I came across your website recently and took some time going through the discussions and the content in the website. I have been reading Jiddu Krishnamurti for a while and have been attracted to his style, clarity and his philosophy in general. While your writings take the excerpts and try to prove that he is yet another eastern philosopher in disguise, I find that the analysis may be incomplete in the sense that it leaves out other aspects looking only for the ‘spritualist signature’. If you have time and inclination, if you can take this piece, which is my favourite, and comment on the points raised by Krishnamurti, I will appreciate it greatly. http://www.ratical.org/many_worlds/K/ObsWoMe.html

The reason is because while I read your responses on Krishnamurti and nod my head by the force of logic, when I come back to reading Krishnamurti, it rings bells again.

Eastern spirituality spawned two infamous Gurus in the 20^th Century, both of whom left a legacy of discourses very carefully tailored to suit their largely Western audience – Jiddu Krishnamurti and Mohan Rajneesh. Krishnamurti’s appeal was largely an intellectual one and his lasting legacy is a league of intellectual sluggards – faithful followers not only unwilling but incapable of thinking for themselves. On the other hand, Rajneesh’s appeal was largely the passionate lure an alternative, superior society and his lasting legacy is a reclusive social club – followers not only unwilling but incapable of standing on their own two feet.

That old spiritual dimwitticism, ‘leave your mind at the door, surrender your will and trust your feelings’ has suckered a whole generation of searchers of freedom and peace into becoming faithful mindless followers of Eastern religion. The post World War Two generation turned away from their naive interest in peace on earth and settled instead for the utterly selfish search for an inner peace and the ultimate self-gratifying Eastern experience – the dream-like state of God-realization, commonly known as Enlightenment.

The good thing is that you have serendipitously discovered actualism and now have a chance to break free from your own spiritual/ religious beliefs. It was my experience that one of the essential first aspects of this was to begin to stand on my own two feet and to dare to think for myself – the second was to learn how to do so.

Welcome to actualism.

To No 60 – I didn’t know anything about Eastern religion in my youth and by the time I did it was too late – I had fallen for it hook, line and sinker. And I am more than glad that I did because I got to know it from the inside as it were. If I hadn’t made such a thorough investigation, I would probably still be trying to reconcile materialism with spiritualism as I see many other people trying to do.

If – you refer with ‘Eastern religion’ to so-called Rajneeshism I think it might be more accurate to refer to that as religion at large (aka. A mixture of eastern and western religion) as I would do anyway, because that is my experience.

Well as I knew him, Chandra Mohan was born a Jain and died a Jain, and his claim to fame or notoriety came about by bashing the largest Western religion on the planet – Christianity. If you experience his teachings in some other way, then fair enough.

As for ‘cynical disillusioned’, I have had this charge levelled at me countless times. Below is a typical exchange from the Sannyas mailing list before I was cyber-executed from the list for being too heretical and iconoclastic ... <Snip>

Look Peter I’m not sure about the stuff you wrote. It all seems pretty right to me except that I see it’s not His responsibility to create this, for me a ‘new man’ of some sort has emerged in me but he didn’t do it, I did. I never saw any of these things as promises, maybe they are, maybe they’re not, but for me they were statements of possibilities. This is possible, but I never thought for one second that he or Sannyas would create this – I realized I had to do anything that needed doing or stop doing things that don’t need doing.

Look, people who want to debate I’m right your wrong or any number of variations on this don’t interest me. I don’t think Sannyas can save the world, or even make a good cup of tea for that matter, but I can and you can if you want to.

That’s a pretty clear statement. You never thought for one second that the New Man was going to happen and you never thought for one second that peace on earth would ever happen. And you don’t want to talk about or debate about peace on earth. It keeps up the 100% record of Sannyasins who are either in denial or don’t care.

What I find fascinating is a movement that was supposedly altruistic and caring has degenerated into a self-centred social club’ totally lacking in any direction or motive apart from self-fulfillment – both as a group and as individuals. No wonder peace on earth forever remains an unfulfilled dream. Peace on earth is literally sacrificed at the altar of dead God-men.

My relationship, as absurd as it might seem to you, is with Osho not the inner circle or other sannyasins.

Fair enough. This loyal faith is exactly why the inner circle has the power it does.

The loyal faithful personal relationship that Catholics have with Christ is exactly why the Pope is given the power he has over the faithful. The Pope (and Rome) only has power because Catholics give Him the power.

Realizing this fact is why I quit from the power structure in Pune. I had too much integrity to actually give someone else power over me. To willingly give someone else power over me and then to spend my life riling against it seemed to me to be the height of stupidity.

*

Well, it seems that this conversation has come to an end. I can see that you are a firm believer in, and practitioner of, Eastern religion and philosophy and, as such, are not interested in exploring an alternative. Fair enough. It is good to be full-on into something that makes you ‘happier, less serious, more fun and deeper’, as you said.

For someone who has discovered freedom you don’t seem to be able to separate your own presuppositions, prejudices and inane judgments from the actual. Do you work it out with a slide rule or what? You seem to be very good at speaking for me and telling me about myself based on my disagreements with your elementary philosophical system. In your mechanical world if one disagrees are they automatically chucked in the ‘firm believer in, and practitioner of, Eastern religion and philosophy and, as such, are not interested in exploring an alternative’ basket.

Okay. The statement that you are a firm believer in, and practitioner of, Eastern Religion and philosophy is based on the fact that you are a Sannyasin of Mohan Chandra aka Bhagwan aka Rajneesh aka Osho, and even have taken a Sannyasin name.

Sannyas is a traditional Hindi word and

‘a sannyasin is one who has renounced the world in search of God Realisation and has been formally initiated by a guru who is himself a sannyasin. In Sanskrit the word ‘sannyasa’ literally means ‘to throw down’ or ‘to abandon.’ Thus, sannyasa is the giving up or abandonment of the world, and the sannyasin is one who has so renounced. True sannyasa is not a denial of life but life’s highest fulfilment. It is the relinquishment of the transient and illusory in favour of a permanent Reality, the eschewing of a worldly life that one may, by gradual stages of purification, draw inward toward God as Parasiva, Truth Absolute. It is a break with the mundane and a binding unto the Divine.’ Encyclopedia Britannica

You also said – ‘My relationship, as absurd as it might seem to you, is with Osho, not the inner circle or other sannyasins.’ Someone who is a Sannyasin, has a declared relationship with a dead Guru is plainly of a spiritual ilk, despite how loudly he might deny the fact.

A firm believer is one who is loyal despite whatever disagreements and misgivings he might have about the goings on that he perceives to be separate from his faith in the Master. You reaffirmed this single-pointed loyalty well when you said – ‘The religion was unmercifully attacked. Osho was not.’

By meditation or ‘going in’ it is not something metaphysical or even spiritual. It is simply seeing. You keep on talking about things like ‘God, soul going to heaven, the spirit going home’ etc. etc. This is not what a Sannyasin’s world is all about. I used to believe in these things before but I am free of them. Now I make fun of the word ‘god, lord, hallelujah and others’. It is a source of laughter and fun for me, seeing how stupid I was before and the bullshit of it all.

Yes, apart from the devout few in Pune the Sannyas world seems to have little to do with what Osho was really talking about. It seems to have become yet another quasi-religious social club able to loosely contain all manners of beliefs and New Age fads.

... a while ago about a book I have written about my years as a Sannyasin of Osho.

Here we go, again. You made it look like you want to discuss Osho’s words but there is no word on that, in fact you just want to play a little humble guru-ly. Why don’t you say so in the first place?

I am willing to discuss Osho’s words anytime. The problem is that people regard him as a god and as such it is heretical to even question His word. His word is God means that one cannot question them as you are then seen as a non-believer and a heathen. It is all a clever ploy to avoid serious discussion on serious matters – like how to stop humans fighting and suffering on this paradisiacal planet.

*

For some 15 years full on, living in various communes, giving money, countless hours of worship, meditation, satsang, white robe, discourses, etc. – so I have well experienced the world of Osho. When I first became a Rajneeshee,

How do you do that? Or you mean actually you took sannyas? However, the difference is huge, because the first is impossible, except if you are born in Rajneesh’s family and I don’t think so.

To become a Rajneeshee (as it was once called) involved a change of name, a mala with His photo in it, wearing red clothes (at the time), renouncing any past religions, living in a commune or around like-minded people (other Sannyasins), going to discourse, satsang or ‘White Robe’, reading and quoting His words, doing meditations, and feeling love and gratitude for the love He gave me. I could go on, but that was how I became a Rajneeshee.

*

I was attracted by two things –

• The promise at what I would call peace of mind, the permanent cessation the endless self-centered churning thoughts and emotions in me.
• The promise of peace on earth, the emergence of a ‘new man’, such as would bring an end to war, pollution, poverty, repression, violence and sorrow on this fair planet.’

O, poor guy, who promised you all of this? I have never heard Osho promising anything to anybody, why should you be an exception?

I was always in the spiritual world for ‘peace of mind’, freedom from the ‘self’, isn’t that what they all promise – maybe you and I read different books. I think Rajneesh’s vision for a New Man, Zorba the Buddha, the Rajneeshpuram experiment all attest to the second point.

I think you will find books on the new man, Rajneesh’s vision for Humanity, etc. still available but given that they failed they might not still be ‘in print’. They are certainly not favoured topics of conversation since the collapse of Rajneeshpuram.

Peter, this comment does not address the issue of you perceiving promises that were never made and as a result of your perception the resentment you now seem to project.

I have neither resentment nor gratitude towards Osho. To have been a part of such a spiritual movement around a living Enlightened one and be witness to the eventual formation of a religion on his death has been extraordinarily useful in understanding the whole meta-physical spiritual world.

Yes I have read the books you speak of, and they are not a defence nor an explanation for your having perceived promises that were never made. ALWAYS the ranch experience was described as an ‘Experiment to provoke God’. There are never any promises or guarantees when experimenting with the unknown.

I can only say what it meant for me – I was looking for peace of mind for myself and for peace on the planet. And I see that Sannyas experiment failed, not only for me, but for thousands of others. I know of many people who have yet to recover from the Ranch experience or for whom the enthusiasm for change or challenge simply withered away. What are your goals in life and in being a Sannyasin? What is it that you are seeking in life?

Perhaps you still could find some benefit in taking responsibility for choice of action. No one forced you to believe anything. You made choices. You looked for and found what didn’t exist.

Of course I was a Sannyasin willingly. It was at the time the best game to play in town. Along with thousands of other Westerners I was seduced by the exotic East and it’s religions. I thought that the solution for me and solution to the mess that is human interaction on the planet was to be found there. But I was wrong, and it took quite an effort to admit it.

This is the same type of situation I wrote to you before, with your ‘promises’ that you perceived, and then were never delivered. There for you created opportunity for you to be offended. This offence is projected as the failure of Osho and All Gurus throughout time, and then you can offer your solution...The New 3^rd way... (but I did notice in other posts since then you stopped referring to your perceptions as promises...)

I take it that you are referring to the post when I stated the reasons I became a Sannyasin (to quote) –

‘When I first became a Rajneeshee, I was attracted by two things –

• The promise at what I would call peace of mind, the permanent cessation the endless self-centred churning thoughts and emotions in me.
• The promise of peace on earth, the emergence of a ‘new man’, such as would bring an end to war, pollution, poverty, repression, violence and sorrow on this fair planet.’

You will notice I said the promise ‘at’ rather than the promise ‘of’ since, even in those heady days, I had the sense to realise it was up to me.

As for the New Man – ‘Zorba the Buddha’ – that particular dream died for me, and many others I know of, when the Ranch folded. The dream failed there and then, and any mention of it to Sannyasins only results in either blank looks and statements such as yours. Maybe I was the only one who gave any credence to the concept of a New Man. Maybe I was just naïve ... (I certainly was gullible).

Were you around in the Ranch days? If I got the whole ‘Zorba the Buddha’ bit wrong, tell me how you saw it. What are you expecting from Sannyas?

Busy? Just pointing out how you attempt to deceive, confuse, and how you now evade by making yourself the same as ‘There were many more Sannyasins around the world in communes for whom those 5 years’ ..., but you, you Peter did not worship for 5 years. Period. If you had you might have realized what the ranch was really about. However, in this regard you do have lots of company. Many Sannyasins didn’t get what the ranch was about. They merely saw the next lesson for them. To have an overview that is true, a genuine perspective of what Osho was doing there, you would have to be near his level of consciousness, and I’m afraid that is quite a stretch for you.

Being a down-to-earth sort of ‘old chap’ and a bit naïve to boot – I believed it was about a New Man, a city to challenge the world, a new way of living and working together, a new way of being together as human beings. A city of higher consciousness than the rest of the world. A city free of crime, a city of love.

But as you say that I am only one of the many who ‘didn’t get what the ranch was about’, perhaps you can tell me what the Ranch was really about? What is the true overview as you see it?

*

There were many more Sannyasins around the world in communes for whom those 5 years were ‘a time of continual ‘worship’ and excitement, being part of this great experiment, and there was little time for, or emphasis on, therapy or meditation’. Not an exaggeration but a common experience for thousands I assume. It is an exaggeration to assume that only those ‘Resident’ on the Ranch had the vision, shared the experiences and felt the feelings I talk about.

As I said the main point of the story is relevant to all Sannyasins at the time – with a gun, without a gun, on the front line, or watching on from elsewhere in the world.

So, do you really want my answer here? Well I’ll write it for everyone else, who doesn’t trash these posts, because I don’t feel you’ll hear it, but what the heck, I’ve got plenty of time.

I would like to know – it is almost impossible to find anyone who is willing to clearly talk about those times. And I have got plenty of time as well.

BTW, I used to be an officer on the National Guard, and I know the military mentality or lack of same very well.

I have never done military service, just spiritual service, so you are one up on me there.

It is true that the ranch was a very dangerous place. I know, but I wonder if you know why?

Was it because both sides were armed, and both sides were convinced they were ‘right,’ and were convinced that the other side was ‘wrong’? Just a guess, but that is the basis of most wars, conflicts, ethnic cleansings, sectarian violence, disputes, troubles, etc. in the world.

*

Being a down-to-earth sort of ‘old chap’ and a bit naïve to boot – I believed it was about a New Man, a city to challenge the world, a new way of living and working together, a new way of being together as human beings. A city of higher consciousness than the rest of the world. A city free of crime, a city of love. But as you say I am only one of the many who ‘didn’t get what the ranch was about’, perhaps you can tell me what the Ranch was really about? What is the true overview as you see it?

I am rather down to earth also, but I am rarely naïve growing up in New York City, rather I am innocent when I am. Unlike you who ‘believed’ the ranch was about the things you mentioned, I saw that it was indeed about these things and more. It was to create a Mecca, a magnetic force to bring all open people to Osho.

Okay, so whereas I merely ‘believed’ what the ranch was about, you ‘know’ and you ‘see’ due to your higher level of consciousness. It does rather strain my neck a bit, as I am forced to forever look ‘up’ to your level. It does make discussion, on the basis of us being two human beings, more than a bit difficult.

It is true that the ranch was a very dangerous place. I know, but I wonder if you know why?

Was it because both sides were armed, and both sides were convinced they were ‘right,’ and were convinced that the other side was ‘wrong’? Just a guess, but that is the basis of most wars, conflicts, ethnic cleansings, sectarian violence, disputes, troubles, etc. in the world.

No, the ranch was a very dangerous place because of the potential to be a Mecca of consciousness. Were it to succeed, it would have been a gigantic embarrassment to all religious and political leaders.

I guess we at least agree on the fact that it failed. None of the many similar experiments that have occurred throughout history have succeeded and most have either imploded, died a disreputable death, or dawdled to extinction. The Ranch died when Rajneesh flew out.

Osho would have proved that they were 3^rd rate mentalities. There is no way, in my view, that those in power would permit the ranch to reach its potential. They would have simply dropped nerve gas on us, and then thrown cool-aid packages around the place, and 99.99% of the people in the world would believe that Jonestown repeated itself.

I seem to remember that the Ranch imploded from internal strife, corruption, violence, deception, and deceit rather than from military intervention. Seems to me you are being a bit hypothetical here – something I was accused of when I stated that I probably would have killed for the ‘love’ of my Master.

Yes, apart from the devout few in Pune the Sannyas world seems to have little to do with what Osho was really talking about. It seems to have become yet another quasi-religious social club able to loosely contain all manners of beliefs and New Age fads.

I like the movie ‘The Life of Brian’ a lot. The poor guy, Brian, is saying to the crowds: ‘piss off’, ‘I am not your saviour, you have to think for yourself’ and throws a sandal at the crowds that have seen some kind of messiah in him. The crowd immediately picks up the sandal and preserves it as ‘holy’, and more, everybody takes off one of their own sandals to follow their master! Most of us follow something and Osho keeps sending us the message: ‘Stop the fucking nonsense you bunch of idiots and just see for yourself. Don’t kiss my finger nor bite it but effortlessly see the fucking moon Here and Now!!! Don’t wait for anything, see, investigate who you are, don’t postpone. Nothing is needed.’ He was telling us jokes, creating situations that were difficult to take, created vigorous meditations to break barriers within us, and finally he refused any medical treatment to shock us into independence by dying prematurely... I mean, what more the guy could possibly have done to stop us from either licking, kissing or biting his finger pointing to the reality of life? He practically nullified all religious concepts so that following him mentally be difficult, to show us that for every concept there is an anti-concept. He said that we have to be vigilant and finally to give up any idea of superiority/inferiority related to the master! He wanted us to be balanced, happy human beings, enjoying all aspects of our life – even the parts that are almost impossible to accept.

Yeah, I liked ‘Life of Brian’ a lot and remember watching it after the end of Rajneeshpuram and thinking the same – that we had stuffed it up. The real shocking thing for me happened sometime last year, when I started to question my loyalty and devotion to Osho. I realised that, had I been on the Ranch at the end at the time when it was under threat, I would have defended Osho – to the point of having a gun and using it. That bought home to me the fact that I was willing to kill or die for my beliefs. And then I saw that this was exactly what others did for their beliefs. And then it was easy – the whole stack of cards fell, I was able to see actually what went on, free of my rose-coloured glasses. But it is not something I can make someone else understand – for me I had a realization such that the whole construct of belief, trust, faith, loyalty and love collapsed.

Also this is not an anti-Osho thing particularly, it is just that he was my spiritual master so I know that ‘path’ very well. I too was attracted to the no-god teachings of Osho initially. But what I have found is that the East have a different concept of God compared to the Christians. As such, the teachers rile against the idea of God (the white bearded one in heaven), while merely espousing the Eastern concept of God. According to Eastern teaching you can realize God while in the body (Enlightenment) and then have an after-life (the Further Shore, Mahapari-Nirvana, the Ultimate Liberation, etc.).

Eastern spirituality is such a nebulous and confusing mish-mash that it is hard to make sense of it, but I found it essential to understand what it was that I was following. It is a devilishly clever mythical construct and is given credence by the feelings of love, togetherness and bliss that well up in the heart while in the seductive presence of the teachers.

Look, all I am saying is that the facts, the results, don’t stack up with the beliefs and hopes.

As for Sannyas, I’ve never been into believing in God; as a matter of fact, Osho repeatedly said God doesn’t exist.

I know many discourses where he talks of God, Oneness, Divine, Sacred, Holy, Nirvana, Love, Being, Buddha Nature etc. The use of words with capital letters in all his writings and books is a clear indication of God or the Divine in whatever form or description. The Eastern spiritual tradition is not monotheist like most Western spiritualism and, as such, God is a slippery concept, and deliberately so. Whichever way you look at it, both Eastern and Western Spirituality clearly indicate a ‘something else’ or ‘somewhere else’ apart from this physical universe.

To call a spade a spade – it’s all God ... be it by any other name ... a ‘something else’ or ‘somewhere else’ apart from this physical universe.

Yes, slippery, like a bar of soap one desperately tries to grasp when taking a shower. Don’t know why you insist on talking about God. There is no God, for Christ’s sake!

I keep forgetting that for Sannyasins now Rajneesh is God, not merely the Master ‘who’s finger points to the moon’. He is the moon, hence the shift in Sannyas from seeking enlightenment and freedom to grateful prayer, worship and devotional servitude to Him. I wrote a bit in my journal of the time when it first became apparent to me that Rajneesh was God and Sannyas was a Religion – ... ‘I returned to the West for more work, a bit of travelling and another relationship. Almost my entire work and friendships were within the Rajneesh community, or the ‘Club’ as I called it, but even this attachment was beginning to wane. When the men, particularly, would gather and talk about the Ranch, it always reminded me of old soldiers retelling their stories and I thought: ‘Is this how I’m going to live my life out; remembering the Good Old Days?’ I went back to Poona once more but it was very clear it had finished for me. After all, the whole attraction of the spiritual path in the first place was that I regarded it not as Religion – it involved being in the presence of a living Master, and now he was dead. I had even come to see the pictures of Rajneesh that hung on the walls of friends’ houses as no different to the little statues of ‘Jesus-nailed-to-the-cross’ that I saw on the walls in Catholic homes as a teenager’ ... Methinks you have your own God and happily dismiss anyone else’s God – a common form of slipperiness well used in the spiritual world. Whichever way you look at it, both Eastern and Western Spirituality clearly indicate a ‘something else’ or ‘somewhere else’ apart from this physical universe

All of the major Religions and their systems of morals and ethics have as their roots the reported teachings of long dead Masters, Gurus, and Prophets.

So what, your crap is also based on Osho, except you don’t have the intelligence to be thankful for everything he gave you including the very language you use...

I have nothing to be thankful for nor anything to be resentful of Rajneesh. What the whole experience of Sannyas gave me was a unique opportunity. The early days of the ranch years were to experience a following of a religious leader from inspiration, through isolationism and fanaticism, to the brink of martyrdom. To then see the formation of a Religion, witness the splintering into factions and now the inevitable decline, all in some 20 years is indeed serendipitous. What an extraordinary opportunity – I wouldn’t have missed it for quids!

In a recent reply to No 11 you stated – ‘What nagged me was that I would end up an Enlightened guru and I didn’t like their lifestyles, I didn’t like how they were with their women, and I didn’t like the whole system of God-man and worshippers.’

It appears to me that you must have had intimate contact with a considerable number of these people to make such a statement. Is that the case?

If this is so, your definition of Guru differs markedly from mine.

Well, not many people had ‘intimate contact’ with Osho for he led a life of increasing isolation and separation from his disciples. I did, however, see enough ‘back stage’, as it were, to see a lot that was hidden from many.

The bit I write about in the journal will give you a brief idea –

... ‘I was doing a bit of casual ‘worship’ in the architect’s office one day towards the end of my stay when we were all asked to come up with some ideas for a new bedroom for Rajneesh. Within a week I found myself working in the inner compound where he lived, converting the original open meeting hall into a huge glass and Italian marble circular bedroom. What an opportunity! So when my visa expired, I went back home, sold a house I had purchased with others, and returned within three months. The project took almost two years, and I worked daily in his house, gaining many insights into the inner workings around Rajneesh himself. I met him twice, very briefly, which was quite a rare event as, apart from discourse, he spent his whole time isolated in his room. My impression of him was that he was on ‘another planet’, but that was what I expected anyway. The last time I saw him was when we had finished his room, and he looked very fragile and weak.

The room was completed and he moved in for a week, and then went back to his old bedroom. I was then offered a job overseeing the building developments in the ashram, with the lure of becoming a Resident – free food, rent paid and other appropriate privileges of rank. I worked closely with the leaders of the ashram, sometimes travelling to Bombay on business, but I became increasingly uncomfortable with the level of politicking and scheming – to put it plainly, power-tripping and ingratiating behaviour. I guess I thought things just ‘happened’ around Rajneesh, but to see this cesspool of power, plotting and intrigue below the surface reminded me of the failure of the Ranch. It came to a head at one particular meeting when suddenly I could see the whole hidden agenda operating beneath the surface. It became glaringly obvious: here was power and corruption again, but this time done by highly skilled ‘operators’, not amateurs. Whether the motive be Good or Evil, Right or Wrong, I simply saw power as power over someone else. And, of course, it had the authority of Rajneesh behind it, which was curious given that he had denied being the power and authority behind the goings-on at the Ranch. ...’ Peter’s Journal, ‘Spiritual Search’

The main point about Rajneesh was that he was not available to scrutiny, and deliberately avoided it. I was witness to one incident when a disciple of many years was publicly dressed-down in Buddha Hall because he had been overheard by someone casting doubts on His truthfulness.

Rajneesh certainly did not have an ordinary life in terms of being free to come and go as He pleased in anything resembling normality, and the women in his life all worshipped the very ground He stood on. Any semblance of direct down-to-earth intimacy (or communication) between ‘fellow human beings’ is inherently impossible in the God-man – disciple system.

No 12: Getting back to my story, ... <Snip> ... At the first annual world celebration at the ranch in 1982, on the first day not wanting to wait in line all night, I slept in and was one of the last to arrive. I walked in to Rajneesh Mandir, and feeling the open hearts of 12,000 people, I burst out crying and didn't stop for hours. Now years later, I don't feel I know anything really, yet I have a perspective from which to see and understand. Now years later, I don’t feel I know anything really, yet I have a perspective from which to see and understand. It has just occurred to me that this list is the only place I really ‘talk’ about this. (I’ve been wondering what my attraction to this list is about.)

To No 12: This is the first time I have really felt you in an e-mail. Beautifully put.

I see you liked No 12’s story –

Swapping stories is surely one of the most useful by-product of discussion. That we can swap stories as to what we have found out about being a human being.

I would like to tell you my ‘ranch’ story –

... ‘The first time I saw Rajneesh was when he came out, outlandishly dressed, and sat on the podium in the huge meeting hall. Ecstatic music alternated with sitting in silence. It was an extraordinary, moving experience. Here he was at last, and what a show! Every day we would form up in a mile-long snaking line in the baking sun as he slowly drove by in one of his many Rolls Royces. Being part of this multi-national movement, building a city in the desert to challenge the world, to bring a ‘new man’ to the planet and to be with the ‘Master of Masters’, was hearty stuff indeed. The years in India had been the hippy years of therapy and rebellion, with Rajneesh intimately involved. These were the years of building Rajneeshpuram with Rajneesh himself in silence and isolation. For me those five years were a time of continual ‘worship’ and excitement, being part of this great experiment, and there was little time for, or emphasis on, therapy or meditation.

But beneath the surface things were beginning to go terribly wrong. The local authorities were becoming increasingly alarmed at what was happening and began to legally challenge the city’s development. The women in power began a program of trenchant legal resistance and more and more resorted to covert activities of vote rigging, bugging, dirty tricks and even poisoning. Rajneesh began talking again, also to the press, goading the local community and the politicians. The city had its own police force, and I remember seeing videos of residents training with guns, such was the feeling of paranoia that was developing. At my last festival visit some of my friends acted as guards for Rajneesh, standing on the podium with automatic weapons. On several occasions I helped to guard around the commune, but never armed. Rumours abounded that the government was going to close the Ranch, come what may, and that the National Guard was on stand-by. When the illegal activities became known, the FBI came to investigate. Rajneesh publicly proclaimed his ignorance of any wrong-doings and several days later flew out in his private jet, only to be arrested trying to leave the country.

Questions that were never convincingly answered for me from this time were: ‘Did Rajneesh know what was going on, and if he didn’t, why didn’t he?’ The answer I most often heard as a justification was that it was all a ‘lesson’ for us about power and responsibility. In other words: we were at fault, not him. I could not make any sense of it at all, but I was mostly grateful that he was eventually released and safe.

The question that most haunted me later was a theoretical one: ‘If I had been there at the time, what would I have done if the city had been attacked? Would I have fought to stop them, to protect Rajneesh? Would I have taken a gun if offered? Would I have killed?’ The answer is most probably ‘yes’, given the fervour, paranoia and passion of my faith and belief at the time. I had actually experienced what it is that makes people kill others, to die for their belief or to protect their leader.’ ... Peter’s Journal, ‘Spiritual Search’

Recently, I was speaking to someone who was carrying a gun there, in fact many of them were friends of mine, and interestingly, he was of the opinion that many of them would not have been able to kill anyone. So maybe that is why you weren’t given a gun!

T’is interesting writing on this list. When I said I was a Sannyasin to find peace of mind and peace on earth (the New Man), I was told I was silly. When I said I was seeking Enlightenment, I was told I was silly. When I said Rajneesh was talking about God, I was told I was silly. When I said Rajneesh was teaching in the Eastern spiritual tradition, I was told I was silly. When I said I saw the Religion forming, I was told I was silly. When I said that I probably would have killed to protect Rajneesh – all of a sudden I am the only one who loved him that much!

The level of denial is quite breath-taking. Most take the facts we are talking of and take them personally, whereas we are talking of the Human Condition – common to all. Any personal experiences we relate, as evidence of the Human Condition in us, is then used against us, as a defence for the status quo.

Maybe I am just too naïve ... but I do like naiveté – it’s the closest quality to innocence that we humans can muster.

I was a Rajneeshee for some 15 years full on, living in various communes, giving money, countless hours of worship, meditation, satsang, white robe, discourses, etc. – so I have well experienced the world of Osho.

When I first became a Rajneeshee, I was attracted by two things –

• The promise at what I would call peace of mind, the permanent cessation the endless self-centred churning thoughts and emotions in me.
• The promise of peace on earth, the emergence of a ‘new man’, such as would bring an end to war, pollution, poverty, repression, violence and sorrow on this fair planet.

I turned my back on the normal world and, falling in love with the Master, launched myself into this new adventure. I was particularly taken by his wisdom about Religions and the problems they cause and the fact that most wars and persecutions are the result of blindly following some particular Religious doctrine and defending or attacking others of differing belief.

The first 4 years were glorious, with the aim of a utopia in America, a city to show the world how to live. The heady days came crashing down with the internal corruptions and the external pressures from the local communities who felt threatened by the anti-Christian Devil and his followers in their midst. The threat of violence was diffused when Rajneesh left and the dream was shattered.

Then came Pune 2, and delicious years of worship in the Ashram, architect/builder for the Samadhi, meditation and groups, and then He died. I continued on devotionally for some 2 years, but found myself following a dead Master – something that was at odds with my understanding that when a Master dies the formation of a Religion is the inevitable result. Sure enough, one night in White Robe it hit me like a ton of bricks as I was shouting ‘YA-HOO’ to an empty chair. Is this what it had all come to? This was undoubtedly religious practice, church if you like, the organization with its own rules, ethics and morals was a Religion, the Ashram was Mecca, the Samadhi a holy shrine, and Sannyas a world wide religious-social club.

Such was my pride and loyalty that it took another year or two before I finally began to look for something fresh and new in the spiritual world and tried out a few other scenes. None was satisfactory, but I did begin to gain a broader vision of the spiritual world. Finally, I realized that the Spiritual is nothing more than Eastern Religion, that in fact I had only traded believing in Western Religion for believing in an Eastern Religion. And all of it merely ‘that Old-time Religion’, to quote from the song.

Why was it that that Spirituality seems to promise so much and has delivered so little? The East is a chaos of poverty, pollution, overpopulation, repression for women, multitudinous worship of gods and ancient spirits, rigid class structures, theocracies, technological underdevelopment, sexual repression, corruption, etc. And yet we look to their religions as the solution to both personal, and global, peace and harmony?

The other issue for me was that I saw, despite the centuries of devotion, meditation, spiritual practice and surrender, that so few had achieved the prized goal of Enlightenment. I saw recently that a Buddhist claimed, with some pride, that only about a thousand Enlightened ones had emerged from 2,500 years of devout effort by millions of monks. This meant a success rate of 0.0001% – pretty bad odds, and confirmed in my personal experience in Sannyas and amongst Osho followers.

In the end I had to admit that Spirituality was a failure for me and was as inherently flawed as all other religious pursuits.

Up until now there have only been two alternatives on offer for a human being, either to be normal and accept the world as it is, or be spiritual/religious. The only difference between the last two is that religion promises paradise in an after-life and spiritual (eastern religion) offers a glimpse of it while ‘in the body’ and a ‘final’ release into a glorious after-life (Nirvana, etc.)

Now there is a third alternative – a new, non-spiritual, down-to-earth, actual freedom.

A freedom from the Human Condition of sorrow and malice – the freedom to be happy and harmless.

I have been reading more of your site and still find many things you say resonate with me, but I am feeling that one of the things that causes me to feel some distance in regard to you is your constant naming of our departed friend as Rajneesh, instead of the name he came to prefer, OSHO. I cannot understand this lack of respect, and I cannot understand why you like to call yourself an ex-Rajneeshee. In my experience Sannyasins rarely called ourselves Rajneeshees, it always seemed to be a term flung at us by the media and others who wanted to cast us in a certain light. I have always found the term a bit offensive. Perhaps this is a result of my beliefs and conditioning. I will look into myself further around this. Meanwhile I just want to put this out. I love the name OSHO, I love the being OSHO, and I find that the way you choose to speak of him stands in my mind as something between us. So I put it out to you, into the space between us. Isn’t that part of the method you love? To examine everything that prevents us becoming intimate and equal. Well, this is something I would like to examine with you.

I had a conversation with someone yesterday, who said that how I talked and wrote was offensive. I asked whether she found what I was saying was offensive or how I said it. Few bother to make the distinction. I have had mostly criticism of what I have said in my story but to date no disputing of facts. I take from this that the responses are emotional ones based on my stepping on someone’s dearly held belief. And of course they feel personally attacked. On a bigger scale this leads to religious wars and persecutions. For me I truck with nothing Religious or Spiritual. I have no religious tolerance whatsoever, so all call me evil, but given that I was a Sannyasin, particularly the followers of Mr. Chandra Mohan call me evil.

The other thing I have been musing over is the curious reaction from Sannyasins to my Journal. I liked Sannyas and Sannyasins, particularly in the early days. There was a sense of pioneering, challenging the norm, giving it a boots and all approach. Now I get many people telling me ‘I’m all right’, ‘I’m watching my self’, ‘I’m happy’, ‘Life goes on and I’m going with the flow’, ‘I am already That, all I have to do is realize it’ ‘There is nothing I can do – it is all in God’s hand’s’ etc. etc. Acceptance was always an acceptance of me as I was, whereas if I was honest with myself, I wasn’t the best I could be – I wasn’t free.

Is your ‘questioning of the teacher’ on your web site yet?

The ‘questioning of the teacher’ basically consisted in my stating that Rajneesh had failed as a Guru. It particularly upset the correspondent who then repeated the passage on the list several times to flag everyone’s attention and shortly after that we were cyber-executed.

Actualism Homepage