than you have so far. "This is unbalanced...", "other sources suggest..." etc. is not enough. jalal (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * sure, will do. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should attribute the view to Fox (i.e. name her as the source), although Goldman said something similar ("unilateral decision on the part of Sheela", from memory; Meredith, his physician, describes it in similar terms, saying that "Bhagwan was reluctant, Vivek hesitant, and Sheela adamant: Bhagwan should be taken to America"). Coming back to Fox, she says,

Brecher in fact is one other source that we haven't accessed yet; like some of these books, it's hard to get hold of these days. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you reproduced the text. Without the other sources it is essentially Fox's view. I've seen mention of it apparently being Sheila's decision, but Carter (I think) states that she claimed it was for medical reasons, so it is not conclusive and speculation that it was a pretence exists, but none of this is presented. Also, considering it is well documented that Osho was the guiding force behind developments at Pune ahsram during the 70s, and that he spoke of building a new ashram (which by the end of the 70's was not going to happen in India thanks to the political climate), it seems questionable that the decision is being attributed to Sheila when at that point she had not yet aquired total control of Osho's affairs. Yes, Osho did enter America on health grounds with a tourist visa. Apparently, the departure from Pune was abrupt. There is something about being tipped off that an arrest warrant had been issued for him in India, leading to a hurried departure. And there is much about the increasingly negative response to the activities at the Pune ashram (see Mehta & Desai). There is the Messiah America has been waiting for quote, Urban adds: Announcing himself as 'the Messiah America has been waiting for' Rajneesh took refuge in the United States? the land, as he described it, of freedom, opportunity, and unfettered capitalism. So it's not as simple as it seems at all. Personally I think there should be a subsection about the American move detailing the many factors underlying this. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We cover the various problems preceding Osho's departure from India at the end of the 1971–1980 section, in some detail. And we do have the sentence "Others attributed ..." in the 1981–1985 section – though we could expand on that, pending suitable sources. Btw, the source you are quoting from appears to be this book here. Thanks for finding it, I had missed its publication and will review it in more detail. I will mention now though that Urban drops a real clanger in asserting that Osho's parents "died at an early age" (despite, as he allows, producing a family of twelve children (!)), so that Osho (the first of these twelve children) was "raised by his grandparents". In fact, it is well-known that Osho's parents both lived to a ripe old age, became disciples themselves and lived in his ashram, and that Osho returned to his parents' house aged 7, after his grandfather died. That obvious inaccuracy aside, much else that Urban writes seems useful, thanks. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just checked, Carter says on p. 72 that Sheela arranged a temporary medical visa for Osho. The sentence "Others attributed" indicates that some people suspected that the real reason for the move were the various problems in India. Note that Carter also has "variations on the story" on page 131; this includes the arrest warrant claim, sourced to Milne. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the book you are linking to, the quote is from Urban. I've lost track of where the tourist visa mention came from. Carter's wording indicates to me that the health reasons were a claim, not a fact. Again I don't recall where, but there is mention of Osho expressing interest in America during the 1970's to one of the visitors form Esalen or such like. My personal reading of the scenario is that the move was under consideration for some time before it happened, but was kept quite, hence the seemingly abrupt departure when it finally took place. The reason I feel the American move should be dealt in a specific section is because of it's consequences both for Osho and the movement and that in the 20 year period, roughly, from him assuming the Bhagwan title to his death, the American saga (including the lead up to it) accounts for at least a quarter of this period, it also generated more external coverage than any other part of his history; that was his time in the limelight, so to speak, all else being preliminary to this climax, so perhaps the article should reflect this. The chronologically titled sections using year numbers basically homogenizes the whole thing, if you get my point, and in doing so does not represent a clear picture, not that I am saying this has been done intentionally, it just seems to miss the bigger picture; perhaps becasue I believe Osho had a master plan, and that his life is not a sequence of events that were the outcomes of him simply acting on one whim or another. I would deal with Rajneeshpurim in a separate section also. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the USA phase represents a quarter of Osho's later life and should occupy a proportionate part of the article. But as far as the above comment is concerned overall, I'd say that it expresses a USA perspective, and a rather old one. It should be remembered, for example, that only a few thousand of Osho's western disciples were involved in large communes anywhere - far fewer Indians and far-easterners. Since then a far larger number of people have become aware of Osho through his ideas and methods; they see the Oregon mainly as an interesting historical enigma that does not figure in their estimate of Osho's work. I do not think it can be argued that this phase has an extraordinary significance. It was certainly not that that brought him fame, but rather fame that brought him that.


 * As far as the reasons for travel go, Osho (or his secretariat/press office) certainly said that he might go west because the Desai govt blocked all sites for the commune in India. One such press release was published in "The Guardian" at the time of "the fort" commune, under the headline ""I'll go west" says irate guru". However, no such intention was connected with his actual trip initially. There was also the retrospective re-taxation by Desai. A press archive is needed. Redheylin (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a desire to find a site to build a the utopia Rajneesh had envisioned, this is well documented, he traveled to the states, sent Shiela to find a site, and ended up in Oregon, he may not have been the one who chose the site, but he certainly had an intention to build a commune in America. I fail to see how you can deny the significance of this period. Maybe it is of little significance to individuals caught up in the Osho world view - which is a minority view - but if you survey the writings, it's pretty clear that what happened in the states generated the largest amount of print media, more has been written about this period than any other, precisely becasue of its significance; and not just to sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists etc. The article needs to reflect all views, irrespective of the sources, it needs to attribute the views to those holding them and it should make a clear distinction between Osho sympathisers - who view this period as insignificant - and those who less forgiving of the mans digressions, and it should do all of this in a tone that avoids a damage limitation adgenda. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Oregon is important, but we should not underestimate the coverage Osho attracted before and after, especially in the Poona 1 period. Our account of Osho's entire life presently runs to 3525 words; of these, 1254 (well over a third) are devoted to the 4.5 years he was in the US. I'd say that's about right. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 02:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There was certainly a well documented desire to build a larger community around himself, but he certainly didn't send Sheela (note spelling please) west to america to find it. He sent Laxmi around India to find a place in India. Sheela's trip to America, and her arranging for Osho to go there, was carried out surreptitiously and without the knowledge of anyone else in the Ashram. This was her bid for power. A few weeks before leaving for the States, the Ashram had arranged, at vast expense, for an armour plated Rolls Royce to be shipped over to Pune for his use. In the isolationist climate of India at that time, this was a major undertaking (and expensive) and it's unlikely that they would have done that if they were going to up stakes and leave a few weeks later. This is all well documented in Brecher's A Passage To America. I'm also not sure why you think the article needs to reflect all views and opinions? I think as a biography it needs to stick as closely as possible to documented facts. Although I have every respect for your opinions, they don't need to appear in a Wikipedia biography. jalal (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Many godmen moved to America at one point or anther in their careers, it was almost 'the' thing to do for any self-respecting guru, I don't believe Rajneesh to be any different in this regard. America also has a long history of new religious movements seeking lands upon which to create a Utopian ideal, so again the Rancho Rajneesh experience was not without precedence, and seems almost routine for such a group. I haven't viewed Brecher yet so do not know what it contains. Please note that WP:POV states: A balanced selection of sources is also critical for producing articles with a neutral point of view. When discussing the facts on which a point of view is based, it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. This should be done without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also important to make it clear who holds these opinions. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Semitransgenic: I have worked on a wide variety of articles on Wiki and grown used to one thing; that the most common means of aggressive POV-pushing is to accuse the other of partiality or bias. I have been called a Theosophist, a Reichian therapist.... I wonder if I can prevail upon you kindly to desist from what is, after all, an elementary fallacy?


 * And now to the remainder of your argument. I am personally satisfied that no plan to shift to America was known to most of Osho's people at the time - people were still trying to develop an Indian site. To say that, for instance, Yogananda and Prabhupada went to America, so any other Indian teacher was bound to intend to is not sound reasoning, is it? Can you find any reputable commentator arguing this? I do not think so, because Ramana Maharshi, Krishnamurti and Muktananda did not! Nobody has advanced any reason that Osho would have misled the people around him about his intentions. If anybody was going to know otherwise it would be people like Foreman and Meredith, so I should pay attention to their accounts. The most that can be said is; that the idea had been mooted.


 * And finally - America produces a great deal of media. It may be that the American part of Osho's life generated a large amount of comment, for certainly, obviously, that was the part that had the greatest common impact. But when it comes to the amounts by percentages and the chief reasons for notability worldwide I do not think you will find the same picture. For example, in India Osho is constantly in the news, but Oregon is a matter of sublime indifference. They are more concerned that his movement is being taken over by westerners! Sadly I must inform you that, even in Europe, the White House is not always necessarily seen as the supreme arbiter of moral and religious certainties. So, while I note your stated aim of setting yourself up as judge of "the man's digressions" (and I admit he tended to ramble) I also wonder why you do not feel your effort would fare better by sticking to sources and aiming for balance and neutrality? Redheylin (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think i accused you of anything or why you believe I am making judgments, the documented views on the matter (Osho's alleged digressions relative to his triumphs) are pretty clearly divided, this is not my invention. Your stance appears to be combative so I would rather avoid engaging with it by responding to your remarks. Please note that a study was conducted regarding the amount of print media coverage the Rancho Rajneesh debacle generated, and suggested rationale behind weightings are provided, so I am aware of potential biases and who they can be attributed to. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That was because you answered my comments on the relative importance of events with the assertion that a strictly proportional view was typical of "Osho sympathisers" and said you wanted a clear distinction between these and those "unforgiving" commentators who, I gather, would prefer to dwell on events in America, on the basis that that was where most mud was flung. Excuse me if I have this wrong. Having polarised the debate and informed your interlocutor that you have put him on "the other side", naturally, responses may appear "combative". And picking fights is another famous method of POV-pushing. So I was saying, please do not. Please note also that the question was not of media studies of the ranch, but of the relative importance of that to the totality of comment. I do not find a case for giving it a relatively great importance; I think that's a US bias. Not that I am "accusing" you of being an American.... 78.149.111.113 (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nowhere do I accuse you of having anything to do with this movement and was simply stating an opinion that is reflected in various writings on the subject: Osho, his life, and the consequences of the American experience both for him personally and for the movement in general. Also, in this round of exchanges I have accused no one of POV pushing. You will find this matter was dealt with earlier in the year when I did in fact make such an assertion. The policy excerpt cited above relates to specific issues to do with tone and the manner in which oppositional views are presented. I find it strange that you perceive this as an example of an editor picking a fight. Perhaps you are forgetting how Wikipedia works. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, editor Jalal states: I'm also not sure why you think the article needs to reflect all views and opinions? I think as a biography it needs to stick as closely as possible to documented facts. The policy cite was in response to this, in stating that it is important to also include the facts on which competing opinions are based since this helps a reader evaluate the credibility of the competing viewpoints. One could argue that Osho was a controversial figure, then again, this is also a matter of opinion and is source dependent, that is precisely why opposing views need to be presented. Readers will make up their own minds. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In India, she(ela) was consistently, for nine years, persuading me to come to America. I would have never come to America, but my physical health was bad. And her persuasion was right, that perhaps in the clean air, in a dry and cool place, my health will recover.

But in her own mind, the basic reason for me to leave India was the rape that had happened there. She hated the whole country. Her excuse to bring me out of India was perfectly right, but behind the excuse was her psychology. She did not want to live in India herself. She did not want me to live in India. She did not want my people to live in India.

She still carried the same antagonism, and she found excuses to throw away Indians. Many Indians had come to the commune, and had gone back to India with tears in their eyes.

India is a poor country. To make arrangements to come to America, and then to be refused by the commune, is simply inhuman. These people had come by selling their houses, their lands, all their belongings -- and they were not accepted.

But because I was in silence, I never came to know what was going on. She had sent away many Indian sannyasins in a very ugly way.

Now everybody can come, because nobody has raped me, nor have I raped anybody. I don't have any antagonism for anybody in the whole world. In fact, it was because of Sheela that Oregon became so hostile to the commune. I was silent. For five years I did not read any newspapers, did not listen to the radio, did not read any books.

It is all finished. I am keeping my eyes open only for you, just to see you and let you see in my eyes is enough. Whatever I had to achieve, I have achieved. I have loved enormously. I have been loved by millions of men and women. There is not any experience which was worth having that I have not passed through.

If death comes in this moment I will be going rejoicing, because it is not taking anything away from me. My life has been a complete contentment and fulfillment.

If I am still breathing, I am breathing for you, because before I leave I would like you to be in the same space in which I have lived. (From Bondage to Freedom 2)


 * Of course, Osho being Osho, he also offered different perspectives:


 * Buddha committed mistakes, Mahavira committed mistakes; and I am sitting before you -- in coming to Oregon, do you think I have not committed a mistake? I am proof enough that being enlightened does not mean you are infallible. You can fall into the Big Muddy Ranch. And now it is so difficult to get out of it. The more you try to get out of it, the more you are going into the mud. [...] I make the best possible use of my mistakes. That's what we are doing in the Big Muddy Ranch -- trying! -- that's why I say, trying, in an enlightened way, to make something good out of it. If we have fallen into it, it may be our mistake, but it is fortunate for the Big Muddy Ranch, so let's make the best of it. And we are trying hard to make the best of it. [...] I am, in many ways, a crackpot. I should not be saying such things -- that I commit mistakes. This is not in tune with my profession; it is against it. That's why people of my profession hate me, because they say, "These things you should not say. Even if you come to know that you have committed a mistake, try to cover it. Try to make it appear as if it is not a mistake. (From Personality to Individuality, Ch. 24, 22 January 1985, Rajneeshpuram, OR)


 * We are surrounded by fanatical Christians. In America, Oregon is perhaps one of the most backward, fanatical, unprogressive states. I have chosen it knowingly, because here is the challenge. And you need a challenge so that you can become sharp -- and you can see it happening. (From the False to the Truth, Ch. 12, 10 July 1985, Rajneeshpuram, OR)


 * QUESTION: THIS IS OSTENSIBLY A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY. I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO KNOW WHY YOU CHOSE AMERICA AND WHY YOU CHOSE THE AMERICAN WEST? ANSWER: I have not chosen anything in my life. It is America who has chosen me. It is this wild west who has chosen me. America needs me, I don't need America. And I am going to fight against all these idiots. (The Last Testament, Vol 2, Ch. 10, 30 August 1985, Rajneeshpuram, OR)


 * We made the attempt in America. We had chosen a place totally different from Poona. It was one hundred twenty six square miles land, the nearest city to us was twenty miles. We thought this way neighbors will not be annoyed by us. Our laughter will not reach to them, our dance, our song, will not disturb them. But it seems there is no way. Our people in four years changed the desert into the oasis. For fifty years it was lying dead, nobody was ready to purchase it at any price. What you will do with a desert? We purchased it, knowingly that it is going to be a great challenge. But to accept challenges has been one of my loves. We accepted the challenge, and jumped into the unknown. (The Last Testament, Vol 4, Chapter #28, 6 Dec 1985, Kulu Manali, India)


 * We have chosen this city just to create a little oasis. In America we had chosen Oregon to create an oasis. We are oasis creators! We choose deserts and dead places, cemeteries, and try to bring people who are dead -- who have been dead for a long time -- back to life. (The New Dawn, Chapter #23, 29 June 1987, Pune, India)

Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I read above it seems clear that Osho knowingly chose the Oregon location; yet we are also presented with evidence of Osho's inconsistencies. Carter has a view regarding this: As I subsequently delved into the history of the Rajneesh movement, it became more obvious that Bhagwan's notion of living in the present moment included a denial of the need for consistency by either him of his followers. The most important social, as distinguished from individual, consequent of this position is to maximise "deniability" of past actions.
 * Note also that Oregon had a large and well established alternative community, this may have been a factor in deciding to move there. Abbot notes: In their first two years, the newcomers made a variety of efforts to identify allies within Oregon. A strong public relations effort targeted the state's large (albeit unorganized) community of "ecotopians" by emphasizing Rajneeshpuram as a social and environmental experiment. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I get more of a "Why not Oregon?" from Osho's comments, rather than enthusiasm or intent about the place, whereas Sheela clearly very much wanted the commune to be in America, for numerous reasons (she thought America was best, she hated India, it put her rival Laxmi out of the picture, etc.; the medical situation was a welcome opportunity for her that she exploited). But that's by the by. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 23:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Brecher, Oregon was not the first choice. Sheela spent time visiting Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and California. The land in Oregon was found by Sheela's brother, Bipin Patel from Chicago. The land was on the tax books as being worth $180,000 and the final deal was arranged for $5.75m, of which Bipin and various other middlemen took generous cuts. None of this involved Osho in any way. See Brecher, A Passage To America, pg 72ff jalal (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * According to Carter (p. 133) the intial asking price was $7.5 and he states: "with the help of a real estate finder, Shelfer discovered a Texas listing for the land in Oregon and offered to purchase it". Semitransgenic (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Brecher gives a starting price of $7 million. The previous owner of the Big Muddy Ranch was Roy Ryan from Dumas, Texas, who had bought it in Sept 1980 from Rube Evans of Bend Oregon. Ryan had paid $139,590, plus the title to another ranch in Waco, Texas and a few other financial incentives. He was in financial trouble and "with the poker face that won the west, Ryan opened with a $7 million asking price." jalal (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Key words: According to. The Sheela/Laxmi rivalry is simply one hypothesis, but it is based upon an insider view, in this case one that tends to downplay Osho's involvement. In my opinion there needs to be representation of the view that Osho may have had a part to play in the various arrangements. The Sheela as scapegoat for all Osho's ills position wears a little thin after a while. Besides, as mentioned in past discussions, Osho was not a fool, these accounts make it seem like he floated about while his minions arranged everything; accounts exist that suggest otherwise and should be dealt with in equal part. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've taken out the sentence regarding there being evidence that Osho had not initially intended to stay on in America, as there would also appear to be some evidence to the contrary. It appears that once he had gone to the US, he was committed to building a commune there. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 16:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Appraisal as a thinker and speaker
The Mullan cite is tarring Urban and Metha with the same brush; both items that were published much later so he cannot possibly be refering to them. This is a misleading presentation of information. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it applies only to that paragraph, and especially the Clive James quote. The next paragraph cites fairly balanced views (Mullan himself and Urban). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, but I think it would be better left as the closing paragraph, to avoid potential misinterpretation. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think people would have necessarily read it that way. The old order was intended to imply some sort of dialectical progression – the outright positive, the outright negative, and ending with the more balanced, scholarly viewpoints. Perhaps we could start that paragraph "Among scholarly views, Hugh B. Urban ..." to make it clearer that we don't imply these are among the hostile, cynical or sarcastic views described in the previous para. (Btw, Urban gave a somewhat more positive assessment a couple of years ago, in Gurus in America (2005), available in google books). Cheers, Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are some of Urban's conclusions from that later work:

That's primarily for interest, though I suppose we could look at including some of the above ideas to update Urban's comments in the Appraisal section. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 12:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure by all means, but please consider the inclusion of observations made in his earlier writings, for example:

Semitransgenic (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reference to Osho's protean nature is also still present in Urban's later work. He's plagiarised himself quite considerably, but the emphases seem to have moved somewhat, partly in view of more recent developments. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What more recent developments are you referring to? Semitransgenic (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The increase in Osho's popularity following his return to India, and in the years since his death, described by Urban as "a remarkable apotheosis", and as Osho's becoming transfigured "into an international icon for a high-tech global movement and business enterprise". As the impact of his teachings has grown, that seems to have warranted further analysis and reassessment in Urban's eyes. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but this can be accounted for in others ways, and really what he is talking about here is successful branding. Osho repackaged existing ideas and sold them as his own, this is touched on by a number of commentators. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course Osho drew on all sorts of spiritual traditions and thinkers; he said as much himself. Yet according to Urban, "it appears that he was able to create a spiritual path that was remarkably well suited to the uniquely global socio-economic situation at the close of the twentieth century" and, "moreover, quite unashamed of the fact that his message had both a spiritual and material aim, and he saw no contradiction between pursuit of the sacred and the pursuit of wealth. On the contrary, it was precisely his aim to unite the desire for transcendence and desire for economic capital in his ideal of the new Superman, Zorba the Buddha." I think Osho's wanting to abolish the spiritual/material dichotomy was something that he brought to the equation, and it is this notion of his that is proving influential. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * remarkably well suited to a quick fix, "this is mine", disposable society, bent on destroying itself, sounds about right, that's why Osho totally missed the point, and that's the real irony of it all. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I missed this reply of yours at the time. Seeing it now, I am not sure I catch your meaning, would you care to expand? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 21:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but this is not the place for such elaboration. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is all getting a little surreal... jalal (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Lost
Sorry, the discussion is getting fragmented in many ways. Semi - I was saying that, in my estimation, the Oregon section is already disproportionate, considering there is a separate article "Rajneeshpuram". I'd far rather look at some less well-represented eras, At first you said that this was the attitude of Osho sympathisers, then you said I was paranoid. I wonder if you can state clearly whether or not my view, in your opinion, is one that can be held in good faith? Please note that a positive answer requires a constructive response from you.

Along with that I produced a few comments that, I thought, might have bearing on your own original speculations, which you have been kind enough to share with us. I do not see any sign of these latter taking on enough academic weight to be worthy of inclusion, therefore I trust you will similarly forego the references you required for those comments of mine, which were simply for your own better information. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, your view does not matter, nor does mine. What faith either of us holds is similarly meaningless. What matters is that the article is dealt with in a balanced manner, irrespective of personal biases. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true. Now, I am saying "a balanced manner" requires not giving undue weight to any particular events, whether with an intent to make the article "sympathetic" or "unforgiving" in your own words. And I said that the article as it stands, in my view, gives undue weight to a particular period for some reason. I was asking for your comments upon that - not upon your opinions of the state of mind of those who may propose it. Redheylin (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have given my comments. It's quite clear what my position is. We disagree on the matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For an instance, suppose the bio of John Lennon focussed fully on his "bigger than Jesus" comments: this, which can easily be done in a book-length treatment, would require a good deal of analysis of second-hand material that would often turn out to be insubstantial speculations on musunderstandings. I do not doubt that this furore generated a great American media frenzy, yet much of this was based upon a misrepresentation of what had been said, along with the insinuation that Lennon's own account of his meaning was de facto untrustworthy. That is my opinion, but to present it and defend it in a Wiki article cannot be done without losing balance, losing sight of the fact that the guy is famous as a songwriter and singer. This is most of the reason people want the article; to provide details of his career, output and aesthetic. The American media Jesus frenzy is notable but tangential. To argue thus does not betoken some attempt to conceal a great evil but arises from a hard-headed balance that sees focus on music as the central theme. Now, I dare say there are people who would like to "blow up" the controversy - perhaps they may use it as a stalking horse for their general disapproval of beat music - but to rehearse all the pontifications that resulted from this incident would seem absurd. Similarly, a great many comments on Osho are actuated by false assumptions; he "should" be poor, all-knowing, celibate etc, "because he is a meditation teacher". How do we know he did not do thousands of wrong things? I guess in the end it depends whether you want wiki to be serious-minded and informative or else some kind of fossilised yellow-press rant.Redheylin (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, I'd point out the exact parallel; I think it's right to say that the "Jesus" events, like a good deal of the "Osho" press, were largely seen outside the USA as "something the Americans were doing" which had little influence on direct perceptions of the Beatles. There is, as I said, an obligation to achieve impartiality in this direction. So I was troubled by your comment above; Brecher book is a dubious source, much of which consists of a largely conspiratorial thesis, published by a little known publishing house, in Bombay. This seems to say that, though this is also the Indian wiki, Indian publishing houses, opinions and c are to be discounted - even when the subject is Indian! This is another potential lack of balance to which, it seems to me, your critique renders you vulnerable. Redheylin (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I have no desire to enter into a protracted debate on this matter. It should be clear from my prior entries where I stand. Let's keep the communication focused on issues relating to content. Thanks. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right - I was answering your request for more content re. the American press furore and also answering your own personal speculations which appeared to cause you to believe that this was of particular importance. Of course, your ideas are interesting, but many them are not standing up to scrutiny. Maybe you have missed the essence of what went on? You see, these communes were not aimed so much to live up to some spiritual ideal as towards an understanding of the human psychology that requires these ideals yet has aims and drives that contradict them. Basically, as I understand it, the idea was for participants, in an atmosphere of awareness and acceptance, to make as many mistakes as possible, say with regard to power, sex, money etc. It is a kind of accelerated course in human understanding and humility. So from that viewpoint it is futile to say "they screwed up and he let them". That was the whole point. Everybody knows that is the case. The question is; whether a number of people emerged with a compassionate self-knowledge and an integrated practical means of resolving human problems. Redheylin (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please remember this is not a forum, your personal ideas on the matter are largely irrelevant, as are mine. Please keep discussion based on content, sources, guidelines etc. Semitransgenic (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Several times you have said "I have made it clear where I stand" and, though I still cannot quite understand it, nevertheless I had thought you were indicating that it is important to know "where you stand". Alternately with that you have said it does NOT matter, which makes things even more confusing. And again you have said there are only two or three places where one CAN stand. Nevertheless, all my comments have arisen from trying to understand what you are proposing, and for what reason, in terms of content. If you have found the arguments more detailed than you deem necessary, this can be fixed by explicitly withdrawing or modifying the content that you propose for inclusion. Redheylin (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

lede
The Ashram offered therapies derived from the Human Potential Movement - is this an adequate summary? I have tagged the word "guru" since the man famously rejected the title. I'd also like to question "chiefly because..." - surely most people were attracted because they thought those therapies and meditations and ideas would be good for them, make them happy and so forth? Were they really after permissiveness and controversy per se? And btw, why "sexuality", not just "sex"? Redheylin (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He was often called a guru, and sometimes referred to himself as such ("I am the rich man's guru"). If you want a reference, "Gurus in America" will do; there are dozens to choose from. (If you want to say "spiritual teacher", I don't mind that either; certainly the book I've linked to treats both terms as synonyms.)
 * The other sentence with the "chiefly because" – note that we say "made news in India and abroad". I think it is accurate to say that media accounts often focused on these aspects. Off the top of my head, Joshi (p. 2) mentions precisely these aspects as having caused widespread public disapproval. Huth draws attention to the media's preoccupation with the permissive climate of therapy groups in his intro. I am sure many other such sources could be found.
 * As for sexuality or sex, I don't have a preference per se; if we use "sex", the word then occurs twice in the sentence, since we also mention his being called a "sex guru", so that would be a bit repetitive. But no worries if you want to change it. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 17:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I prefer not "guru" - but well caught! I do note "made news", but I am conscious of the time. I slightly changed things to lay down two markers for the "sex" angle - the book "From Sex to Superconsciousness" and the advent of therapists. I note that Huth mentions the latter, but what aspects does Joshi mention - was he not writing before the therapy really got under way? This matter is so commonly misunderstood it seems to me important to lay it down clearly using the best sources. For instance, neither in "Sex to S" nor elsewhere does Osho actually advocate promiscuity, though he says somewhere that Taoist emperors did and discusses the coming of age of Indian tribal communities with sympathy. The Indian rumpus that got him called "sex guru" was related to his idea of serial monogamy - now more or less normal in the west - and of open talk and fundamental human freedoms - also normal. Yet the "free expression" groups in, say, Esalen, do not seem to have excited the same press interest as eventually arose in America, particularly. I wonder if we can piece together when this all started, how it unfolded into the wild accounts now available on the web of Osho begetting countless children by sexual assault? What saith Joshi? Redheylin (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Joshi's book appeared in 1982, well after the heyday of controversy about the therapy groups. Joshi cites Osho's outspokenness and the freedom he gave his disciples in matters such as sex as chief causes of public opprobrium. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 01:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We are talking about "The Mystic of Feeling"? - I had thought that first came out in the mid-70s. Motilal Banarssidas. It is definitely not a reprint? Redheylin (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No. It's Vasant Joshi (1982). Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"Osho revealed"
I don't see a problem with that wording. The press conference at which Osho made his charges, subsequently confirmed by law enforcement, was extensively covered. From the Ney York Times 22 September 1985:  Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want, we can say "when Osho alleged ... and his charges were subsequently confirmed". But the lede has already been criticised as being too long. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 11:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "He revealed" is too loaded to be presented in the lede. The exact context of this claim can be teased out in the main body of text but not in the lede, therefore best avoided. It has to be a summary. The "world tour" mention, Carter deals with this, it has been hammered out before, it was "somewhat enforced" and had more to do with finding a refuge that it being an 'official world tour'. If this interpretation is wrong I will gladly review any sources you can provide that state the contrary. The Rolls Royce sentence was inappropriately placed, media reports not within the first year (81-82), unless I'm mistaken. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you're quite right about the enforced nature of the world tour, that is my understanding too, and the Rolls-Royce sentence is now better placed as well. I don't share your concern about "revealed" – it was a revelation, because many of these crimes had occurred more than a year prior, and it is described as such by FitzGerald, e.g., who says, "The guru's revelations, as might be expected, had an electric effect on Oregon." Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 13:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok no worries. I understand the concerns regarding the current length of the lede, but I don't see a solution to this right now becasue there is contention about certain details in the rest of the article. There are aspects of it that I would like to see modified, and I will set about doing so once I have reviewed the sources I need. Undoubtedly, this will lead to some to-and-fro until agreement is met. I also feel the article should be divided into sub-sections that reflect each stage of his career, rather that the 10 year blocks, at least sub-sections within each time period to mark developments, it might also become clearer what form the summary for the lede should take if this change is made. Consider also that this may address the issues some have with proportionality. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Some things to bear in mind, based on the GA review and subsequent informal review: How about if we do some work on Osho movement, Rajneeshpuram and Ma Anand Sheela? Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is long as it is.
 * At present, we are dedicating more than a third of the bio section to the 4.5 years in the US.
 * The article was considered close to GA status, with an indication that it should be shortened and spin-off articles created.
 * If we are making the article longer, it will move further away from GA status.


 * I'm not sure I agree with those assessments, in fact I don't agree at all, nor am I concerned with seeking GA status until all the facts are straight. The article is certainly not too long: there is no limit on length stated in GA criteria. Plus, for example, the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack is a featured article, yet it has a lengthy lede. Please look at some recent GA bio articles to contrast and compare, for instance Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard. Unfortunately, I'm not really interested in, nor do I have time to, stretch out to sub-articles. And, as I have expressed above, sub-dividing the article in a logical, chronological order, with key events sectionalised, will address the outstanding proportional issues. For instance, as mentioned before, the move to America warrants its own section, considering the complications involved and that it marked a crossover from one historical era to another. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi - it is not a question of "seeking GA status" but one of trying to produce a good article! You will note that the GA assessment corresponds to that which I have recently put before you. I have also noted that some material you have suggested for inclusion devolves not from serious sources but from your own, somewhat insubstantial, speculations which apparently should serve us as a hanger for a variety of poor-quality commentary, all of which is like to give the unlikely impression that the subject somehow underwent a change of personality while in the USA, reverting after his departure. Once again, I point out that "all the facts" cannot be ascertained and included. We can achieve a balanced presentation of sources, that's all, and the balance of tone should be consistent over the entire article. A "crossover from one historical era to another"?? - what do you mean by this? Sounds like it was the New Age or something. Redheylin (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have begun to do some work on Rajneeshpuram. Much more remains to be done; if editors here have access to sources, they are welcome to chip in. I'd appreciate the help. Jayen <i style="color:#FFBF00;">466</i> 00:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)