Master Osho says that chakras exist because the process of energy in the individual realm is not enough clean. That the function of chakras is to process such an energy. So the number of chakras as well as their location, colors, and so on, vary from individual to individual. This view sounds interesting but a little bothering for those following a given framework. He speaks also of imaginary chakras that are created with mind power (a maya expression) by those who use imaginery instead of feeling...
I don't know if he is taking things sensu strictori or just rhetorical. Is there someone who can comment?
Osho: Meditación: el arte del éxtasis, capítulo 6.
You need to be a member of Yoga Vidya International - Yoga, Meditation and Spirituality to add comments!
Join Yoga Vidya International - Yoga, Meditation and Spirituality
Replies
One who is truly dwell in the astral or causal conciseness (turia) knows the truth of chakras of micro cosmic plane. It’s just causal charge buoyancy and its applications. One who does not dwell in the realm of finer conciseness planes can’t fathom the intricacy of chakras process of operation. Normally dwellers of lower planes can experience few manifested radiation of the charge conciliation and reconciliations with in and out of the micro cosmic realm. Unfortunately I don’t belong to the higher realm as a sat guru to understand the explanations of Guru Osho, but I know so what ever He say must be correct, just very few who dwell in the proximate realm can understand truly. Rest of us can owe and work hard to grow up to higher plane of understanding.
It is not "alive" enough to him, it is something dead.
What is gathered in these hundreds of books are only his talks.
Reading these is enough to be convinced of his extraordinary state of awareness for me, if one is not, it is just not the time for one to understand ...
Lets see an example:
There is a question about kundalini, I think it fits into the discussion-theme of this thread, and lets see his answer.
IN SEARCH OF THE MIRACULOUS, Vol.II S.258
The Question: It is said that when the kundalini awakens it eats the flesh and drinks the blood. What does that mean?
Answer from OSHO (only an extract):
"When the kundalini rises there will be a complete change in your body. In that transformation your flesh may decrease and so also your blood, but it will decrease strictly to your requirements. So the body will be completely transformed. Only as much flesh and blood as is necessary for the body will remain; the rest will be burnt away. Then only will you feel light; then only you will be able to fly in the inner sky. This will be the difference.
What has been said is correct. The meditator has to have a special diet and a special arrangement for living, or else he will find himself in difficulties.
...
Therefore (and being my own experience I state this as true/ Satyamitra), the personality should be very harmonious and some channels of juicy qualities should be developed. For instance, take an angry person: if his kundalini awakens he will find himself in difficulty. He is a dry and course person, so if a fire should burn within him he will be in trouble.
A loving person has a deep chemical harmony. There is a smoothness of chemical harmony within him. He will not be aversely affected by the awakening of kundalini..."
end of exert
So one can see, the ability to love has to be developed together with kundalini. Thats most important to prevent those difficulties.
Satyamitra
Om Nama Shivaya
Also, there is no such thing as negative Kundalini there is only Kundalini that moves through the wrong nadi or intermittently rises and cycles between Muladhara and Anahata, or meets obstacles imposed by lifestyle or attitude, or arises because of life traumas or intense experiences.
I usually do not comment on the quality of someone's spiritual teacher with one exception-and that exception is Osho AKA Shree Rajneesh. This was a person who was completely corrupted by his premature involvement with Kundalini and drugs before he had resolved his prannic and Chakra imbalances. He was and still is a danger to the unsuspecting.
Osho, AKA Sri Rajneesh, began his career preaching free love. Rajneesh came to the U.S. in 1981 to escape income tax evasion charges in India. He lasted only five years in the U.S. before being arrested while attempting to flee that U.S. and was deported in 1986 after pleading 'no contest' to immigration charges. He was charged with one count of criminal conspiracy (RICO), and 34 counts of making false statements to federal (INS) officers. He plea bargained down to the 'no contest' admission on 2 of the 34 counts and was given a 10-year suspended sentence on condition of not returning to the U.S. for five years.
Just before being deported from the U.S. in the 80's his ashram was patrolled by armed guards; he and his followers were involved in the attempted murder of the Oregon state attorney that was investigating the Rajneesh organization; they poisoned the food in 10 restaurants and 750 people became ill in an attempt to incapacitate voters so that the Rajneesh slate could win an election. By 1985 many of his most trusted aides had abandoned the movement, which was under investigation for multiple felonies including arson, attempted murder, drug smuggling, and vote fraud in the nearby town of Antelope.
Rajneesh's corporations were ordered to pay $400,000 to the state of Oregon in compensation for investigative costs, $500,000 to settle claims of the restaurants that suffered losses due to poisonings, an additional $400,000 to the restaurant owners, $5 million to the Oregon state victim fund, to sell the ranch and to waive all claims to money and jewels impounded when he was finally arrested in North Carolina.
When in 1985 Rajneesh pleaded guilty to immigration fraud and was deported from the U.S he was refused entry by 21 countries before a settlement was reached on the outstanding income tax evasion charges in India and he returned to Pune to set up another compound patrolled by armed guards.
Rajneesh's followers did not fare too well either. Ma Ananda Sheela, Rajneesh's personal secretary and top aide, was convicted of masterminding the plot to poison 750 people in the The Dalles, Oregon in the bizarre attempt to incapacitate voters so that a Rajneesh slate could be elected.
For the attempted murder of Charles Turner, Oregon U.S. Attorney, seven of Rajneesh's followers were indicted, six were convicted and the other was able to avoid extradition from Europe.
Two of Rajneesh's followers convicted in the attempted murder of Turner were also convicted of wire-tapping along with 14 other of Rajneesh's followers. Another five are at large.
Rajneesh was a drug addict who was addicted to Valium and who inhaled nitrous oxide both of which seriously impaired his judgment.
These facts about Rajneesh and his followers are all a matter of public record - along with their mug shots.
By the late 80's, AIDS came on the scene, so Rajneesh renamed himself Osho, gave up on his free love doctrine and began to preach a perverted version of Buddhism. He died mysteriously in 1990 and many say that he was poisoned by his senior followers so that they could control his many products worth millions annually.
In the Western style of thinking there is a figure called AD HOMINEM which is considered to be a fallacy, a sophism. It consists for a thesis to be appraised not by the thesis itself but by a feature linked someway to his/her proposer. We commit an ad hominem when, for instance, in discussing the strengths of the Osho’s thesis related to the (non) convenience of a theoretical framework for chakras and Kundalini management, someone points at the fact that Osho’s behavior was such and such, so his utterances whatsoever are deprived of value.
Is our dear Peter Beacham suspicious of Ad Hominem? I do not think so. Or at least, such an 'ad hominem' does not work as a fallacy in this context. In the framework we are dealing with I think it is pertaining to introduce the living-source of a corpus of doctrine (in this case Osho), specially when claiming to be an enlightened master; but we have to be cautious when arriving to conclusions.
It is pertaining I say, because one thing is a piece of speech elaborated by intellectual means and another, one from an enlightened mind; both interpreting and developing the personal's and fellow's experience. Moreover, Mother Kundalini is said (Gopi Krishna) to be responsible not only of biological, physiological changes but of genious both intellectual and spiritual, and not only focused in a given person but of the whole humankind.
We have to be cautious, I say, because it is not intelligent, it does not suffice to apply to a spiritual master the rationale we do to any other person. As being ‘Kundalini awakening’ not just a personal development phenomenon but a cosmic one; and ‘enlightenment’, a kundalini related process, an enlightened master is expected to be thought as an instrument of an evolutionary process, a living factor. He or she is not suposed to behave the way one expects. A spiritual master is not an easy matter to treat. We usually expect such and such characteristics of one of these beings but they are usually not available the way we would like. So we get disappointed. A master is a paradoxical being. The Master-Disciple relationship is one of the experiences that yoguis have to work hard from the intellect and the enlightenment. In a nutshell: in the ethic realm we risk of being shortsighting or farsighting.
By the way, I am not related to Osho’s orb. I have not participated in any of his seminars, workshops or retreats. I know him just through the study of a few books of his authorship. They have made me to think of him as a great thinker for he permits us clear some thesis that one usually has hard time to realize.
Through his writings Osho has helped yoghis to understand things which other way are truly obscure.
What Peter Beacham says is probably true. I have read ‘El Rebelde’ and another book called ‘Guerra Bacteriológica’ where some of his utterances are recorded. But I repeat: the lives of many spiritual Masters (Ramakrishna, Osho, Sai Baba, and so on) are hard, paradoxical, counter common sense.
Moreover, taking the statement of the parallels of Osho and Christ at facevalue, as it is elaborated by his disciples, could cause a smile to some of us, specially when we catch that the intention is identifying them. It is so hard specially when recalling an anecdote of the same Osho:
A Senior Demon was at rest when some petit demons were running towards Him in a mess. My Lord! My Lord! Protect us. A Budha has awakened. The Demon was calmy. My Lord! You don’t listen to Us. A Buda has born. Bah! He said. Do not worry! He soon will pass away and his disciples will do our work…and better!
… But it is not absolute non sense if studied via semiotics. What makes sense is to take this presumptive parallelism in the correct frame and in the just equidistance.
Other point:
It is not news for us, yoga, meditation or martial arts practitioners/instructors, the fact that when devoted to these practices for a time, some students can get certain disorders related to chakra or kundalini. Sometimes followers of some gurus ask for help and they do not receive response. There are therapists that speak of techniques which could help to those. Once someone told to me of 'the water meditation' or the 'water breathing' I do not remember very well. Has anyone some information of these to share? The subject is important since there are researchers like Professor Francis Lefebure posing that kundalini related desorders are not natural but a matter of a bad regimen, the misapplication of a technique. And they propose modern means like neurotechnology, phosfenismo, and so on claiming to get results without risk. Others like Ravindra Kumar have some recommendations for an integral regimen which not comes to a syndrome.
These are just some points I would like to introduce to this interesting exchange.
Finally, thanks to Peter who recommends us the books of the Himalayan Academy. I have just given them a glance and feel the same: their reading is a must.
I am sorry, but this is absolute nonsense!
Yes, some things above might be true, as you (Peter) wrote, but he was not a drug addict....he did not even drink tee or coffee!!!
And he could not prevent all these things happening, thats right, but you can not state he knew of all this before it came out. And that he was poisoned by the american state government in prison....and not by his followers....to bring an evidence is difficult, I am not sure about this....You see what other impression only this little corrections give.
And one other thing: There are things, that only his closest sannyasins, those who loved him, could see: He was a man equal in consciousness to Gautam Buddha and Jesus, maybe even higher than Jesus!
There are thousands or even hundredthousands of people which can reassure that and I can and have to attest to this, having been around him. You could say I must have been very blind and stupid .. But: have you seen him eyes to eyes? Or have you seen him and did not recognize him? That would be a shame for you...
So you see, these things cannot be discussed ...
Agreeing with Kulanda...Osho is not my Guru. The true Guru is inside...but when it is time to find the inner, it reflects on seeing someone outside, too. Thats miraculous...
Satyamitra
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next