jimmy4christ

I just wanted to show my feeling about those examples... It's just a flow, it came to me naturally that I wanted to say something about them.. 1979: "Krishnamurti is bound to criticize me; I can understand it. His standpoint is simple and clear, my standpoint is a little more unclear. Sometimes I will appreciate him tremendously, because I would like him to also become part of my orchestra. And sometimes I will criticize him, because my own liking is not for solo flutes." (Book of Wisdom chap 10) "I say to you that he is one of the most enlightened persons who has ever walked on this earth. Still he can get angry, but his anger comes out of compassion; it is condensed compassion. He cares about you, so much so that he becomes angry. This is a totally different quality of anger." (Book of Wisdom chap 12) 1980 "I can understand, Sarjano, your question, because Krishnamurti is deadly serious about things; that is one of his flaws. A really totally enlightened person cannot be so serious." (Come come, yet again Come chapter 15) I don't know the year Krishnamurti said this: "The man is a criminal. You have to understand this very clearly. What he is doing to people in the name of spirituality is criminal. One must never give to another human being – and he is simply a human being – your ultimate manifestation of consciousness, which is your ability to make decisions for yourself. You have made a great mistake in giving him hat power for twelve years, but understand this: no man has power except the power his followers give him. That is why he needs people around him all the time, and the more the better." (someone on quora: "There is no record available in which we can see or read whether Krishnamurthi said something about Osho. but in the book "Bhagwan, the god that failed", Hugh Milne has mentioned something which May be J Krishnmurthi has said about OSHO") One thing is clear: enlightened or not, Krishnamurti is talking about things that have nothing to do with Osho. That's just stupid. Again we can see that Osho was not the one who initiated the "attack"! He did not randomly start to speak against Krishnamurti. It was Krishnamurti who made silly comments about Osho. He associated Osho with some really strange ideas that Osho had never advocated in the first place! Osho himself had been speaking against those ideas his whole life, now on what grounds is Krishnamurti saying all that non-sense!!!???! Does this show intelligence? Does this show concern with truth? As far as I can see, this only shows that Krishnamurti had some obsessions. In his obsession, because of his inability to find any valid point to criticize, he started manufacturing, he started projecting ideas which he can then attack. Naturally Osho had to criticize this, because it's just... stupid. 1985: "BELOVED OSHO, IN A RECENT LECTURE, KRISHNAMURTI HAS SAID THAT WEARING A MALA, LOCKET, ROBES AND HAVING A NEW NAME IS A CIRCUS, UNNECESSARY AND NONSENSE. IT SEEMS THAT KRISHNAMURTI IS TRYING TO CONVEY THAT THE MOMENT ONE ACCEPTS SOMEONE AS A GURU, ONE CEASES TO BE INDEPENDENT. IS THIS ALWAYS THE CASE? He is right. Although he is senile, still he is right. To accept a guru means now you will be only a shadow. You have lost your independence of inquiry. That's why I insist continuously that you are not my followers; you are my friends, my fellow travelers. And Krishnamurti knows this, but still he goes on saying things. Now this whole reference is about sannyasins, but he does not understand that this is not the sannyas that he has been accustomed to know in India. Just the name is the same; otherwise, my sannyasins are absolutely opposite to all the sannyasins that have existed before or are still existing in other religions. Your robe, your mala, your locket, are all non-serious. There is no seriousness about it, it is just playful. Any day I can say to you, "Go to the river and throw all the malas and all the dresses; they have served their function." Whenever I feel that now there is no need.... You are not a sannyasin who has renounced the world. You are a sannyasin who is rejoicing in the world. Krishnamurti cannot make the distinction, which is so great. Renouncing existence, renouncing life, renouncing love; and rejoicing in existence, rejoicing in love, rejoicing in life, are polar opposites. You can ask me then, why I have chosen the name sannyas. I have chosen the name sannyas because the past history of sannyas can be destroyed only in this way. Now in India particularly, where other religions have their sannyasins in the same color, in the same robe, they are finding it difficult. My sannyasins are moving hand in hand with their girlfriends, and Indians are shocked. Sannyasins? One of my sannyasins who lives near Bombay and commutes every day to Bombay and back, took sannyas. After the second day or third day he came and told me, "You will have to give sannyas to my wife too." I said, "Why?" He said, "Why? People will kill me! Yesterday they caught hold of me on the railway station and a crowd gathered. And they said, 'Whose wife is this? This sannyasin seems to be escaping with somebody else's wife' - because sannyasins are not supposed to have wives. I tried hard to explain to them that this is not the old sannyas. They said, 'There is only one sannyas, there are not many sannyases. Don't try to deceive us. You have to come with us to the police station.'" He said, "I had to go to the police station. Fortunately the inspector knew me, and he said, 'She is his wife, and this sannyas is absolutely non-serious. Don't be bothered about it.'" So he said, "It would be good if you give her sannyas also so no problem arises, because anywhere we can be caught. It was good that I was caught at the station where I live, so the inspector knew me." I gave sannyas to his wife. Two, three days afterwards, he was again there with his wife. He said, "Now give sannyas to my son, because yesterday in the train it became a trouble." It is a well-known fact in India, and a certainty, that many people go on stealing children from other people. Then they cripple them, blind them, and make them beggars, and whatsoever they earn comes to the man who is doing this business. Beggary in India is now a very strange phenomenon. The blind man to whom you are giving money will not get it - he will get only food enough to live. All the money will go to the boss who is running the whole factory where he creates crippled people. "So the crowd," he said, "caught us both and they said, 'They are stealing somebody's child!' We tried hard to convince them that it is our own child. "They said, 'YOUR child? Sannyasins have to be celibate. We cannot believe it. In the first place, this is wrong, that you are moving with a woman sannyasin. Woman sannyasins have to move separately from man sannyasins. And not only are you moving with a woman, you are moving with a child. This child is not yours.'" He said, "It was so difficult. Just because the child was not too small he said, 'They are my father and mother and they are not stealing anybody!' Because he spoke we were saved. But please, give sannyas to him also, so there will be no problem left." I wanted the old idea of seriousness, which has dominated sannyas for thousands of years, to be completely eradicated. And the meaning that has been given to sannyas has to be completely changed - from renouncing, it has to become rejoicing. Krishnamurti is aware of this but has not guts to say it - that this sannyas makes nobody dependent on me, that this sannyas simply makes you free from all kinds of seriousness that has been part of being religious. As far as the old sannyasins are concerned, he is perfectly right. But he is not saying those sentences to old sannyasins. That statement is made to my sannyasins; because I have told all the sannyasins belonging to the places where Krishnamurti visits, "Go and sit in front of him." In India he goes to Delhi, Bombay and Madras. I have told my sannyasins there, "Don't miss that opportunity. Wear the reddest clothes possible, with the mala perfectly visible to him, and sit in the front row." And the poor old man cannot see the point - why in every place in India are sannyasins always sitting in the first row? And he becomes so annoyed - he is a very serious man and he is a very angry man too. Serious people are angry people. He gets annoyed very easily, irritated very easily. So seeing my sannyasins in the front row, he forgets what he was going to say; he starts condemning my sannyasins. And I have told my people, "Laugh as loudly as you can!" He has remained just one step away from enlightenment and now there seems to be no hope. Otherwise an enlightened person does not bother who is sitting in front, who is sitting at the back, who is wearing red, who is wearing blue; he says what he wants to say. He opens his heart. But Krishnamurti completely forgets what he had come there for, he starts condemning me and sannyasins. And if he is so interested in my sannyasins and in me, then he should come here and see. Have you seen sannyasins in a disco? Have you seen sannyasins playing cards, gambling? Have you seen sannyasins on the street hugging their girlfriends, boyfriends, so much absorbed in each other that even while I pass by the side they don't know about me? Do you think I am their guru? I am nobody's guru, and nobody is my follower. I hate the word 'follower'! I hate the words 'leader', 'guru'. All these are just hangups from the past, the rotten past. I am not your guru. So if you happen into a place where Krishnamurti is speaking, don't forget: sit in the front row, find the reddest clothes possible, and enjoy his irritation, because the moment you enjoy, he becomes more irritated. Laugh and clap - when he condemns me clap and laugh. Make him confused... "What is the matter with these people? I am speaking against them and they laugh and they clap. I am speaking against their guru and they are enjoying." And then in the end, stand up - because he has two parts to his speeches. First he speaks, then he asks people for questions. When he has spoken and he asks for questions, then stand up and tell him, "Whatever you are saying about sannyasins does not apply to us. And if you are so interested, then come to our place. "We respect you, we love you, we have named our lake 'Krishnamurti Lake'. And we feel sad and sorry also for you - because this is not the way of an enlightened man to behave in such a way, to be so irritated, so angry. You never laugh, you never smile. You seem to be hanging exactly like Jesus Christ on the cross. "And you completely forget that there are other people who have come to listen to you - you are speaking only to ten, twelve sannyasins. Come to our world capital, just visit our place and you will know that our red clothes mean nothing, that our malas are just to irritate people like you." My secretary told me, "On television, what they do is, they cut your locket our of the picture." When they are taking her interview they just go on cutting off the locket. They take her face, but don't allow the locket to show. I said, "Don't be worried. Start wearing a cap and put a locket on your head." She said, "What about the other locket? Because - two lockets?" I said, "That is even better! Now let them cut whatever they want to cut. If they cut off the top one, the lower one will show. If they cut off the lower one, the top one will show." And that's what is happening now. Those lockets, those colored robes, are just to irritate people because that is the best way to let them think about what is happening here. So stand up when the question period comes and ask him, "What do you know about our sannyas?" Ask him, "You don't wear the red robe, true, but how many girlfriends do you have? Our master says that he has so many he cannot give a record of them. How many hours do you sleep? Our master sleeps eleven hours. How many Rolls Royces do you have? How many discos have you opened, where people can dance and sing and love and enjoy? How many restaurants you have opened? How many communes exist where your people live together?" Not a single commune has he been able to create in his whole life. And he is such a serious man that he cannot of conceive discos, dances, of people easily changing their partners without any difficulty, without any trouble. Just tell him, "Come to our world capital and you will understand. Perhaps you may become a sannyasin! You are missing just by one step. And you cannot take that one step without becoming a sannyasin, because for ninety years you have been stuck there, glued. Somebody is needed to push you into the lake. And it will be the best thing that you are pushed into the lake which is known as 'Krishnamurti Lake.' Then the name will become absolutely significant, meaningful." His whole life he has wasted, struggling with ghosts. He had gurus from his childhood up to his twenty-fifth year - and many gurus, not one. And he is against them because they sexually abused him. He was a beautiful boy and all those gurus were homosexuals. Gurus are bound to be homosexuals - you prevent them having girlfriends, you force celibacy on them. You are expecting something unnatural. His great guru was an Englishman, Leadbeater, who was a confirmed homosexual. And it is not that I am stating it - the case was brought to a court, a Madras court, because Krishnamurti's father came to know that his boy, who was only nine years old, was being sexually abused. So he reported it to the court and he wanted the boy to be returned to him. But Leadbeater, Annie Besant, and all the other theosophical leaders were cunning enough - and moreover, because they were all white people, they managed to take Krishnamurti out of India, where the court's judgment would not affect him. Before the court could give the judgment that the child should be returned to his father, they had taken the child out of India. Naturally, if a child has been sexually abused by his gurus he will be against all gurus. The association in his mind with the word 'guru' is not good, it is not nice. And for twenty-five years, those gurus.... And they were many, because somebody was teaching him Sanskrit - he had to know ancient Sanskrit because they were preparing him to be the world master. Somebody was teaching him yoga, which is simply torturing your body, distorting your body, forcing your body into unnatural situations, standing on your head.... Somebody was teaching him English because he would be the world teacher, so he had to know English perfectly well. Somebody was not only teaching him but writing books in his name. He was twelve, thirteen years old, and his best book was written at that time: AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER. The book was written by Leadbeater - because I have read all Leadbeater's books and I can say with absolute certainty that this book is written by the same man - the same language, the same content. Of course it is far better than his other books because he was now an experienced writer. And they put the name of J. Krishnamurti on the book just to create the atmosphere in the world that a boy of thirteen years old who can write such a tremendously significant book must be a world teacher. The name of the book was, AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER - at the feet of the guru. Now Krishnamurti renounces it, he says, "I don't know anything about it. I have never written it." But a thirteen-year-old child of the intelligence of J. Krishnamurti can at least remember who wrote it. He does not want to even mention Leadbeater's name because he was the one who was homosexual and who was abusing J. Krishnamurti sexually. Perhaps others were doing the same. That anger, that irritation, still persists. That has become his barrier to enlightenment. Just one step more - and now he is too old, ninety years old. There is not much hope that in this life he will be able to take that step. He will have to die unenlightened - and remember the law, that if you die unenlightened you have to begin another life from the very scratch. If you die enlightened then there is no other life for you - you become universal. I feel sad and sorry for him. He wanted to meet me at a time when I was in Bombay, but he wanted me to go to his place. I said, "If he wants to meet me, he should come here. I don't want to meet him, so why should I go? I am even giving an appointment to him to meet me - that is enough, more than that you cannot expect of me. Why should I go? I have nothing to learn." The person who had come to me was a close friend of Krishnamurti. He said, "But he is old and it looks mannerly - you are young, you should go to him." I said, "You go back and you ask him - does he believe in old age, young age? Does he believe that the young person should necessarily respect the older person? And tell him clearly that he wants to meet me, I don't have any desire to meet him. So he should come." But the ego... he never came, and since then he has been angry with me But I don't understand: if you want to meet me, then you have to come. And what did he wanted to meet me for? If he goes on condemning the idea of accepting somebody as your master - then what did he want to meet me for? There cannot be any other reason than to learn something... or to teach something. And what has he been doing his whole life? Even at the age of ninety he is continuously traveling; sick, old, suffering from many diseases. For thirty years he has been suffering from headache. It is something unique. No enlightened person has suffered from headache. He may have suffered from everything else, but not from headache. His head is so relaxed, not a single thought moves there - no traffic. Krishnamurti's headache shows that he is in the head, not in the heart. And all these years, what has he been doing? If he says that you should not learn from others because that makes you dependent, then he should stop speaking - because that is nothing but teaching people, that is giving them ideas. And remember, clothes can be easily thrown away. Ideas cannot be thrown away so easily. They go deep into your mind. You can drop the clothes instantly, but can you drop your ideas instantly? And that's what he has been doing - giving people ideas. And I am telling my people that I am just one amongst you, as ordinary as you are. I am not holier than you, not higher than you. And I am not giving you a doctrine to believe in. I am simply exposing my heart, how I came to know myself. Perhaps in some way it may be of help to you. I am teaching you to doubt, not to believe - and still that old senile man goes on criticizing me. I am teaching you that this is not a faith, this is a scientific work. To become enlightened not through believing, but through doubt. Doubt everybody - me included. No guru has ever said that. No guru can ever say it. His whole gurudom is based on creating belief in you, faith in you. So next time, if some sannyasin happens to be in his discourses, don't miss the opportunity. Stand up and make it clear to him that without understanding the man, without understanding his fellow travelers, without understanding the non-seriousness of the clothes and the mala, it is absolutely ungentlemanly to go on criticizing. Invite him here. Tell him, "Once you wanted to see that man, but just because of your ego, that you are older.... Now you are even older, and death is not far away. We have made a beautiful lake for you to jump in - perhaps that may make you enlightened. Otherwise in the next life you will have to start from the very scratch. "And who knows? - you may again get caught with some Leadbeater, because homosexuals are growing fast. So in your next life you will be born in a society with homosexuality, lesbianism, AIDS.... It is good to get enlightened in this life and be finished!" Give him the challenge. Tell him that I am ready to discuss openly here whatever he wants to discuss. It is not a criticism of me when he says that all these things are unimportant and nonsensical. This is a beautiful compliment to me because this is what I am saying. All these things are unimportant and nonsensical. He thinks he is criticizing me! I have worked in such a way that nobody can criticize me, because I have not exploited anybody, I have not enslaved anybody, I have not indoctrinated anybody, I have not converted anybody. I had started my journey alone. And people started coming and joining me and the caravan became bigger and bigger. Now it is all around the earth. And it is going to become bigger and bigger. But nobody is my follower. Nobody is going to be my successor. Each sannyasin is my representative. When I am dead, you all - individually - will have to represent me to the world. There is not going to be any pope. There is not going to be any shankaracharya. Each sannyasin, in his own capacity, has to represent me. This has never happened - but it is going to happen! You are all my successors. When I am dead, that simply means I have left this body and entered all the bodies of my people. I will be within you. I will be part of you." (From death to deathlenessness chapter 25 http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/From_Death_to_Deathlessness/Osho-From-Death-to-Deathlessness-00000025.html ) After Krishnamurti launched his stupid attacks on Osho, I think Osho thought it's a good situation to create another contradiction (and this is very much in line with his whole approach: don't believe anything). Thus he then said "Krishnamurti is not enlightened", contradicting the previous statements in which he said "Krishnamurti is enlightened." 1986: "He is not enlightened; thousands of people think he is enlightened. He has never said it, but they have accepted it because he rejected the world teachership. That is not any proof of enlightenment, but it can be the proof of honesty and unenlightenment. He could see that he was not capable of being a world teacher: he himself is in darkness, and he is not going to deceive the world. He has to be praised for it. But then a mystery has been surrounding him. And for these so many years - now he is ninety - he has not said, on even a single occasion, anything about his enlightenment or unenlightenment. And he has been speaking all this time. It is very strange! And all the speeches are about enlightenment! But he never brings himself into it. He talks about enlightenment as an objective - but never as a subjective - experience. So there are only these two instances: Buddha, who had masters of his own choice, never said a single word against them. He was simply all praise that they were all honest - whatever they could do, they did. And then finally he went alone and found the truth. The second instance is J. Krishnamurti, who condemned his own teachers. They were really worth condemning; they deserved it. He refused the world teachership, showed some integrity of personality, some sincerity and honesty - but he has never said anything about his own enlightenment, this way or that. And his whole life he has never looked ecstatic, joyous; even smiling is difficult for him. You can see him being angry against traditions, against teachers; you can see him being angry against the audience, pulling his hair because they do not understand what he is saying. Now, there is no need to be angry: it is their choice to understand or not to understand; it is your choice to speak or not to speak. If people don't understand you, don't speak! And if you speak and they don't understand, it has nothing to do with you. You enjoyed speaking; they enjoyed listening. Whether they understand it or not is their problem. Why should you get into such a rage? - as if something very valuable is at stake and they should understand you! But this is the attitude of the masters, the very stern and hard masters. Krishnamurti had denied being a world teacher, but he has been doing the same job of teaching the whole world - and being harsh and hard with innocent people who want to understand something about life. And what can they do if they cannot understand you? Perhaps the fault is yours. Perhaps the way you present your ideology is not the right way. Perhaps you make it too complicated and too intellectual. And people are not so complicated and so intellectual. Most people have attained through the masters. Buddha attained alone, and that is a milestone. Krishnamurti has tried... but is still traveling, and traveling in anguish, not in joy. That means the search for the truth has become a hardship for him. Perhaps it has become just intellectual gymnastics. I have never been to any master in any of my lives as a disciple. I have met a few masters, but I have always made it clear to them that I am not the disciple type: "If you can allow me to be with you, to have a friendship with you, I will be happy. But if you reject me, that too is perfectly acceptable, because that is your choice. But I have to make it clear from the very beginning that I am not anybody's disciple." The journey has been very long but has been tremendously rewarding. I would have loved it to be still longer, because the moment you find the truth, everything stops. Time stops, movement stops; you start living in an eternal moment." (Light on the path chapter 26 http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Light_on_the_Path/Osho-Light-on-the-Path-00000026.html ) Keep in mind that LATER in 1987 Osho AGAIN said that Krishnamurti IS ENLIGHTENED: "Sri Aurobindo had a certain clarity. He was not an enlightened man of the category of J. Krishnamurti or Meher Baba, but he was very close." (The great pilgrimage from here to here Chapter One http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/The_Great_Pilgrimage_From_Here_to_Here/Osho-The-Great-Pilgrimage-From-Here-to-Here-00000001.html ) Later in 1988: "You cannot blame him for his anger - although that is a very special case. As I have told you, every enlightened person encounters the world in his own unique way. Krishnamurti lived long - ninety years - and even at the last moment, he was angry. At the last moment he said, "I have wasted my whole life running around the world telling people, and they thought that it was an entertainment. I was talking about enlightenment, and they used to gather as if it was a circus." His anger is out of his compassion, but it is a very strange kind of conversion of compassion. He was so insistent that you should understand what he was saying, and this made him angry." ( http://oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_Osho/Hyakujo_The_Everest_of_Zen/Osho-Hyakujo-The-Everest-of-Zen-00000003.html ) Therefore it should now be obvious that any interpretation such as the one given on this forum by Shanmugam when he said that Osho's ego was hurt by Krishnamurti and that's why he refused to accept his enlightenment afterwards... is unfounded, childish, such narrow views have really nothing to do with Osho. I hope in the future Shanmugam will not repeat these examples. I hope that he will find some new ones and that he will not force such distortions upon Osho again... or upon anybody else. Or at least - because once in a while it can be useful to destroy some worshiper's image - after distorting the facts, please come back and make it clear that "What I said is a distortion, nothing more. I distorted the things with a purpose, now that the purpose is finished I have to announce that it was all my projection with no basis in reality.". Otherwise we'll end up spreading lies that are of no help to anyone...

Shanmugam On your blog I already criticized your misrepresentation of facts... (not all your facts are misrepresentations, just this this 0.1% ) "2. Initially Osho didn’t criticize S.N Goenka and even asked his disciples to attend a Vipassana retreat by Goenka. But once Osho heard that Goenka in an interview had said that Osho was his student before, Osho started criticizing S.N Goenka so harshly." When Osho criticized Goenka it was simply because that man has lied in such an ugly way... To lie like this, and at the same time to talk about "Dharma" is just... I don't know how to call it, but for sure it must be pointed out! The disciples must be made aware of what Goenka is really doing. Hence Osho's criticism... I don't recall Osho attacking anyone first... Not even the Christian pope! He had always been friendly towards the pope, he invited him repeatedly to come to India to learn meditation and he told him that that's the only real spirituality... And how did the pope answer? He "answered" by banning Osho in all newspapers. He answered by doing all kinds of ugly things. Is this spirituality? Is this religion? If we don't criticize these ugly things which are being done in the name of spirituality, then we'll keep such doing ugly and stupid things..... So Osho had to criticize these fellows, and he had to criticize many ideas and conceptions... I used to love Goenka because he is teaching the masses vipassana. I was very much impressed by the documentary "Doing time, doing vipassana" - isn't it great that prisoners are being taught meditation? What a great work Goenka is doing... The same way I used to love Sadhguru... because he is teaching yoga to the masses (apparently). If it weren't for Osho to speak about how Goenka really is and to explain the fact that he isn't really helping anyone (since he couldn't even help himself... he is still a lier. He tried to use Osho's name to put himself on a higher position by saying "Osho learned vipassana from ME!" This is untruthfulness.). So Osho had to explain that although vipassana can be helpful, Goenka can deceive people and lead the astray . it's better to just to just do the technique and forget all about Goenka. He also explained what a difference can a real master do: the master's presence can be of help for the disciple. Osho explained how he is the "gardner" for his disciples. So Osho made everything clear: one can meditate alone and succeed, or one can meditate in the presence of a real master and succeed. Just be aware of these untruthful people, don't get distracted by their lies. I used to love Goenka, but after reading Osho's criticism I become aware of these subtle aspects... These revelations proved of much help later when I observed untruthfulness in Sadhguru. And it's not Osho who "sent" his disciples to Goenka... He didn't send them! It's the disciples who asked "Would you allow us to go to Goenka and meditate with him?" Osho allowed them, because he said it doesn't matter where you are, vipassana will work anywhere, the technique is all right. In what way is this whole episode a boosting for Osho's ego? It's only when the Goenka proved to be an asshole that Osho criticized his businessman-like attitude and dishonesty. Have you seen the recording of Goenka in which he lied about Osho? It's on youtube.. So ugly... '"Somebody in Vishnu Devananda's own organization has been deceiving him for years.... It is good that Vishnu Devananda has confessed that somebody in his own organization was deceiving him, but what does it show? It shows one thing: that Vishnu Devananda is a fool. If somebody in his own organization, his own disciple can deceive him, then what integrity has he got and what consciousness? He should drop being a Master, he should stop initiating people. He has lost all right to." But if you are familiar with happenings in Rajneeshpuram, Osho talked about Sheela deceiving him all those days without his knowledge.' Osho said it clearly that he is not a Peeping Tom. He doesn't interfere into other's privacy, he doesn't read other people's mind. He said it plainly: "If you say something to me, I'll accept it. I trust you." He entrusted Sheela, I heard that he even gave her full power of attorney. Osho was not a paranoic, he just trusted and respected human beings. He initiated all kinds of people. Many of them proved unworthy... but that is their problem. As far as Osho is concerned he gave a chance to everybody. And in Rajneeshpuram Osho was in complete silence, absolutely unconcerned with the outer world. If Sheela wanted to lie to him (which she did), do you expect Osho to read her mind and analyze everything? It would be very pointless, because... when has Sheela ever said any truth?? Sheela was a lier, she had always been lying... she was a political person from the very beginning. Osho let her do what she is good at doing. Sheela didn't "fool" him. He just relaxed in silence and let everyone do their stuff. He knew that people would screw it somehow - because they were not meditative. The movie Wild Wild Country 2018 does a great job at showing how we all go nuts because of our unconscious minds. It's not only when he talked about Vishnu Devananda that he said a master can't be deceived by his disciples. He said the same when talking about some Zen master, when he said a zen story... Also when he talked about Tantra he said that the master can see the aura and not get deceived by a person who claims "I'm truthful" but in reality is a lier. Just note this: in order not to get fooled by "Sheela" you don't have to be a master at all. You just have to know some simple psychology.... It's quite obvious that all this misinterpretation of "what happened at Rajneeshpuram" is childish. Osho indeed created many such situations which childish people will interpret in their childish ways. Moreover, he never claimed that he is omniscient, he never claimed that he is perfect, he always acted as he felt in the moment. He never tried to protect any image of his. He shared what he had to share, and I am grateful to him because I benefited immensely. Oh and another thing... The only recurring themes in Osho's discourses are : 1) don't make any thought systems out of his discourses 2) meditate That's all. All the contradictions are Osho's device to make us meditate and to make it impossible to create a religion in his name. And everything that he has said is of help and can transform and deprogram people... I think the best and fairest is to just say :"About Osho's work... don't read conclusions of other people. They're useless. Go through it yourself." I'm not saying let's worship Osho. I am just saying that it's not fair to misrepresent another human being... What's the point in misrepresenting him? In what way is that useful?? About "Nostradamus" I won't repeat what I said on your blog in the comments section. I'll just say that if you look at the big picture, you won't find any "ego boosting" anywhere. At least I tried and I couldn't find it.