posted December 09, 2007 09:27 AM         

Absolute Tao - A book by Osho
Click here and select Library and then Demo. Select this book and type in any search phrase

Osho,
Lao Tzu says on the Absolute Tao:
The Tao that can be told of
Is not the Absolute.
And on the rise of relative opposites, he says:
When the people of the Earth all know beauty as beauty, There arises (the recognition of) ugliness.
When the people of the Earth all know good as good, There arises (the recognition of) evil.
Therefore: Being and non-being interdepend in growth; Difficult and easy interdepend in completion; Long and short interdepend in contrast; High and low interdepend in position; Tones and voice interdepend in harmony; Front and behind interdepend in company.
Therefore the sage:
Manages affairs without action;
Preaches the doctrine without words.
All things take their rise,
But he does not turn away from them;
He gives them life, but does not take possession of them;
He acts, but does not appropriate;
Accomplishes, but claims no credit.
It is because he lays claim to no credit
That the credit cannot be taken away from him.

I speak on Mahavira as a part of my duty – my heart is never with him. He is too mathematical. He is not a mystic, he has no poetry of being. He is great, enlightened, but like a vast desert; you cannot come across a single oasis in him. But because I was born a Jaina I have to pay some debts. I speak on him as my duty but my heart is not there; I speak only from the mind. When I speak on Mahavira I speak as an outsider. He is not inside me and I am not inside him.

The same is true about Moses and Mohammed. I don’t feel like speaking on them; I have not spoken on them. If I had not been born a Jaina I would never

have spoken on Mahavira either. Many times my Mohammedan disciples or my Jewish disciples come to me and say, “Why don’t you speak on Mohammed or Moses?” It is difficult to explain to them. Many times, just looking at their faces, I decide that I will speak; many times I look again and again into the words of Moses and Mohammed, then I again postpone it. No bell rings in my heart. It would not be alive – if I spoke it would be a dead thing. I don’t even feel a duty towards them as I feel towards Mahavira.

They all belong to the same category: they are too calculative, extremist; they miss the opposite extreme. They are single notes, not harmonies, not symphonies. A single note has its beauty – an austere beauty – but it is monotonous. Once in a while it is okay, but if it continues you feel bored; you would like to stop it. The personalities of Mahavira, Moses and Mohammed are like single notes – simple, austere, beautiful even, once in a while. But if I meet Mahavira, Moses or Mohammed on the road I will pay my respects and escape.

I speak on Krishna. He is multidimensional, superhuman, miraculous, but looks

more like a myth than a real man. He is so extraordinary that he cannot be. On this earth such extraordinary persons cannot exist – they exist only as dreams. And myths are nothing but collective dreams. The whole of humanity has been dreaming them…beautiful, but unbelievable. I talk about Krishna and I enjoy it, but I enjoy it as one enjoys a beautiful story and the telling of a beautiful story. But it is not very meaningful – a cosmic gossip.

I speak on Jesus Christ. I feel deep sympathy for him. I would like to suffer with him and I would like to carry his cross a little while by his side. But we remain parallel, we never meet. He is so sad, so burdened – burdened with the miseries of the whole of humanity. He cannot laugh. If you move with him too long you will become sad, you will lose laughter. A gloominess surrounds him. I feel for him but I would not like to be like him. I can walk with him a little while and share his burden – but then we part. Our ways are different ways. He is good, but too good, almost inhumanly good.

I speak on Zarathustra – very rarely, but I love the man as a friend loves another friend. You

can laugh with him. He is not a moralist, not a puritan; he can enjoy life and everything that life gives. A good friend – you could be with him forever – but he is just a friend. Friendship is good, but not enough.

I speak on Buddha – I love him. Down through the centuries, through many lives, I have loved him. He is tremendously beautiful, extraordinarily beautiful, superb. But he is not on the earth, he does not walk on the earth. He flies in the sky and leaves no footprints. You cannot follow him, you never know his whereabouts. He is like a cloud. Sometimes you meet him but that is accidental. And he is so refined that he cannot take roots on this earth. He is meant for some higher heaven. In that way he is one-sided. Earth and heaven don’t meet in him. He is heavenly but the earthly part is missing. He is like a flame, beautiful, but there is no oil, no container – you can see the flame but it is going higher and higher, nothing holds it on the earth. I love him, I speak on him from my heart, but still, a distance remains. It always remains in the phenomenon of love – you come closer and closer and closer, but even in closeness there

is a distance. That is the misery of all lovers.

I speak on Lao Tzu totally differently. I am not related to him because even to be related a distance is needed. I don’t love him, because how can you love yourself? When I speak on Lao Tzu I speak as if I am speaking on my own self. With him my being is totally one. When I speak on Lao Tzu it is as if I am looking in a mirror – my own face is reflected. When I speak on Lao Tzu, I am absolutely with him. Even to say “absolutely with him” is not true – I am him, he is me.

Historians are doubtful about his existence. I cannot doubt his existence because how can I doubt my own existence? The moment I became possible, he became true to me. Even if history proves that he never existed it makes no difference to me; he must have existed because I exist – I am the proof. During the following days when I speak on Lao Tzu, it is not that I speak on somebody else. I speak on myself – as if Lao Tzu is speaking through a different name, a different<italit> nama-rupa</italit>, a different incarnation.

Lao Tzu is not like Mahavira, not mathematical at all, yet

he is very, very logical in his madness. He has a mad logic! When we penetrate into his sayings you will come to feel it; it is not so obvious and apparent. He has a logic of his own: the logic of absurdity, the logic of paradox, the logic of a madman. He hits hard.

Mahavira’s logic can be understood even by blind men. To understand Lao Tzu’s logic you will have to create eyes. It is very subtle, it is not the ordinary logic of the logicians – it is the logic of a hidden life, a very subtle life. Whatsoever he says is on the surface absurd; deep down there lives a very great consistency. One has to penetrate it; one has to change his own mind to understand Lao Tzu. Mahavira you can understand without changing your mind at all; as you are, you can understand Mahavira. He is on the same line. Howsoever ahead of you he may have reached the goal, he is on the same line, the same track.

When you try to understand Lao Tzu, he zigzags. Sometimes you see him going toward the east and sometimes toward the west, because he says east is west and west is east, they are together, they are one. He believes in the unity of the opposites. And that is how

life is.

So Lao Tzu is just a spokesman of life. If life is absurd, Lao Tzu is absurd; if life has an absurd logic in it, Lao Tzu has the same logic. Lao Tzu simply reflects life. He doesn’t add anything to it, he doesn’t choose out of it. He simply accepts whatsoever it is.

It is simple to see the spirituality of a Buddha, very simple; it is impossible to miss it, he is so extraordinary. But it is difficult to see the spirituality of Lao Tzu. He is so ordinary, just like you. You will have to grow in understanding. Buddha passes by you – you will immediately recognize that a superior human being has passed you. He carries the glamour of a superior human being around him. It is difficult to miss him, almost impossible to miss him. But Lao Tzu…he may be your neighbor. You may have been missing him because he is so ordinary, he is so extraordinarily ordinary. And that is just the beauty of it.

To become extraordinary is simple: only effort is needed, refinement is needed, cultivation is needed. It is a deep inner discipline. You can become very very refined, something absolutely unearthly. But to be ordinary is really the most

extraordinary thing. No effort will help – effortlessness is needed. No practice will help, no methods, no means will be of any help, only understanding. Even meditation will not be of any help. To become a Buddha, meditation will be of help. To become a Lao Tzu, even meditation won’t help – just understanding. Just understanding life as it is, and living it with courage; not escaping from it, not hiding from it, facing it with courage, whatsoever it is, good or bad, divine or evil, heaven or hell.

It is very difficult to be a Lao Tzu or to recognize a Lao Tzu. In fact, if you can recognize a Lao Tzu, you are already a Lao Tzu. To recognize Buddha you need not be a Buddha, but to recognize Lao Tzu you need to be a Lao Tzu – otherwise it is impossible.

It is said that Confucius went to see Lao Tzu. Lao Tzu was an old man, Confucius was younger. Lao Tzu was almost unknown, Confucius was almost universally known. Kings and emperors used to call him to their courts; wise men used to come for his advice. He was the wisest man in China in those days. But by and by he must have felt that his wisdom might be of use to others, but he was not blissful,

he had not attained to anything. He had become an expert, maybe helpful to others, but not helpful to himself.

So he started a secret search to find someone who could help him. Ordinary wise men wouldn’t do, because they used to come for his own advice. Great scholars wouldn’t do; they used to come to ask him about their problems. But there must be someone somewhere – life is vast. He tried a secret search.

He sent his disciples to find someone who could be of help to him, and they came with the information that there lived a man – nobody knew his name – he was known as The Old Guy. Lao Tzu means “the old guy.” The word is not his name, nobody knows his name. He was such an unknown man that nobody knows when he was born, nobody knows to whom – who his father was or who his mother was. He had lived for ninety years but only very rare human beings had come across him, very rare, who had different eyes and perspectives with which to understand him. He was only for the rarest – so ordinary a man, but only for the rarest of human minds.

Hearing this news that there exists a man known as The Old
Guy, Confucius went to see him. When he met Lao Tzu he could feel that here was a man of great understanding, great intellectual integrity, great logical acumen, a genius. He could feel that something was there, but he couldn’t catch hold of it. Vaguely, mysteriously, there was something; this man was no ordinary man although he looked absolutely ordinary. Something was hidden; he was carrying a treasure.

Confucius asked, “What do you say about morality? What do you say about how to cultivate good character?” – because he was a moralist and he thought that if you cultivate a good character that is the highest attainment.

Lao Tzu laughed loudly, and said, “If you are immoral, only then the question of morality arises. And if you don’t have any character, only then you think about character. A man of character is absolutely oblivious of the fact that anything like character exists. A man of morality does not know what the word moral means. So don’t be foolish! And don’t try to cultivate. Just be natural.”

And the man had such tremendous energy that Confucius started trembling. He couldn’t stand

him. He escaped. He became afraid – as one becomes afraid near an abyss. When he came back to his disciples, who were waiting outside under a tree, the disciples could not believe it. This man had been going to emperors, the greatest emperors, and they had never seen any nervousness in him. And he was trembling, and cold perspiration was coming, pouring out from all over his body. They couldn’t believe it – what had happened? What had this man Lao Tzu done to their teacher? They asked him and he said, “Wait a little. Let me collect myself. This man is dangerous.”

And about Lao Tzu he said to his disciples: “I have heard about great animals like elephants, and I know how they walk. And I have heard about hidden animals in the sea, and I know how they swim. And I have heard about great birds who fly thousands of miles away from the earth, and I know how they fly. But this man is a dragon. Nobody knows how he walks. Nobody knows how he lives. Nobody knows how he flies. Never go near him – he is like an abyss. He is like a death.”

And that is the definition of a master: a master is like a death. If you come near
him, too close, you will feel afraid, a trembling will take over. You will be possessed by an unknown fear, as if you are going to die. It is said that Confucius never came again to see this old man.

Lao Tzu was ordinary in a way. And in another way he was the most extraordinary man. He was not extraordinary like Buddha; he was extraordinary in a totally different way. His extraordinariness was not so obvious – it was a hidden treasure. He was not miraculous like Krishna, he did not do any miracles, but his whole being was a miracle – the way he walked, the way he looked, the way he was. His whole being was a miracle.

He was not sad like Jesus; he could laugh, he could laugh a belly laugh. It is said that he was born laughing. Children are born crying, weeping. It is said about him that he was born laughing. I also feel it must be true; a man like Lao Tzu must be born laughing. He is not sad like Jesus. He can laugh, and laugh tremendously, but deep down in his laughter there is a sadness, a compassion – a sadness about you, about the whole existence. His laughter is not superficial. Zarathustra laughs but his laughter is different, there is
no sadness in it.

Lao Tzu is sad like Jesus and not sad like Jesus; Lao Tzu laughs like Zarathustra and doesn’t laugh like Zarathustra. His sadness has a laughter to it and his laughter has a sadness to it. He is a meeting of the opposites. He is a harmony, a symphony.

posted December 09, 2007 02:24 PM         

quote:

---

To be honest I have nothing to learn from you.
Not the rehashed christian materials you at times presented here.
Perhaps how to improve written communication, yes.
You have plenty of things you need to learn from me,
including your own religion.

---

I dont think you are familiar enough with Christianity
to know if I am "rehashing" or not.
My interpretations of Biblical scripture are often as original
as they are true to the religious wisdom of all ages.
And my method for conveying those insights is often witty
in a way that reveals deeper meanings in a flash.
This is not boasting. It is truth,
and many others have told it to me,
as I am now telling it to you.

It is no coincidence that my Sun is conjunct Uranus,
"the awakener", planet of genius and enlightenment,
and Venus, and the MC, in the 9th house,
all within 3 degrees;
no coincidence that Venus rules the 9th house,
that Pluto is also in my 9th house,
that I have Mars/Mercury conjunct by 1 degree in Sag (10th house)
and that this Mars/Merc conjunction is trine Jupiter (also angular).

The most obvious interpretation of this
wealth of Sag/Jupiter/9th house energy is:
SPIRITUAL TEACHER

So, if you think I have nothing to teach you,
other than how to articulate in english,
it is more a sign of your arrogant stubbornness
and inability to recognize true teachings,
than a sign that I have nothing much to teach.

And, as I have told you several times now,
and, as you continue to disregard,
I am not a Christian.

My understanding of these matters transcends any single religion,
and I frequently interpret the symbolism of other religious philosophies and myths.
The vast majority of sages quoted by me are not Christian.

As for learning communication, Mannu,
you must first learn English before you can learn English eloquence.

But, even before that, I would counsel humility.

posted December 09, 2007 02:37 PM         

Great!! I am quoting you there dude

>>>>As for learning communication, Mannu,
you must first learn English before you can learn English eloquence.

English is not the only communication language. Can you even write or speak one complete sentence in my first language? No.

Anyhow:
Heres a thread for you to teach me english. That is if you accept me as a humble student
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/009348.html

posted December 09, 2007 04:21 PM         

quote:

---

>>>I am not a christian
Great!! I am quoting you there dude

---

What's your point, wiseguy?

quote:

---

English is not the only communication language. Can you even write or speak one complete sentence in my first language? No.

---

What's your point?
Why are you offended?
For all I know you are a master of Hindi.
I spoke only of english eloquence.
In any case, I would rather speak well in one language,
than speak commonly in many languages.

quote:

---

Anyhow:
Heres a thread for you to teach me english. That is if you accept me as a humble student

---

From your comments on that thread,
it seems more like an attempt to manipulate me.
And I never said I would teach you english.
Why would I want to do that?
I have my own life to live,
and other, higher things to teach,
whether you agree with that or not.

But how would you like to come over and fix my plumbing?

See what I'm saying?

quote:

---

I have learnt the higher truths
and don't need to learn the lower truths.

---

From what I can see,
you have learned mostly how to boast,
how to talk endlessly about how spiritual you think you are,
how to make insulting allusions to other people's egos,
how to sprinkle your posts with manipulative remarks
about Christians and Scorpios, etc.
(regardless of who you are replying to),
and how to weave convoluted analogies
that express only your own confusion and ignorance.

quote:

---

Your words appears dry to me. Its not empty.
If they were empty I would have understood.
But its dry and I'm thirsty right now.
It lacks life. It is dead.

---

The reason you do not understand
is because you have not learned those things,
even though you imagine that you have.
If you had learned them, or begun to learn them,
you would certainly have understood me.

So my words appear dry and dead to you. Okay.
Your words appear empty to me.
Not as Tao is empty
(I am quite fond of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu),
but, as a person who lacks insight,
yet poses as some kind of exalted teacher,
sounds invariably empty.

Time will tell,
whether it is you or I
who speaks a higher truth.

There's not much point arguing it between ourselves.

I really dont respect your intelligence,
and I'm losing respect for myself by debating with you so much.

You cannot, or will not, understand me.

Please dont try to bait me any more.

I think its time we went our separate ways.

posted December 09, 2007 04:59 PM         

He who doesn't know, and knows that he doesn't know, is a child, teach him

He who knows, and doesn't know that he knows, is asleep, wake him

He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a wise man, follow him .

Peace Gentlemen

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted December 09, 2007 07:46 PM         

quote:

---

26T thanks for posting about being empty to understand him. I am now ready to buy his book and study what was he all about

---

Good for you!!!

posted December 09, 2007 10:34 PM         

You made your agenda clear that you don't want me to post anything on Osho. I smelled fish in the beginning but that was the turning point where I said Aha another organized religion fanatic. I can't lie to you can I?

I have repeated often that you do have some fan(s) here and I was happy for you and them. But why will you stop me and others wanting to follow Osho and atleast read his teachings in an open way.
You made fun of Osho on his long pauses and what not. Are you the only one to enjoy freedom of speech? Thats so selfish of you and controlling I thought. Did you even consider perhaps those pauses were intentional? Your restlessness that you expressed on that post sounded very immature to me. And your follow up posts on each of my osho posts in the past was very presumptuous. How could your common sense overlook something so common?

>>>I really dont respect your intelligence,
and I'm losing respect for myself by debating with you so much.
You are a free man dude just as I am free. You can't even solve the question i posted on the relativity question and you are making tall claims on my intellence. I am not angry? People like you don't disturb me at all. Do you intimidate me? To be honest, I feel sad to know how disillusional organized religion people can become.

I often mentioned before Tao/Zen is not for everyone. Osho is a like a new breath in my life. I have all the hall marks of following "the way". Including my own paradoxical nature.

If you wanna part its your will. I can't lie to you so I told you what I felt of you. And I appreciate you being honest with me from the beginning. I was hoping you had the courage to tell my weakness in english or in my eloquence so I could improve myself. But you made it sound as if its a bait. Anyhow I realized that words don't matter really. They become barrier to effective communication. The english language does not have enough words in its vocabulory to express so many dimensions of life, so I never was serious to improve my english skills. Appears Americans only understands American english. Feel free to get an opinion with any linguistic scholar they will tell you the same.

posted December 09, 2007 10:35 PM         

>>>He who knows, and knows that he knows, is a wise man, follow him

He who knows really does not know.

Buddha used to say that if we see him during meditation to chop his head off

But perhaps you won't understand because I think you follow mohammed and Jesus right?or perhaps you will.

Please don't compare your self with each other. It creates conflicts. Just shine or flower its enough. Each of you are unique beings . On their own soul evolutions. The short time we are here on earth, don't let politics or our attachments to any objects affect our friendship.

posted December 09, 2007 10:40 PM         

I am reading each book randomly. And I feel like an atom bomb is exploding in me one after the other.

And this genius has written so many books since his enlightenment. I hope I can finish his entire lifetime works.

posted December 09, 2007 11:43 PM         

In the West, figures such as the American poet and Rumi translator Coleman Barks,[38] the American novelist Tom Robbins[39] and the German philosopher, author and TV host Peter Sloterdijk[40] have championed Osho.

Osho's Ashram in Pune has become the Osho International Meditation Resort,[41] one of India's main tourist attractions.[31][42] According to press reports, it attracts some 200,000 visitors from all over the world each year;[35][43] politicians, media personalities and the Dalai Lama have visited the Meditation Resort.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho

posted December 09, 2007 11:49 PM         

quote:

---

You made your agenda clear that you don't want me to post anything on Osho.

---

I didnt like that you posted a bunch in a row,
flooding Universal Codes with that garbage.
If it had been anything else, I still would have seen it as selfish,
and probably would have said something about it.

quote:

---

I smelled fish in the beginning but that was the turning point where I said Aha another organized religion fanatic. I can't lie to you can I?

---

Mannu, I dont even believe in God!!! I dont go to church!!
I am not part of any religion. On the contrary,
I am organized religion's worst nightmare.

quote:

---

But why will you stop me and others wanting to follow Osho and atleast read his teachings in an open way.

---

Look, I'm sharing my view. Post all you want.
I will continue to place links to the truth in every Osho thread you start.
Its nothing personal. I regret that it makes you feel repressed.
That is not my intention.
But you have to understand that this is an open forum,
where contrary views will be expressed,
and sometimes you will meet opposition.
Dont blame me when the world doesnt clear a path for you, or Osho.

quote:

---

You made fun of Osho on his long pauses and what not.
Are you the only one to enjoy freedom of speech? LOL
Thats so selfish of you and controlling.

---

What are you talking about?!?!?
Here YOU are, trying to tell me I cant post my views.
Are YOU the only one to enjoy freedom of speech.

quote:

---

You are a free man dude just as I am free. You can't even solve the question i posted on the relativity question and you are making tall claims on my intellence.

---

I did answer it. Very reasonably.
You couldnt grasp my answer.

quote:

---

I am not angry? People like you don't disturb me at all. Do you intimidate me? To be honest, I feel sad to know how disillusional organized religion people can become.

---

Are you just saying this to annoy me,
by appearing not to hear a word I say?
Your Muslim extremism is getting the better of you.

quote:

---

I often mentioned before Tao/Zen is not for everyone. Osho is a like a new breath in my life. I have all the hall marks of following "the way". Including my own paradoxical nature.

---

Whatever you say, dude.

quote:

---

I was hoping you had the courage to tell my weakness in english or in my eloquence so I could improve myself. But you made it sound as if its a bait. Anyhow I realized that words don't matter really. They become barrier to effective communication.

---

Indeed.
I cant even interpret your meaning here.
What does my courage (or alleged lack of courage) have to do with it?
I'm not an english teacher, and, if I dont want to be your personal tutor,
its because I have a life of my own; it has nothing to do with courage.

If you want to talk courage,
have the courage to admit when you are wrong.
Obviously you were wrong about me and Osho,
because you changed your mind and investigated
("bravely" pretending it was your own idea all along),
and finally admitted the truth of most of what I tried to tell you.
In spite of that, you are still under Osho's spell.
Maybe you dont have the courage to break it?

quote:

---

The english language does not have enough words in its vocabulory to express so many dimensions of life, so I never was serious to improve my english skills.

---

You are not serious about it, but you expect me to teach you?
Actually, the english language is known for its precision.
Many languages apply multiple interpretations
to the same words or symbols,
and subtlety of expression is compromised.
English is often praised specifically for the range of words,
and the nuances of meaning it makes possible.

quote:

---

Appears Americans only understands American english. Feel free to get an opinion with any linguistic scholar they will tell you the same.

---

What r u talking about now?

Why do I bother with you?

posted December 09, 2007 11:53 PM         

You dont even know what that means.

Yes, we are all unique.

One person should not be blamed
for their inferiority, as compared to another.
Just as one should not be credited
for being superior compared to another.

We are all progressing at different speeds,
at different points along the path,
and all is according to Universal Law.

Yet, comparisons can and must be made,
without assuming personal credit or blame.
You could not choose between one thing and another
if you did not make comparisons.
You read Lao Tzu, rather than Ghengis Khan,
because you make comparisons.

The thing is to understand the practical truth
as well as the transcendantal truth.
But you repeatedly overlook the first for the second,
or the second for the first.
Then you talk about how paradoxical you are.
I dont think you see the paradox at all.
I think you are just very confused,
and you interpret it as paradoxical wisdom.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time
and still retain the ability to function."
~ F. Scott Fitzgerald

Okay, I'm done, for now.

posted December 10, 2007 12:11 AM         

Before I go: You don't know me and in the same fairness I understand that I don't know you either. *deleted* I don't feel the need to defend what I know. Only fools defend.

*deleted*

Good bye and you may have the last word if you wish.

posted December 10, 2007 01:17 AM         

Ive noticed (here mostly) that people either love Osho or ..almost .."hate" him...? *gasp*

Sometimes I wonder how much time certain people have spent actually reading his material. Though that really doesnt matter to me. I have come to my own conclusions concerning him after "getting to know" him over the years. And that should be enough. I dont need to be saved from "this monster". He is not everyone's cup of tea and that is okay.

So really what is there to argue about or try to defend?

I find Nothing.

Truth is one paths are many, right? We're all doing alright - really! Just let me Be,
is all i'm not saying. There is something(s) to learn from everyone you encounter, but ultimately I "follow" no one except Higher Self. People think they know you when they just met you yesterday or three years ago. We are all transforming so rapidly no one knows anyone because they dont really know themselves. So i try not to pretend to know anyone anymore. It's a foolish thing to do. ...okay, getting side-tracked.

Osho speaks to me in positive ways. Like you, he often blows my mind too. (but remember! we are blind. lol j/k) He may not do the same for others - and that is fine. I know you know that.

I'm in no position to shun, teach or awaken anyone. Nor do i want to.

I dont even like to share my thoughts here anymore. It's like your are setting yourself up for judgement and attack. That becomes draining.

When "you know you" other people's judgements and opinions of "you" and what you are all about, your level of consciousness, no longer matter. You see it for what it Is. And that's a really nice place to be. Ive found you dont you really need to put your thoughts "out there" anymore anyway.

Thanks for letting me vent a little.

Love to you on your path.

posted December 10, 2007 01:30 AM         

"It only means be detatched from anything not beneficial to your soul evolution."

Amen.

posted December 10, 2007 12:49 PM         

"I stood first in the entire university with physics as my speciality."

It wasnt your understanding of physics that I contradicted,
it was the esoteric conclusions you were drawing.
And getting high marks at university just means
you are good at remembering and repeating the views of your professors.
High marks in physics requires an aptitude for mathematics;
a very specific, isolated form of intelligence.
That left-brain ability has little to do with spiritual intelligence.
And, to be honest, I find it hard to believe what you say is true,
when you cant even register simple comments like "I'm not a Christian",
and when you have never been slow to sing your own praises in the past.

If its not a question of intelligence,
then, surely, its something far more disturbing.

Mannu and T,

I read Osho's
"Autobiography of a Spiritually Incorrect Mystic"

I've read numerous talks of his posted online.

I agree with Calder,
that his earlier stuff has merit;
when he was Rajneesh, not "Osho".

There is wisdom sprinkled throughout his works,
but it is mostly lifted from others,
and, in my opinion, not as well expressed.

He has wit, and is often clever,
but cleverness alone isnt that impressive to me.

He mostly uses shock value, like a bad comic,
and, of course, this appeals to a certain demographic,
who consider it original and provacative.

"The Holy Spirit ----ed the Virgin Mary."
Bravo!
I've heard dumb jocks get drunk and say the same thing,
and imagine that they were saying something profound.

I dont think Osho, enlightened or not,
should be held to a different standard than the rest of us.
I dont think that when he offends people,
and takes a cr*p on some of the deepest,
most mystical symbolism ever handed down from heaven
(obscuring it even more than it already is obscured),
that it is any more noble than when some beer-sloshed jock does it.

Sorry, not impressed.

He uses that excuse, -
that the standard is different for himself, -
to get away with murder, and you eat it right up.

:shakes head:

T,

If I thought there was no point talking,
and that I had nothing to teach,
I wouldnt post my thoughts as I do.
So why do you?

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You take this very "above it all" position,
but then, when it comes down to it, here you are.

I suspect that the reason you dont share a lot
probably has more to do with insecurity
and Taurean complacency,
than with the convictions you are often willing to repeat,
but never willing to explain.

But thats just my opinion,
and I'm just a cracked mirror,
so, dont mind me.

posted December 10, 2007 01:26 PM         

>>when you cant even register simple comments like "I'm not a Christian",
and when you have never been slow to sing your own praises in the past.

"Everything passes away, including this."
What you said will pass away one day. I quoted it so I can show it to you when that day comes.
Didn't you and I made so many statements about our beliefs and changed?
Its a sign of growth. The old must die and new one must be created. 2000 years was a long time.
The number of christians has reached a saturation level in my opinion.
I don't think it will continue growing. There are new teachings coming our way. We must not hang on to the past.
Perhaps turnaround the past in to a pleasant future.

And I am really amused. Was it me who praised my own praises or was it you really? You are quoted to have said 'I am a genius'. 'Congratulate me' etc. I am just shining and sharing beautiful
teachings to whoever wants to listen. Of course I never put obvious disclaimers such as 'don't believe all that is said without your own discernment'.
Research shows people any way digest 2 % of what we read consciously. The other 98% goes to the subconscious. (or whatever the ratio is) The problem is when those subconscious thoughts resurface either in the form of dream or in conscious reactions without our awareness.

I aim to be a master of my self like my guru is. He would only talk if there is an observer. You may not like this concept, but its his silence that spirals me. Isn't it the silence between notes that creates music? It will not make sense to you now. It is not supposed to make sense. Reading is just one aspect of communication.
There are numerous other facts thats amiss. I aluded to them before in posts somewhere here.

And I requested you that I don't enjoy being at LL with an identity baggage.
People must accept me as I am. Not with my labels. Its up to you whether to believe or not.
Can you please delete those reference as I delete mine? And I stood first in the college (*deleted*)

The fact that you actually took upon yourself to read about Osho proves to me you contradicted the fixed sign aspect of a scorpio.
Thats a welcome change, don't you think. Or perhaps its not
Perhaps we are good as we are. Perhaps everyone needs awareness. Think deep my friend. Who makes better gurus. An air sign or water sign?

posted December 10, 2007 01:45 PM         

quote:

---

T and S, you are hurting each other. Please pause and take some deep breaths. Remember.

---

We are? .....

I wasnt trying to hurt anyone, just getting a few things off my mind and i thought Mannu would understand.

Didnt think HSC would take it the way he did.

I feel this is between him and Osho, not him and those who happen to like Osho. And things are getting confused and out of hand. So i do not feel hurt by what he said and i can respond.. i suppose.

That will have to wait til later.