Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi corruption

[Guest guest]

OM Swamiji

 

Could it be that you are falling victim to the degenerate,

self-absorbed mindset of Rajneesh that also engulfed his

followers when he was alive?

 

In Bliss Divine, Swami Sivananda says that the qualities of a

Tantric disciple "are purity, faith, devotion, dispassion,

truthfulness, and control of the senses." What does this checklist

tell us about you? Are you a legitimate Swami? Or, are you

simply a householder, subject to the negativity of that 'human

nature' that you love so much?

 

Those 'misdirections and fallacies' about Rajneesh, as you put

it, are all a matter of public record - along with his mug shot.

 

The important aspect of the Sivananda vs Rajneesh comparison

is not their respective philosophies/spiritual paths, both of which

are viable in the hands of competent, purified people. The

important aspect is that Swami Sivananda did not succumb to

the lure of public adulation, the rise of siddhis, and the pride of

achieving lower levels of Self-Realization whereas Rajneesh did

allow himself to be corrupted by fame, power, money, and prana.

 

This message thread started with message 8609 where Devi

Bhakta presented a discussion he had with another member on

the advisability of intentionally developing siddis. Rajneesh is

an excellent example of why one should not focus on developing

siddhis or any of the other byproducts of Kundalini but instead

should rigorously eschew such phenomena and continue along

toward a merger with the Divine (Chaitanya or Nirvilkalpa

Samadhi).

 

Rajneesh not only allowed himself to wallow in empty prana

accomplishments such as the siddhis of telepathy and astral

projection but also steadfastly ignored warning signs that were

being sent to him by his own body that he was out-of-control.

Rajneesh reported had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Type II

diabetes, asthma, severe back pain and fibromyalgia. His

autonomic nervous system was damaged and led to neurally

mediated hypotension (low blood pressure while standing),

which, in turn, led to chronic fatigue and a lower IQ. His

addictions led to paranoia among other things. All verified and in

the public record.

 

Early on, before his mental faculties became impaired, he could

have chosen to listen to what his body was telling him about his

dis-ease and sought out competent energy healers. Energy

healers are very adept at finding the psychological basis of

physical disease. Good energy healers are also adept at

determining the karmic basis of physical disease. But

Rajneesh's ego, puffed up by siddhis and public adulation,

would not allow him to consult such energy healers. He

personally suffered greatly as a result. In addition, he caused

great harm to others. These injuries to himself and others will

have grave karmic consequences for him in future lives.

 

So, for the question of the perils of intentionally raising siddhis

and wallowing in them if they do arise, one need look no further

than the pathetic but instructive tale of the late Rajneesh. Beware

of chasing siddhis and of those who choose to profit from their

siddhis for both will drag you down to a karmic doom.

 

It is still not too late.

 

Paths are many, Truth is One.

 

Omprem

 

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Omprem,

>

> Rather than reply to the various misdirections and

> fallacies you stated about Osho, I will simply

> reiterated what I said earlier. You can learn a lot

> about the spiritual value of a teacher by seeing who

> hates him.

>

> If one is interested in being a hindu fundamentalist

> or a rigid fanatic, or on the other side of ingesting

> new age touchy-feely spiritual pablum with no

> substance, then one should stay very far away from

> Osho.

> On the other hand, if you are against both of those,

> then consider that both of those are against Osho.

> Then read what Osho has to say, and draw your own

> conclusions.

>

> Love

> Swami

>

>

> --- omprem <omprem> wrote:

> > OM Kanna Krishnan

> >

> > While I appreciate your tact and your attempt to

> > offer a balanced

> > explanation of views of Swami Sivananda's views and

> > Rajneesh,

> > it seems to me that actions speak louder than words.

> >

> >

> > Rajneesh was a degenerate, who allowed himself to

> > become

> > corrupted by power. In assessing Rajneesh, one

> > should

> > consider the following actions of Rajneesh, his cult

> > and his

> > followers rather than be swayed by his bafflegab:

> >

> > 1. Rajneesh came to the US in 1981 to escape income

> > tax

> > evasion charges in India. He lasted only 5 years in

> > the US until

> > he was arrested while attempting to flee the US and

> > was

> > deported in 1986 after pleading `no contest' to

> > immigration

> > crimes. 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 a `no

> > contest' on 2 of

> > the 34 counts and was given a 10-year suspended

> > sentence on

> > condition of not returning to the US for 5 years.

> >

> > His corporations were ordered to pay $400,000 to the

> > state of

> > Oregon in compensation for investigative costs,

> > $500,00 to settle

> > the claims of four restaurants who suffered losses

> > due to

> > poisonings, an additional $400,00 to the restaurant

> > owners, $5

> > million to the Oregon state victim's fund. He was

> > also ordered to

> > sell the ranch and waive all claims to money and

> > jewels

> > impounded with his plane when he was finally

> > arrested in North

> > Carolina.

> >

> > 2. Bioterrorism. Ma Ananada Sheela, Rajnesh's

> > personal

> > secretary and top aide, was convicted of

> > masterminding the plot

> > to poison 750 people in The Dalles, Oregon in a

> > bizarre attempt

> > to incapacitate voters so that a Rajneesh slate

> > could be elected.

> >

> > 3. For the attempted murder of Charles Turner,

> > Oregon US

> > Attorney, 7 of Rajneesh's followers are indicted, 6

> > are convicted

> > with the 7th being able to avoid extradition from

> > Europe.

> >

> > 4. Two of Rajnesh's followers convicted in the

> > attempted murder

> > of Turner are also convicted of wire-tapping along

> > with 14 other

> > Rajneesh followers. Another 5 remain at large.

> >

> > 5. Rajneesh was refused admittance to 21 countries

> > and was

> > only able to return to India when a settlement was

> > reached on

> > the income tax evasion charges.

> >

> > 6, Rajneesh was a drug addict who was addicted to

> > Valium and

> > who inhaled nitrous oxide both of which seriously

> > impaired his

> > judgement.

> >

> > This is not someone who should be held up as any

> > type of

> > spiritual model.

> >

> > OM Namah Sivaya

> >

> > Omprem

> >

> >

> > , kanna

> > krishnan

> > <kanna_krishnan2002> wrote:

> > > Dear All,

> > >

> > > Before anyone pass their judgement I suggest some

> > reading

> > into Bhagawan Rajneesh writings. Please do not pass

> > your

> > judgement by hearing words and what so called pseudo

> >

> > disciples have done . Diamond Book Series are a good

> > help.You

> > would know what his teachings really means. Remember

> >

> > Bhagawan Ramakrishna was also called mad in his

> > time.

> > >

> > > The poem by Swami Sivananda did not state maya as

> > evil but

> > only veil. I think there is some misunderstanding at

> > this point.

> > Illusion in english is a corrupt defination of what

> > Maya means in

> > sanskrit and Mahamaya would not only mean Great

> > Illusion as

> > some easily define it . A through defination of both

> > is given by

> > Swami Satyananda Sarasvathi of Devi Mandir . The

> > word

> > Mahamaya is most frequently referred in Kalika

> > Purana and even

> > Mahamaya worship have been defined there. For the

> > earnest

> > seekers that would be the text of reference apart

> > form Srimad

> > Devi Bhagavatham.

> > >

> > > Swami Sivananda is following the vedantic approach

> > of Neti !

> > Neti ! ( Not this ! Not this !)where else Bhagawan

> > Rajneesh

> > keeping up with his tantric expertise is saying Iti

> > ! Iti !( This in

> > essence is That). This is like one saying a cup is

> > half full while

> > the other is saying the cup is half empty !!! Both

> > are in essence

> > true (and it does not matter if both agrees on this

> > as both

> > perception are based on each differing understanding

> > and

> > experience )

> > >

> > > I thank the moderator( thank you for the patience)

> > of this group

> > for allowing both Om Premji as well as Swami Anand

> > Nisargji for

> > share their understanding on this matter!!!

> > >

> > > Hari Om !!

> > >

> > >

> > > Swami Anand Nisarg <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> > >

> > > Beloved Eric,

> > >

> > > As you may have picked up from my "biography", I

> > am

> > > not a huge fan of much of what Osho's followers

> > have

> > > done. It appears that Osho always used the method

> > of

> > > drawing together large numbers of followers, for

> > the

> > > sake of imparting real advancement to only a few.

> > > Periodically, he'd completely change the externals

> > of

> > > his teaching, which would then lead many of his

> > > current followers to reject him because it was

> > > precisely those externals which attracted them to

> > him,

> > > and not the real essence of his instruction. In

> > this

> > > way he went through a constant refining of the

> > type

> > > and qualities of his students, until he had a

> > small

> > > number who were his real "mystery school" (these

> > were

> > > not the administrators of his ashram either, those

> > > have mostly demonstrated themselves to be

> > > opportunists).

> > >

> > > Regarding the Tantra groups inspired by Osho that

> > you

> > > have run into, many of these groups are nothing

> > more

> > > than mishmash as you say. Many of the Esalen

> > types

> > > were attracted to Osho in the hippie period, and

> > fell

> > > into the fallacy of assuming that what Osho was

> > trying

> > > to teach had something to do with what they

> > already

> > > thought they "knew". Thus, many of these groups

> > (run

> >

> === message truncated ===

>

>

>

>

> Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

> http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Beloved Omprem,

 

I think the interesting thing about your latest attack

on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for those

fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba who

resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

"miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The very

essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic powers

will be of any help in the spiritual quest and that

one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

claim some special divine authority that makes them

better than the rest of the world, or their students.

He often reminded his students (though not always

successfully at getting them to listen) that he was

just an "ordinary man".

 

This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on any

kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as the

drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied on

the simple strength of his words and presence.

 

Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human beings.

He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't claim

that his teachings would make you any physically

healthier, neither did he teach mortification of the

body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long as

he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

immortal.

 

As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who lives

a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve other

forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused will

not be blind to this."

 

I don't particularly care much about the definitions

your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities of a

disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex, an

unhealthily negative obsession is still an obsession,

read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the typical

sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

fundmanetalists).

 

My standards for the qualities of a practitioner are

these:

22. The Blessed One said:

Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

attachment or delusion, even in their presence, nor

does he desire them in their absence.

23. One who holds no position is never disturbed by

the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a one

remains steady and does not waver.

24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy are

present in him, who is equally disposed to a a lump of

earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One who is

equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable, and

equally steady when his soul is being praised or

defamed by others.

25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups of

friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

said to be risen above the gunas.

-Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

 

Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

your violent attacks against Osho and now myself, I

will attempt not to be upset, and will simply continue

to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

position of ignorance, not evil.

 

Love

Swami

 

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> OM Swamiji

>

> Could it be that you are falling victim to the

> degenerate,

> self-absorbed mindset of Rajneesh that also engulfed

> his

> followers when he was alive?

>

> In Bliss Divine, Swami Sivananda says that the

> qualities of a

> Tantric disciple "are purity, faith, devotion,

> dispassion,

> truthfulness, and control of the senses." What does

> this checklist

> tell us about you? Are you a legitimate Swami? Or,

> are you

> simply a householder, subject to the negativity of

> that 'human

> nature' that you love so much?

>

> Those 'misdirections and fallacies' about Rajneesh,

> as you put

> it, are all a matter of public record - along with

> his mug shot.

>

> The important aspect of the Sivananda vs Rajneesh

> comparison

> is not their respective philosophies/spiritual

> paths, both of which

> are viable in the hands of competent, purified

> people. The

> important aspect is that Swami Sivananda did not

> succumb to

> the lure of public adulation, the rise of siddhis,

> and the pride of

> achieving lower levels of Self-Realization whereas

> Rajneesh did

> allow himself to be corrupted by fame, power, money,

> and prana.

>

> This message thread started with message 8609 where

> Devi

> Bhakta presented a discussion he had with another

> member on

> the advisability of intentionally developing siddis.

> Rajneesh is

> an excellent example of why one should not focus on

> developing

> siddhis or any of the other byproducts of Kundalini

> but instead

> should rigorously eschew such phenomena and continue

> along

> toward a merger with the Divine (Chaitanya or

> Nirvilkalpa

> Samadhi).

>

> Rajneesh not only allowed himself to wallow in empty

> prana

> accomplishments such as the siddhis of telepathy and

> astral

> projection but also steadfastly ignored warning

> signs that were

> being sent to him by his own body that he was

> out-of-control.

> Rajneesh reported had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Type

> II

> diabetes, asthma, severe back pain and fibromyalgia.

> His

> autonomic nervous system was damaged and led to

> neurally

> mediated hypotension (low blood pressure while

> standing),

> which, in turn, led to chronic fatigue and a lower

> IQ. His

> addictions led to paranoia among other things. All

> verified and in

> the public record.

>

> Early on, before his mental faculties became

> impaired, he could

> have chosen to listen to what his body was telling

> him about his

> dis-ease and sought out competent energy healers.

> Energy

> healers are very adept at finding the psychological

> basis of

> physical disease. Good energy healers are also adept

> at

> determining the karmic basis of physical disease.

> But

> Rajneesh's ego, puffed up by siddhis and public

> adulation,

> would not allow him to consult such energy healers.

> He

> personally suffered greatly as a result. In

> addition, he caused

> great harm to others. These injuries to himself and

> others will

> have grave karmic consequences for him in future

> lives.

>

> So, for the question of the perils of intentionally

> raising siddhis

> and wallowing in them if they do arise, one need

> look no further

> than the pathetic but instructive tale of the late

> Rajneesh. Beware

> of chasing siddhis and of those who choose to profit

> from their

> siddhis for both will drag you down to a karmic

> doom.

>

> It is still not too late.

>

> Paths are many, Truth is One.

>

> Omprem

>

>

> , Swami Anand

> Nisarg

> <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> >

> > Omprem,

> >

> > Rather than reply to the various misdirections and

> > fallacies you stated about Osho, I will simply

> > reiterated what I said earlier. You can learn a

> lot

> > about the spiritual value of a teacher by seeing

> who

> > hates him.

> >

> > If one is interested in being a hindu

> fundamentalist

> > or a rigid fanatic, or on the other side of

> ingesting

> > new age touchy-feely spiritual pablum with no

> > substance, then one should stay very far away from

> > Osho.

> > On the other hand, if you are against both of

> those,

> > then consider that both of those are against Osho.

>

> > Then read what Osho has to say, and draw your own

> > conclusions.

> >

> > Love

> > Swami

> >

> >

> > --- omprem <omprem> wrote:

> > > OM Kanna Krishnan

> > >

> > > While I appreciate your tact and your attempt to

> > > offer a balanced

> > > explanation of views of Swami Sivananda's views

> and

> > > Rajneesh,

> > > it seems to me that actions speak louder than

> words.

> > >

> > >

> > > Rajneesh was a degenerate, who allowed himself

> to

> > > become

> > > corrupted by power. In assessing Rajneesh, one

> > > should

> > > consider the following actions of Rajneesh, his

> cult

> > > and his

> > > followers rather than be swayed by his

> bafflegab:

> > >

> > > 1. Rajneesh came to the US in 1981 to escape

> income

> > > tax

> > > evasion charges in India. He lasted only 5

> years in

> > > the US until

> > > he was arrested while attempting to flee the US

> and

> > > was

> > > deported in 1986 after pleading `no contest' to

> > > immigration

> > > crimes. 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 a `no

> > > contest' on 2 of

> > > the 34 counts and was given a 10-year suspended

> > > sentence on

> > > condition of not returning to the US for 5

> years.

> > >

> > > His corporations were ordered to pay $400,000 to

> the

> > > state of

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

OM Swamiji

 

Isn't it interesting how the recitation of publically available facts

which reveal certain people to be of a lower order of morality

causes those people and/or their followers to characterize the

facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak for themselves.

 

There is no attempt omn your part to dispute the facts only an

attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone, who prides

himself on his command of logic, you commit the easiest logical

fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

 

Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers by his display of

siddhis. One of his early followers, Christopher Calder, reports

that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder also says that

Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and direct energy

transmission for the benefit of his followers. This seems to

invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never used his

siddhis. Calder was there and had direct experience of

Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

 

Strange how the facts on public record keep refuting your twisted

viewpoints.

 

Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the unprepared

ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

 

You remain an excellent example of how desperation, spiritual

pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make someone say

and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami Sivanada is

pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be goofy enough to

prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami Sivananda's

regardless of what their spiritual path may be. Your vindictive

nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone from taking

you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle Brahmacharya

just say so. We will understand.

 

By the way, you still have not revealed who initiated you into

Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did you merely

promote yourself to Swamidom without the benefit of any

preparation or instruction? Please remember that even a parrot

can be taught to recite the Holy Gita but that does make the

parrot holy or a Swami.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Beloved Omprem,

>

> I think the interesting thing about your latest attack

> on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

> siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for those

> fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba who

> resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The very

> essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic powers

> will be of any help in the spiritual quest and that

> one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

> claim some special divine authority that makes them

> better than the rest of the world, or their students.

> He often reminded his students (though not always

> successfully at getting them to listen) that he was

> just an "ordinary man".

>

> This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on any

> kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as the

> drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied on

> the simple strength of his words and presence.

>

> Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human beings.

> He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

> Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't claim

> that his teachings would make you any physically

> healthier, neither did he teach mortification of the

> body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

> Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long as

> he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

> immortal.

>

> As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who lives

> a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

> youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve other

> forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused will

> not be blind to this."

>

> I don't particularly care much about the definitions

> your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities of a

> disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex, an

> unhealthily negative obsession is still an obsession,

> read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the typical

> sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

> fundmanetalists).

>

> My standards for the qualities of a practitioner are

> these:

> 22. The Blessed One said:

> Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

> attachment or delusion, even in their presence, nor

> does he desire them in their absence.

> 23. One who holds no position is never disturbed by

> the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a one

> remains steady and does not waver.

> 24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy are

> present in him, who is equally disposed to a a lump of

> earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One who is

> equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable, and

> equally steady when his soul is being praised or

> defamed by others.

> 25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups of

> friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

> said to be risen above the gunas.

> -Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

>

> Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

> your violent attacks against Osho and now myself, I

> will attempt not to be upset, and will simply continue

> to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

> position of ignorance, not evil.

>

> Love

> Swami

[Guest guest]

Beloved Omprem,

 

There is really little point in debating against your

lies and absurdities. You are on your path, perhaps

someday you will be able to realize the futility of

some of what you do.

 

By court records, you are referring to the court

records that demonstrate that the ONLY crime Osho was

ever "convicted" of by the US government was

immigration fraud, after a nearly five year campaign

against him where they tried to accuse him of just

about everything?

 

I do not mention the name of the one who initiated me,

because its not important. You probably would not know

this person, and people's opinion of my words should

not rest on some external authority, but simply on

what I say. Considering the fear and terror with

which you have reacted to Osho, and to me, I would not

want you to similarly commit the harm of attacking my

initiator.

 

As for Calder, I am familiar with his writing about

Osho; he is one of the many ex-students of Oshos who

fell out with him after Osho changed styles,

consistently turning away those who were merely

looking for a guru who simply coincided with their own

desires or prejudices. Calder's assertions are

particularly absurd, as he doesn't merely claim that

Osho was a fraud, instead claiming that Osho was

enlightened (when Osho's external teachings happened

to agree with Calders) and then somehow became

"unenlightened" (when he started teaching in a way

Calder didn't like). How exactly does a buddha become

an unBuddha?

 

Please don't think that last statement is actually a

question directed at you, since you clearly could not

recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

staring you in the face.

 

Love

Swami

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> OM Swamiji

>

> Isn't it interesting how the recitation of

> publically available facts

> which reveal certain people to be of a lower order

> of morality

> causes those people and/or their followers to

> characterize the

> facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak for

> themselves.

>

> There is no attempt omn your part to dispute the

> facts only an

> attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone, who

> prides

> himself on his command of logic, you commit the

> easiest logical

> fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

>

> Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers by

> his display of

> siddhis. One of his early followers, Christopher

> Calder, reports

> that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> also says that

> Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and direct

> energy

> transmission for the benefit of his followers. This

> seems to

> invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never used

> his

> siddhis. Calder was there and had direct experience

> of

> Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

>

> Strange how the facts on public record keep refuting

> your twisted

> viewpoints.

>

> Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the

> unprepared

> ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

>

> You remain an excellent example of how desperation,

> spiritual

> pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make

> someone say

> and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami Sivanada

> is

> pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be goofy

> enough to

> prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami

> Sivananda's

> regardless of what their spiritual path may be. Your

> vindictive

> nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone from

> taking

> you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle

> Brahmacharya

> just say so. We will understand.

>

> By the way, you still have not revealed who

> initiated you into

> Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did you

> merely

> promote yourself to Swamidom without the benefit of

> any

> preparation or instruction? Please remember that

> even a parrot

> can be taught to recite the Holy Gita but that does

> make the

> parrot holy or a Swami.

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

>

> , Swami Anand

> Nisarg

> <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> >

> > Beloved Omprem,

> >

> > I think the interesting thing about your latest

> attack

> > on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

> > siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> > siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for

> those

> > fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba

> who

> > resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> > "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The

> very

> > essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic

> powers

> > will be of any help in the spiritual quest and

> that

> > one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

> > claim some special divine authority that makes

> them

> > better than the rest of the world, or their

> students.

> > He often reminded his students (though not always

> > successfully at getting them to listen) that he

> was

> > just an "ordinary man".

> >

> > This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> > spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on

> any

> > kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as

> the

> > drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied

> on

> > the simple strength of his words and presence.

> >

> > Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human

> beings.

> > He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

> > Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't

> claim

> > that his teachings would make you any physically

> > healthier, neither did he teach mortification of

> the

> > body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

> > Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long

> as

> > he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

> > immortal.

> >

> > As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who

> lives

> > a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

> > youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve

> other

> > forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused

> will

> > not be blind to this."

> >

> > I don't particularly care much about the

> definitions

> > your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities

> of a

> > disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex,

> an

> > unhealthily negative obsession is still an

> obsession,

> > read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the

> typical

> > sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

> > fundmanetalists).

> >

> > My standards for the qualities of a practitioner

> are

> > these:

> > 22. The Blessed One said:

> > Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

> > attachment or delusion, even in their presence,

> nor

> > does he desire them in their absence.

> > 23. One who holds no position is never disturbed

> by

> > the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a

> one

> > remains steady and does not waver.

> > 24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy

> are

> > present in him, who is equally disposed to a a

> lump of

> > earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One

> who is

> > equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable,

> and

> > equally steady when his soul is being praised or

> > defamed by others.

> > 25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups

> of

> > friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

> > said to be risen above the gunas.

> > -Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

> >

> > Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

> > your violent attacks against Osho and now myself,

> I

> > will attempt not to be upset, and will simply

> continue

> > to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

> > position of ignorance, not evil.

> >

> > Love

> > Swami

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

OM Swamiji

 

In your best, most sattvic tones you say, "you clearly could not

recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was staring you in the

face." How unswamilike.

 

I don't know about recognizing a Buddha, but I do know about

recognizing you as an instant, fake, Internet Swami.

 

Are you not aware that Swamis are celibate in thought, word, and

deed? Yet you prefer to wallow in sex., remaining a prisoner of

your ego and senses. You condemn yourself to many more

lifetimes of trials and tribulations, not just for preferring sex to

Brahman but for violating your monastic vows and for trying to

lead others astray. Rajneesh paid dearly for his inability to rise

above the siddhis. You will pay dearly for your inablity to rise

above your lower nature. How could you ever hope to deal

siddhis?

 

But this conversation is getting repetitive so I will bide you

farewell.

 

Om Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Beloved Omprem,

>

> There is really little point in debating against your

> lies and absurdities. You are on your path, perhaps

> someday you will be able to realize the futility of

> some of what you do.

>

> By court records, you are referring to the court

> records that demonstrate that the ONLY crime Osho was

> ever "convicted" of by the US government was

> immigration fraud, after a nearly five year campaign

> against him where they tried to accuse him of just

> about everything?

>

> I do not mention the name of the one who initiated me,

> because its not important. You probably would not know

> this person, and people's opinion of my words should

> not rest on some external authority, but simply on

> what I say. Considering the fear and terror with

> which you have reacted to Osho, and to me, I would not

> want you to similarly commit the harm of attacking my

> initiator.

>

> As for Calder, I am familiar with his writing about

> Osho; he is one of the many ex-students of Oshos who

> fell out with him after Osho changed styles,

> consistently turning away those who were merely

> looking for a guru who simply coincided with their own

> desires or prejudices. Calder's assertions are

> particularly absurd, as he doesn't merely claim that

> Osho was a fraud, instead claiming that Osho was

> enlightened (when Osho's external teachings happened

> to agree with Calders) and then somehow became

> "unenlightened" (when he started teaching in a way

> Calder didn't like). How exactly does a buddha become

> an unBuddha?

>

> Please don't think that last statement is actually a

> question directed at you, since you clearly could not

> recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

> staring you in the face.

>

> Love

> Swami

>

> --- omprem <omprem> wrote:

> > OM Swamiji

> >

> > Isn't it interesting how the recitation of

> > publically available facts

> > which reveal certain people to be of a lower order

> > of morality

> > causes those people and/or their followers to

> > characterize the

> > facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak for

> > themselves.

> >

> > There is no attempt omn your part to dispute the

> > facts only an

> > attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone, who

> > prides

> > himself on his command of logic, you commit the

> > easiest logical

> > fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

> >

> > Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers by

> > his display of

> > siddhis. One of his early followers, Christopher

> > Calder, reports

> > that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> > also says that

> > Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and direct

> > energy

> > transmission for the benefit of his followers. This

> > seems to

> > invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never used

> > his

> > siddhis. Calder was there and had direct experience

> > of

> > Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

> >

> > Strange how the facts on public record keep refuting

> > your twisted

> > viewpoints.

> >

> > Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the

> > unprepared

> > ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

> >

> > You remain an excellent example of how desperation,

> > spiritual

> > pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make

> > someone say

> > and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami Sivanada

> > is

> > pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be goofy

> > enough to

> > prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami

> > Sivananda's

> > regardless of what their spiritual path may be. Your

> > vindictive

> > nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone from

> > taking

> > you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle

> > Brahmacharya

> > just say so. We will understand.

> >

> > By the way, you still have not revealed who

> > initiated you into

> > Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did you

> > merely

> > promote yourself to Swamidom without the benefit of

> > any

> > preparation or instruction? Please remember that

> > even a parrot

> > can be taught to recite the Holy Gita but that does

> > make the

> > parrot holy or a Swami.

> >

> > OM Namah Sivaya

> >

> > Omprem

> >

> >

> > , Swami Anand

> > Nisarg

> > <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> > >

> > > Beloved Omprem,

> > >

> > > I think the interesting thing about your latest

> > attack

> > > on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

> > > siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> > > siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for

> > those

> > > fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba

> > who

> > > resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> > > "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The

> > very

> > > essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic

> > powers

> > > will be of any help in the spiritual quest and

> > that

> > > one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

> > > claim some special divine authority that makes

> > them

> > > better than the rest of the world, or their

> > students.

> > > He often reminded his students (though not always

> > > successfully at getting them to listen) that he

> > was

> > > just an "ordinary man".

> > >

> > > This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> > > spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on

> > any

> > > kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as

> > the

> > > drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied

> > on

> > > the simple strength of his words and presence.

> > >

> > > Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human

> > beings.

> > > He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

> > > Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't

> > claim

> > > that his teachings would make you any physically

> > > healthier, neither did he teach mortification of

> > the

> > > body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

> > > Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long

> > as

> > > he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

> > > immortal.

> > >

> > > As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who

> > lives

> > > a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

> > > youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve

> > other

> > > forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused

> > will

> > > not be blind to this."

> > >

> > > I don't particularly care much about the

> > definitions

> > > your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities

> > of a

> > > disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex,

> > an

> > > unhealthily negative obsession is still an

> > obsession,

> > > read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the

> > typical

> > > sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

> > > fundmanetalists).

> > >

> > > My standards for the qualities of a practitioner

> > are

> > > these:

> > > 22. The Blessed One said:

> > > Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

> > > attachment or delusion, even in their presence,

> > nor

> > > does he desire them in their absence.

> > > 23. One who holds no position is never disturbed

> > by

> > > the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a

> > one

> > > remains steady and does not waver.

> > > 24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy

> > are

> > > present in him, who is equally disposed to a a

> > lump of

> > > earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One

> > who is

> > > equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable,

> > and

> > > equally steady when his soul is being praised or

> > > defamed by others.

> > > 25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups

> > of

> > > friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

> > > said to be risen above the gunas.

> > > -Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

> > >

> > > Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

> > > your violent attacks against Osho and now myself,

> > I

> > > will attempt not to be upset, and will simply

> > continue

> > > to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

> > > position of ignorance, not evil.

> > >

> > > Love

> > > Swami

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

> http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

With respect

 

Could you tell me if you belong to the saraswati order, because as I know

there are diferent order some like jainist there no monastic, and sikh,

buddhist and kabir path. but in Dasamani tradition of Adi Shankaracharya,

swamis follow monastic, and they should be initiated by a mahamandaleshwar,

even if your guru initiated .

 

Thank you

Rambha

 

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Swami Anand Nisarg [swamiji_nisarg]

Enviado el: viernes, 13 de febrero de 2004 4:38

Para:

Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi

corruption

 

Beloved Omprem,

[Guest guest]

I think is very important to know who was your guruji or the one who

initiated you as a swami

why are you not clear about it, I want to apologice for my english, because

is not my mother language,

Rambha

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Swami Anand Nisarg [swamiji_nisarg]

Enviado el: viernes, 13 de febrero de 2004 4:38

Para:

Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi

corruption

 

 

 

Beloved Omprem,

 

There is really little point in debating against your

lies and absurdities. You are on your path, perhaps

someday you will be able to realize the futility of

some of what you do.

 

By court records, you are referring to the court

records that demonstrate that the ONLY crime Osho was

ever "convicted" of by the US government was

immigration fraud, after a nearly five year campaign

against him where they tried to accuse him of just

about everything?

 

I do not mention the name of the one who initiated me,

because its not important. You probably would not know

this person, and people's opinion of my words should

not rest on some external authority, but simply on

what I say. Considering the fear and terror with

which you have reacted to Osho, and to me, I would not

want you to similarly commit the harm of attacking my

initiator.

 

As for Calder, I am familiar with his writing about

Osho; he is one of the many ex-students of Oshos who

fell out with him after Osho changed styles,

consistently turning away those who were merely

looking for a guru who simply coincided with their own

desires or prejudices. Calder's assertions are

particularly absurd, as he doesn't merely claim that

Osho was a fraud, instead claiming that Osho was

enlightened (when Osho's external teachings happened

to agree with Calders) and then somehow became

"unenlightened" (when he started teaching in a way

Calder didn't like). How exactly does a buddha become

an unBuddha?

 

Please don't think that last statement is actually a

question directed at you, since you clearly could not

recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

staring you in the face.

 

Love

Swami

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> OM Swamiji

>

> Isn't it interesting how the recitation of

> publically available facts

> which reveal certain people to be of a lower order

> of morality

> causes those people and/or their followers to

> characterize the

> facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak for

> themselves.

>

> There is no attempt omn your part to dispute the

> facts only an

> attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone, who

> prides

> himself on his command of logic, you commit the

> easiest logical

> fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

>

> Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers by

> his display of

> siddhis. One of his early followers, Christopher

> Calder, reports

> that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> also says that

> Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and direct

> energy

> transmission for the benefit of his followers. This

> seems to

> invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never used

> his

> siddhis. Calder was there and had direct experience

> of

> Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

>

> Strange how the facts on public record keep refuting

> your twisted

> viewpoints.

>

> Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the

> unprepared

> ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

>

> You remain an excellent example of how desperation,

> spiritual

> pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make

> someone say

> and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami Sivanada

> is

> pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be goofy

> enough to

> prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami

> Sivananda's

> regardless of what their spiritual path may be. Your

> vindictive

> nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone from

> taking

> you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle

> Brahmacharya

> just say so. We will understand.

>

> By the way, you still have not revealed who

> initiated you into

> Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did you

> merely

> promote yourself to Swamidom without the benefit of

> any

> preparation or instruction? Please remember that

> even a parrot

> can be taught to recite the Holy Gita but that does

> make the

> parrot holy or a Swami.

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

>

> , Swami Anand

> Nisarg

> <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> >

> > Beloved Omprem,

> >

> > I think the interesting thing about your latest

> attack

> > on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

> > siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> > siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for

> those

> > fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba

> who

> > resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> > "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The

> very

> > essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic

> powers

> > will be of any help in the spiritual quest and

> that

> > one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

> > claim some special divine authority that makes

> them

> > better than the rest of the world, or their

> students.

> > He often reminded his students (though not always

> > successfully at getting them to listen) that he

> was

> > just an "ordinary man".

> >

> > This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> > spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on

> any

> > kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as

> the

> > drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied

> on

> > the simple strength of his words and presence.

> >

> > Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human

> beings.

> > He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

> > Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't

> claim

> > that his teachings would make you any physically

> > healthier, neither did he teach mortification of

> the

> > body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

> > Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long

> as

> > he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

> > immortal.

> >

> > As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who

> lives

> > a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

> > youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve

> other

> > forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused

> will

> > not be blind to this."

> >

> > I don't particularly care much about the

> definitions

> > your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities

> of a

> > disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex,

> an

> > unhealthily negative obsession is still an

> obsession,

> > read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the

> typical

> > sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

> > fundmanetalists).

> >

> > My standards for the qualities of a practitioner

> are

> > these:

> > 22. The Blessed One said:

> > Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

> > attachment or delusion, even in their presence,

> nor

> > does he desire them in their absence.

> > 23. One who holds no position is never disturbed

> by

> > the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a

> one

> > remains steady and does not waver.

> > 24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy

> are

> > present in him, who is equally disposed to a a

> lump of

> > earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One

> who is

> > equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable,

> and

> > equally steady when his soul is being praised or

> > defamed by others.

> > 25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups

> of

> > friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

> > said to be risen above the gunas.

> > -Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

> >

> > Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

> > your violent attacks against Osho and now myself,

> I

> > will attempt not to be upset, and will simply

> continue

> > to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

> > position of ignorance, not evil.

> >

> > Love

> > Swami

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

 

 

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

With respect

Ithink you don't have to speak so bad about Swami Muktananda, have you ever

met him, ? have you ever be with a Satguru in your life? have you ever

experience shaktipat? how can you tell so stupid things about someone known

all over the world like a true Guru, but more in India.Swami Muktanada never

show any siddhi, he always spoke that it was not real gurus the ones who

show it, He did not need to show powers, He was always inmersed in his true

Self. And also he was initiated by Bhagawan Nityananda known as and avadut,

it will be good not to speak of such beings in such afrivolous way

Rambha

 

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Swami Anand Nisarg [swamiji_nisarg]

Enviado el: jueves, 12 de febrero de 2004 23:48

Para:

Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi

corruption

 

 

 

Beloved Omprem,

 

I think the interesting thing about your latest attack

on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for those

fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba who

resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

"miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The very

essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic powers

will be of any help in the spiritual quest and that

one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

claim some special divine authority that makes them

better than the rest of the world, or their students.

He often reminded his students (though not always

successfully at getting them to listen) that he was

just an "ordinary man".

 

This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on any

kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as the

drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied on

the simple strength of his words and presence.

 

Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human beings.

He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't claim

that his teachings would make you any physically

healthier, neither did he teach mortification of the

body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long as

he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

immortal.

 

As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who lives

a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve other

forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused will

not be blind to this."

 

I don't particularly care much about the definitions

your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities of a

disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex, an

unhealthily negative obsession is still an obsession,

read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the typical

sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

fundmanetalists).

 

My standards for the qualities of a practitioner are

these:

22. The Blessed One said:

Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

attachment or delusion, even in their presence, nor

does he desire them in their absence.

23. One who holds no position is never disturbed by

the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a one

remains steady and does not waver.

24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy are

present in him, who is equally disposed to a a lump of

earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One who is

equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable, and

equally steady when his soul is being praised or

defamed by others.

25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups of

friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

said to be risen above the gunas.

-Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

 

Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

your violent attacks against Osho and now myself, I

will attempt not to be upset, and will simply continue

to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

position of ignorance, not evil.

 

Love

Swami

 

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> OM Swamiji

>

> Could it be that you are falling victim to the

> degenerate,

> self-absorbed mindset of Rajneesh that also engulfed

> his

> followers when he was alive?

>

> In Bliss Divine, Swami Sivananda says that the

> qualities of a

> Tantric disciple "are purity, faith, devotion,

> dispassion,

> truthfulness, and control of the senses." What does

> this checklist

> tell us about you? Are you a legitimate Swami? Or,

> are you

> simply a householder, subject to the negativity of

> that 'human

> nature' that you love so much?

>

> Those 'misdirections and fallacies' about Rajneesh,

> as you put

> it, are all a matter of public record - along with

> his mug shot.

>

> The important aspect of the Sivananda vs Rajneesh

> comparison

> is not their respective philosophies/spiritual

> paths, both of which

> are viable in the hands of competent, purified

> people. The

> important aspect is that Swami Sivananda did not

> succumb to

> the lure of public adulation, the rise of siddhis,

> and the pride of

> achieving lower levels of Self-Realization whereas

> Rajneesh did

> allow himself to be corrupted by fame, power, money,

> and prana.

>

> This message thread started with message 8609 where

> Devi

> Bhakta presented a discussion he had with another

> member on

> the advisability of intentionally developing siddis.

> Rajneesh is

> an excellent example of why one should not focus on

> developing

> siddhis or any of the other byproducts of Kundalini

> but instead

> should rigorously eschew such phenomena and continue

> along

> toward a merger with the Divine (Chaitanya or

> Nirvilkalpa

> Samadhi).

>

> Rajneesh not only allowed himself to wallow in empty

> prana

> accomplishments such as the siddhis of telepathy and

> astral

> projection but also steadfastly ignored warning

> signs that were

> being sent to him by his own body that he was

> out-of-control.

> Rajneesh reported had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Type

> II

> diabetes, asthma, severe back pain and fibromyalgia.

> His

> autonomic nervous system was damaged and led to

> neurally

> mediated hypotension (low blood pressure while

> standing),

> which, in turn, led to chronic fatigue and a lower

> IQ. His

> addictions led to paranoia among other things. All

> verified and in

> the public record.

>

> Early on, before his mental faculties became

> impaired, he could

> have chosen to listen to what his body was telling

> him about his

> dis-ease and sought out competent energy healers.

> Energy

> healers are very adept at finding the psychological

> basis of

> physical disease. Good energy healers are also adept

> at

> determining the karmic basis of physical disease.

> But

> Rajneesh's ego, puffed up by siddhis and public

> adulation,

> would not allow him to consult such energy healers.

> He

> personally suffered greatly as a result. In

> addition, he caused

> great harm to others. These injuries to himself and

> others will

> have grave karmic consequences for him in future

> lives.

>

> So, for the question of the perils of intentionally

> raising siddhis

> and wallowing in them if they do arise, one need

> look no further

> than the pathetic but instructive tale of the late

> Rajneesh. Beware

> of chasing siddhis and of those who choose to profit

> from their

> siddhis for both will drag you down to a karmic

> doom.

>

> It is still not too late.

>

> Paths are many, Truth is One.

>

> Omprem

>

>

> , Swami Anand

> Nisarg

> <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> >

> > Omprem,

> >

> > Rather than reply to the various misdirections and

> > fallacies you stated about Osho, I will simply

> > reiterated what I said earlier. You can learn a

> lot

> > about the spiritual value of a teacher by seeing

> who

> > hates him.

> >

> > If one is interested in being a hindu

> fundamentalist

> > or a rigid fanatic, or on the other side of

> ingesting

> > new age touchy-feely spiritual pablum with no

> > substance, then one should stay very far away from

> > Osho.

> > On the other hand, if you are against both of

> those,

> > then consider that both of those are against Osho.

>

> > Then read what Osho has to say, and draw your own

> > conclusions.

> >

> > Love

> > Swami

> >

> >

> > --- omprem <omprem> wrote:

> > > OM Kanna Krishnan

> > >

> > > While I appreciate your tact and your attempt to

> > > offer a balanced

> > > explanation of views of Swami Sivananda's views

> and

> > > Rajneesh,

> > > it seems to me that actions speak louder than

> words.

> > >

> > >

> > > Rajneesh was a degenerate, who allowed himself

> to

> > > become

> > > corrupted by power. In assessing Rajneesh, one

> > > should

> > > consider the following actions of Rajneesh, his

> cult

> > > and his

> > > followers rather than be swayed by his

> bafflegab:

> > >

> > > 1. Rajneesh came to the US in 1981 to escape

> income

> > > tax

> > > evasion charges in India. He lasted only 5

> years in

> > > the US until

> > > he was arrested while attempting to flee the US

> and

> > > was

> > > deported in 1986 after pleading `no contest' to

> > > immigration

> > > crimes. 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 a `no

> > > contest' on 2 of

> > > the 34 counts and was given a 10-year suspended

> > > sentence on

> > > condition of not returning to the US for 5

> years.

> > >

> > > His corporations were ordered to pay $400,000 to

> the

> > > state of

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

 

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

I have gone thru some of books by rajaneesh & they

are really helpful. Strange are the ways of saints &

sadhus & we surely cant a reason for each & everything

as neither we have the mindset nor the intelligence.

The great sri krishna preached bhagatwat gita to

arjuna & nama mantra of visnu sahra naam via bhisma

pitamaha. He showed the beauty of raas lila to gopis.

.... even the great jayadeva did not realize the beauty

of madurya bhava "thinking how can krishna fall at the

feet of radha" however the all mighty god took pity on

him --- we have the story of jayadeva writing

astapadhi & going for a oil bath. sri krishna meets

the wife of jayadeva has his food when jayadeva

comesback for food his wife says he has already taken

that now jayadeva realizes that it was god indeed who

has corrected his verses & taken his food so he falls

at the feet of his wife (as only god meets a true

devotee) & thus realizes the truth of his verse " saru

sile priye..."

if dharma can vary from person to person so can the

way to get moksha vary....

so let us not hurl missiles at each other saying

this is wrong that is wrong etc. may be the teaching

is not meant for our mindset. even if i think i aver

to be a swamiji it is a lot of sacrifice. so let us

learn to respect each other. we have not yet reached

the stage of rajneesh to comment about him.

may be i am wrong still

with warm regards

shankar

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> OM Swamiji

>

> In your best, most sattvic tones you say, "you

> clearly could not

> recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

> staring you in the

> face." How unswamilike.

>

> I don't know about recognizing a Buddha, but I do

> know about

> recognizing you as an instant, fake, Internet Swami.

>

>

> Are you not aware that Swamis are celibate in

> thought, word, and

> deed? Yet you prefer to wallow in sex., remaining a

> prisoner of

> your ego and senses. You condemn yourself to many

> more

> lifetimes of trials and tribulations, not just for

> preferring sex to

> Brahman but for violating your monastic vows and for

> trying to

> lead others astray. Rajneesh paid dearly for his

> inability to rise

> above the siddhis. You will pay dearly for your

> inablity to rise

> above your lower nature. How could you ever hope to

> deal

> siddhis?

>

> But this conversation is getting repetitive so I

> will bide you

> farewell.

>

> Om Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

>

> , Swami Anand

> Nisarg

> <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> >

> > Beloved Omprem,

> >

> > There is really little point in debating against

> your

> > lies and absurdities. You are on your path,

> perhaps

> > someday you will be able to realize the futility

> of

> > some of what you do.

> >

> > By court records, you are referring to the court

> > records that demonstrate that the ONLY crime Osho

> was

> > ever "convicted" of by the US government was

> > immigration fraud, after a nearly five year

> campaign

> > against him where they tried to accuse him of just

> > about everything?

> >

> > I do not mention the name of the one who initiated

> me,

> > because its not important. You probably would not

> know

> > this person, and people's opinion of my words

> should

> > not rest on some external authority, but simply on

> > what I say. Considering the fear and terror with

> > which you have reacted to Osho, and to me, I would

> not

> > want you to similarly commit the harm of attacking

> my

> > initiator.

> >

> > As for Calder, I am familiar with his writing

> about

> > Osho; he is one of the many ex-students of Oshos

> who

> > fell out with him after Osho changed styles,

> > consistently turning away those who were merely

> > looking for a guru who simply coincided with their

> own

> > desires or prejudices. Calder's assertions are

> > particularly absurd, as he doesn't merely claim

> that

> > Osho was a fraud, instead claiming that Osho was

> > enlightened (when Osho's external teachings

> happened

> > to agree with Calders) and then somehow became

> > "unenlightened" (when he started teaching in a way

> > Calder didn't like). How exactly does a buddha

> become

> > an unBuddha?

> >

> > Please don't think that last statement is actually

> a

> > question directed at you, since you clearly could

> not

> > recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

> > staring you in the face.

> >

> > Love

> > Swami

> >

> > --- omprem <omprem> wrote:

> > > OM Swamiji

> > >

> > > Isn't it interesting how the recitation of

> > > publically available facts

> > > which reveal certain people to be of a lower

> order

> > > of morality

> > > causes those people and/or their followers to

> > > characterize the

> > > facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak

> for

> > > themselves.

> > >

> > > There is no attempt omn your part to dispute

> the

> > > facts only an

> > > attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone,

> who

> > > prides

> > > himself on his command of logic, you commit the

> > > easiest logical

> > > fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

> > >

> > > Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers

> by

> > > his display of

> > > siddhis. One of his early followers,

> Christopher

> > > Calder, reports

> > > that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> > > also says that

> > > Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and

> direct

> > > energy

> > > transmission for the benefit of his followers.

> This

> > > seems to

> > > invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never

> used

> > > his

> > > siddhis. Calder was there and had direct

> experience

> > > of

> > > Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

> > >

> > > Strange how the facts on public record keep

> refuting

> > > your twisted

> > > viewpoints.

> > >

> > > Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the

> > > unprepared

> > > ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

> > >

> > > You remain an excellent example of how

> desperation,

> > > spiritual

> > > pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make

> > > someone say

> > > and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami

> Sivanada

> > > is

> > > pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be

> goofy

> > > enough to

> > > prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami

> > > Sivananda's

> > > regardless of what their spiritual path may be.

> Your

> > > vindictive

> > > nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone

> from

> > > taking

> > > you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle

> > > Brahmacharya

> > > just say so. We will understand.

> > >

> > > By the way, you still have not revealed who

> > > initiated you into

> > > Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did

> you

> > > merely

> > > promote yourself to Swamidom without the

> benefit of

> > > any

> > > preparation or instruction? Please remember that

> > > even a parrot

> > > can be taught to recite the Holy Gita but that

> does

> > > make the

> > > parrot holy or a Swami.

> > >

> > > OM Namah Sivaya

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

>

>

> --- omprem <omprem wrote:

 

One of his early followers, Christopher

> Calder, reports

> that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> also says that

> Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and direct

> energy

> transmission for the benefit of his followers.

 

Beloved OM Prem,

 

Yes, Osho gave shaktipat. My shakti Ma Anurag Vajra and I received it

together. Only people who were there know how the Rolls Royces

functioned so silently and so slowly it did not seem like the embrace

would never end. Then sometimes Osho would stop. He reached out with

hands and eyes.

 

Yes Osho had global telepathic powers calling me to Laguna Beach on the

first of the triple conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn on December 31st

of 1980. At the exact moment, I met my first Rajneesh sannyasin. I knew

how I would change my life in California. Osho uses his telepathic

powers to bring together his sannyasins from many centuries ago from

many places. So one need not be physically near him. With a guru like

Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche, you must be very close. He is the more

traditional guru and I followed his way and that of the 16th Karmapa

from 1974. Karmapa was quite telepathic. I became a sannyasin the day

the Karmapa gave the letter describing his next incarnation to Tai Situ

Rinpoche. His Holiness Karrmapa said of Osho that he was the only guru

he knew that was capable of being a world teacher.

 

Osho is quite relevant for the world today. I include some passages

culled from The Goose is Out that are appropriate to the debate on gay

marriage.

 

Homosexuality is not such a big problem, it is not a problem at all, in

fact. It is part of human freedom. There is nothing wrong if two persons

choose a certain style of sexual relationship; it should be nobody’s

business. But the priests and the politicians are poking their noses

into everything! They create guilt in you—absolutely unnecessary.

If two men are in love what is wrong in it? What harm are they doing to

anybody? In fact they look happier than the heterosexuals; that’s why

they are called Gay.

The Christian God himself seems to be homosexual—the whole trinity

consists of three men. How they are managing it nobody knows—not a

single woman! Only the Holy Ghost is a little suspect—maybe the Holy

Ghost is bisexual? Ghosts can do any kind of thing! Otherwise the Father

and the Son and the Holy Ghost—what kind of trinity is this? It is very

homosexual! They have not allowed a single woman to be in it, just to

keep out of trouble. One woman would have destroyed the whole trinity;

it would have become a real triangle!

So homosexuality is not a problem. We should start looking at real

problems and should not be concerned about unreal problems. There are

real problems to be solved. And this is a trick of the human mind: to

create unreal problems so that you become occupied with them while real

problems keep on growing. And this is an old strategy: politicians,

priests, so-called religious leaders go on giving you pseudo problems to

solve so that you become occupied with the pseudo.

>From Chapter 3 of THE GOOSE IS OUT (1982)

 

 

Namo Gurubhyah!

Happy Hearts Day!

Sw. Prem Vedarthi

 

 

 

>

> >

> Sponsor

 

[Click Here]Click Here

 

>

> ------------------------------

> Links

>

> *

> /

>

> *

>

>

> * Terms of

> Service.

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I liked Rajneesh alot. I though he was a really smart guy. I say he had a

vision or drive and was able to easily apply it to everything. Nobody is

that smart. The Rolls Royce thing was over the top. He said it was to show

that someone could own one or a hundred things. You can't drive more than

one auto.

[Guest guest]

Beloved Teresa,

 

I do not believe it is important, in the context of

the conversation I was having with Omprem. Why would

it be?

If you think what I'm saying is wrong, then me being

from a lineage you know or respect shouldn't change

that fact.

If you think what I'm saying is right, then me being

from a lineage you don't know or dislike should not

change the rightness of my words either.

 

Love

Swami

 

--- Teresa <rambha wrote:

> I think is very important to know who was your

> guruji or the one who

> initiated you as a swami

> why are you not clear about it, I want to apologice

> for my english, because

> is not my mother language,

> Rambha

> -----Mensaje original-----

> De: Swami Anand Nisarg

> [swamiji_nisarg]

> Enviado el: viernes, 13 de febrero de 2004 4:38

> Para:

> Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true

> story of siddhi

> corruption

>

>

>

> Beloved Omprem,

>

> There is really little point in debating against

> your

> lies and absurdities. You are on your path, perhaps

> someday you will be able to realize the futility of

> some of what you do.

>

> By court records, you are referring to the court

> records that demonstrate that the ONLY crime Osho

> was

> ever "convicted" of by the US government was

> immigration fraud, after a nearly five year campaign

> against him where they tried to accuse him of just

> about everything?

>

> I do not mention the name of the one who initiated

> me,

> because its not important. You probably would not

> know

> this person, and people's opinion of my words should

> not rest on some external authority, but simply on

> what I say. Considering the fear and terror with

> which you have reacted to Osho, and to me, I would

> not

> want you to similarly commit the harm of attacking

> my

> initiator.

>

> As for Calder, I am familiar with his writing about

> Osho; he is one of the many ex-students of Oshos who

> fell out with him after Osho changed styles,

> consistently turning away those who were merely

> looking for a guru who simply coincided with their

> own

> desires or prejudices. Calder's assertions are

> particularly absurd, as he doesn't merely claim that

> Osho was a fraud, instead claiming that Osho was

> enlightened (when Osho's external teachings happened

> to agree with Calders) and then somehow became

> "unenlightened" (when he started teaching in a way

> Calder didn't like). How exactly does a buddha

> become

> an unBuddha?

>

> Please don't think that last statement is actually a

> question directed at you, since you clearly could

> not

> recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

> staring you in the face.

>

> Love

> Swami

>

> --- omprem <omprem wrote:

> > OM Swamiji

> >

> > Isn't it interesting how the recitation of

> > publically available facts

> > which reveal certain people to be of a lower order

> > of morality

> > causes those people and/or their followers to

> > characterize the

> > facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak

> for

> > themselves.

> >

> > There is no attempt omn your part to dispute the

> > facts only an

> > attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone,

> who

> > prides

> > himself on his command of logic, you commit the

> > easiest logical

> > fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

> >

> > Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers by

> > his display of

> > siddhis. One of his early followers, Christopher

> > Calder, reports

> > that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> > also says that

> > Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and direct

> > energy

> > transmission for the benefit of his followers.

> This

> > seems to

> > invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never

> used

> > his

> > siddhis. Calder was there and had direct

> experience

> > of

> > Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

> >

> > Strange how the facts on public record keep

> refuting

> > your twisted

> > viewpoints.

> >

> > Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the

> > unprepared

> > ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

> >

> > You remain an excellent example of how

> desperation,

> > spiritual

> > pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make

> > someone say

> > and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami

> Sivanada

> > is

> > pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be goofy

> > enough to

> > prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami

> > Sivananda's

> > regardless of what their spiritual path may be.

> Your

> > vindictive

> > nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone

> from

> > taking

> > you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle

> > Brahmacharya

> > just say so. We will understand.

> >

> > By the way, you still have not revealed who

> > initiated you into

> > Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did

> you

> > merely

> > promote yourself to Swamidom without the benefit

> of

> > any

> > preparation or instruction? Please remember that

> > even a parrot

> > can be taught to recite the Holy Gita but that

> does

> > make the

> > parrot holy or a Swami.

> >

> > OM Namah Sivaya

> >

> > Omprem

> >

> >

> > , Swami Anand

> > Nisarg

> > <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> > >

> > > Beloved Omprem,

> > >

> > > I think the interesting thing about your latest

> > attack

> > > on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off

> any

> > > siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> > > siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for

> > those

> > > fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba

> > who

> > > resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> > > "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The

> > very

> > > essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic

> > powers

> > > will be of any help in the spiritual quest and

> > that

> > > one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs"

> who

> > > claim some special divine authority that makes

> > them

> > > better than the rest of the world, or their

> > students.

> > > He often reminded his students (though not

> always

> > > successfully at getting them to listen) that he

> > was

> > > just an "ordinary man".

> > >

> > > This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> > > spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied

> on

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Beloved Rambha,

 

And respectfully back to you,

 

I did not meet Muktananda in person. I have studied

his teachings, however, and found little in them to be

worthwhile (though there's always something that can

be said to be worthile in just about any teaching, but

certainly nothing in his that could not be found from

better sources). I have also run into a number of

followers of his, both ex-followers, and those who are

still currently devoted to him or to one of the two

warring camps of his successors (chidvilasananda and

her little brother nityananda).

 

There are a number of issues with Muktananda beside

the fact that his teaching was relatively shallow.

The greatest of these is hypocrisy. You have already

seen my feelings regarding gurus who advocate extreme

sex repression; however it is one thing to advocate

it, and quite a worse thing to have advocated it and

then fail to follow your own teachings. Muktananda

was/is involved in a great deal of scandals regarding

his sexual activities with teenage girls. I suppose

he was just "giving them shaktipat"? There are

besides this a number of allegations involving

violence and violent intimidation of members and ex

members of the siddha yoga foundation.

 

And in answer to your question, yes I have been in the

presence of satgurus in my life, and yes i have

experienced shaktipat.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

 

--- Teresa <rambha wrote:

> With respect

> Ithink you don't have to speak so bad about Swami

> Muktananda, have you ever

> met him, ? have you ever be with a Satguru in your

> life? have you ever

> experience shaktipat? how can you tell so stupid

> things about someone known

> all over the world like a true Guru, but more in

> India.Swami Muktanada never

> show any siddhi, he always spoke that it was not

> real gurus the ones who

> show it, He did not need to show powers, He was

> always inmersed in his true

> Self. And also he was initiated by Bhagawan

> Nityananda known as and avadut,

> it will be good not to speak of such beings in such

> afrivolous way

> Rambha

>

> -----Mensaje original-----

> De: Swami Anand Nisarg

> [swamiji_nisarg]

> Enviado el: jueves, 12 de febrero de 2004 23:48

> Para:

> Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true

> story of siddhi

> corruption

>

>

>

> Beloved Omprem,

>

> I think the interesting thing about your latest

> attack

> on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

> siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for

> those

> fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba who

> resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The

> very

> essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic powers

> will be of any help in the spiritual quest and that

> one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

> claim some special divine authority that makes them

> better than the rest of the world, or their

> students.

> He often reminded his students (though not always

> successfully at getting them to listen) that he was

> just an "ordinary man".

>

> This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on

> any

> kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as

> the

> drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied on

> the simple strength of his words and presence.

>

> Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human

> beings.

> He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

> Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't claim

> that his teachings would make you any physically

> healthier, neither did he teach mortification of the

> body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

> Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long

> as

> he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

> immortal.

>

> As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who

> lives

> a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

> youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve

> other

> forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused

> will

> not be blind to this."

>

> I don't particularly care much about the definitions

> your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities of

> a

> disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex, an

> unhealthily negative obsession is still an

> obsession,

> read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the

> typical

> sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

> fundmanetalists).

>

> My standards for the qualities of a practitioner are

> these:

> 22. The Blessed One said:

> Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

> attachment or delusion, even in their presence, nor

> does he desire them in their absence.

> 23. One who holds no position is never disturbed by

> the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a

> one

> remains steady and does not waver.

> 24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy are

> present in him, who is equally disposed to a a lump

> of

> earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One who

> is

> equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable,

> and

> equally steady when his soul is being praised or

> defamed by others.

> 25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups

> of

> friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

> said to be risen above the gunas.

> -Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

>

> Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

> your violent attacks against Osho and now myself, I

> will attempt not to be upset, and will simply

> continue

> to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

> position of ignorance, not evil.

>

> Love

> Swami

>

>

> --- omprem <omprem wrote:

> > OM Swamiji

> >

> > Could it be that you are falling victim to the

> > degenerate,

> > self-absorbed mindset of Rajneesh that also

> engulfed

> > his

> > followers when he was alive?

> >

> > In Bliss Divine, Swami Sivananda says that the

> > qualities of a

> > Tantric disciple "are purity, faith, devotion,

> > dispassion,

> > truthfulness, and control of the senses." What

> does

> > this checklist

> > tell us about you? Are you a legitimate Swami? Or,

> > are you

> > simply a householder, subject to the negativity of

> > that 'human

> > nature' that you love so much?

> >

> > Those 'misdirections and fallacies' about

> Rajneesh,

> > as you put

> > it, are all a matter of public record - along with

> > his mug shot.

> >

> > The important aspect of the Sivananda vs Rajneesh

> > comparison

> > is not their respective philosophies/spiritual

> > paths, both of which

> > are viable in the hands of competent, purified

> > people. The

> > important aspect is that Swami Sivananda did not

> > succumb to

> > the lure of public adulation, the rise of siddhis,

> > and the pride of

> > achieving lower levels of Self-Realization whereas

> > Rajneesh did

> > allow himself to be corrupted by fame, power,

> money,

> > and prana.

> >

> > This message thread started with message 8609

> where

> > Devi

> > Bhakta presented a discussion he had with another

> > member on

> > the advisability of intentionally developing

> siddis.

> > Rajneesh is

> > an excellent example of why one should not focus

> on

> > developing

> > siddhis or any of the other byproducts of

> Kundalini

> > but instead

> > should rigorously eschew such phenomena and

> continue

> > along

> > toward a merger with the Divine (Chaitanya or

> > Nirvilkalpa

> > Samadhi).

> >

> > Rajneesh not only allowed himself to wallow in

> empty

> > prana

> > accomplishments such as the siddhis of telepathy

> and

> > astral

> > projection but also steadfastly ignored warning

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

As I see in your email, first you are judging someone, you never met, only

for what somebody told you, how can you judge a person you don't know? you

haven't had the experience of siddha meditation,you haven't been in the

presence of such person.And as I see you don't know nothing about his

teachings.

People following Him like in any groups , They were not perfect shadakas,

you know that! some likes and dislikes, and for this reason now is not like

it was when Muktanada was alive, people jealous,stupid and so on, like all

over the world, don't understand the true meaning of live.

Muktanada never said you don't have to have sex, only Swamis should not, but

it is not his teachings i9t is the way it means in the ortodoxy, it is also

said that tantric gurus that performe maituna are very rarely and few in the

world, and they should not do it to everybody, and this teachings now a days

what you see is people meeting people and making sex in the name of tantra,

for me this is sexual not tantric, tantric means Shiva and Shakti inside

you, you have to trascend it, and go beyond your mind and sense, as much as

you are attach to your sense you have reach nothing. your are an slave of

your senses.

Rambha

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Swami Anand Nisarg [swamiji_nisarg]

Enviado el: sabado, 14 de febrero de 2004 8:41

Para:

Asunto: RE: Re: Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi

corruption

 

 

 

Beloved Rambha,

 

And respectfully back to you,

 

I did not meet Muktananda in person. I have studied

his teachings, however, and found little in them to be

worthwhile (though there's always something that can

be said to be worthile in just about any teaching, but

certainly nothing in his that could not be found from

better sources). I have also run into a number of

followers of his, both ex-followers, and those who are

still currently devoted to him or to one of the two

warring camps of his successors (chidvilasananda and

her little brother nityananda).

 

There are a number of issues with Muktananda beside

the fact that his teaching was relatively shallow.

The greatest of these is hypocrisy. You have already

seen my feelings regarding gurus who advocate extreme

sex repression; however it is one thing to advocate

it, and quite a worse thing to have advocated it and

then fail to follow your own teachings. Muktananda

was/is involved in a great deal of scandals regarding

his sexual activities with teenage girls. I suppose

he was just "giving them shaktipat"? There are

besides this a number of allegations involving

violence and violent intimidation of members and ex

members of the siddha yoga foundation.

 

And in answer to your question, yes I have been in the

presence of satgurus in my life, and yes i have

experienced shaktipat.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

 

--- Teresa <rambha wrote:

> With respect

> Ithink you don't have to speak so bad about Swami

> Muktananda, have you ever

> met him, ? have you ever be with a Satguru in your

> life? have you ever

> experience shaktipat? how can you tell so stupid

> things about someone known

> all over the world like a true Guru, but more in

> India.Swami Muktanada never

> show any siddhi, he always spoke that it was not

> real gurus the ones who

> show it, He did not need to show powers, He was

> always inmersed in his true

> Self. And also he was initiated by Bhagawan

> Nityananda known as and avadut,

> it will be good not to speak of such beings in such

> afrivolous way

> Rambha

>

> -----Mensaje original-----

> De: Swami Anand Nisarg

> [swamiji_nisarg]

> Enviado el: jueves, 12 de febrero de 2004 23:48

> Para:

> Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true

> story of siddhi

> corruption

>

>

>

> Beloved Omprem,

>

> I think the interesting thing about your latest

> attack

> on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off any

> siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for

> those

> fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba who

> resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The

> very

> essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic powers

> will be of any help in the spiritual quest and that

> one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs" who

> claim some special divine authority that makes them

> better than the rest of the world, or their

> students.

> He often reminded his students (though not always

> successfully at getting them to listen) that he was

> just an "ordinary man".

>

> This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied on

> any

> kind of emphasis on either siddhis or shaktipat as

> the

> drawing force of his teaching. Rather, he relied on

> the simple strength of his words and presence.

>

> Yes, Osho had health problems, as do all human

> beings.

> He died, just like your Sivananda died, just like

> Buddha and Krishna and Jesus died. He didn't claim

> that his teachings would make you any physically

> healthier, neither did he teach mortification of the

> body. He certainly didn't make absurd claims like

> Sivananda, that a "true yogi" can live for as long

> as

> he wants, or like Aurobindo that he was physically

> immortal.

>

> As Krishna taught in the Gita, "II. 13. Any who

> lives

> a mortal life in a body will experience childhood,

> youth, and old age. Likewise, they will achieve

> other

> forms of life beyond this one. One who is focused

> will

> not be blind to this."

>

> I don't particularly care much about the definitions

> your sex-obsessed guru made about the "qualities of

> a

> disciple" (yes, Sivananda was obsessed with sex, an

> unhealthily negative obsession is still an

> obsession,

> read his works on Brahmacharya and you see the

> typical

> sick fear of human sexuality that you find in all

> fundmanetalists).

>

> My standards for the qualities of a practitioner are

> these:

> 22. The Blessed One said:

> Son of Pandu, one who neither hates illumination,

> attachment or delusion, even in their presence, nor

> does he desire them in their absence.

> 23. One who holds no position is never disturbed by

> the gunas, and thus witnesses their action. Such a

> one

> remains steady and does not waver.

> 24. One who acts equally when suffering and joy are

> present in him, who is equally disposed to a a lump

> of

> earth, a lump of stone, and a lump of gold. One who

> is

> equally disposed to the desirable and undesirable,

> and

> equally steady when his soul is being praised or

> defamed by others.

> 25. Equal in honour and dishonour, equal to groups

> of

> friends and enemies, renouncing all efforts, he is

> said to be risen above the gunas.

> -Bhagavad Gita, Ch14

>

> Thus, in striving to fulfill this Sadhana, despite

> your violent attacks against Osho and now myself, I

> will attempt not to be upset, and will simply

> continue

> to correct you, recognizing that you come from a

> position of ignorance, not evil.

>

> Love

> Swami

>

>

> --- omprem <omprem wrote:

> > OM Swamiji

> >

> > Could it be that you are falling victim to the

> > degenerate,

> > self-absorbed mindset of Rajneesh that also

> engulfed

> > his

> > followers when he was alive?

> >

> > In Bliss Divine, Swami Sivananda says that the

> > qualities of a

> > Tantric disciple "are purity, faith, devotion,

> > dispassion,

> > truthfulness, and control of the senses." What

> does

> > this checklist

> > tell us about you? Are you a legitimate Swami? Or,

> > are you

> > simply a householder, subject to the negativity of

> > that 'human

> > nature' that you love so much?

> >

> > Those 'misdirections and fallacies' about

> Rajneesh,

> > as you put

> > it, are all a matter of public record - along with

> > his mug shot.

> >

> > The important aspect of the Sivananda vs Rajneesh

> > comparison

> > is not their respective philosophies/spiritual

> > paths, both of which

> > are viable in the hands of competent, purified

> > people. The

> > important aspect is that Swami Sivananda did not

> > succumb to

> > the lure of public adulation, the rise of siddhis,

> > and the pride of

> > achieving lower levels of Self-Realization whereas

> > Rajneesh did

> > allow himself to be corrupted by fame, power,

> money,

> > and prana.

> >

> > This message thread started with message 8609

> where

> > Devi

> > Bhakta presented a discussion he had with another

> > member on

> > the advisability of intentionally developing

> siddis.

> > Rajneesh is

> > an excellent example of why one should not focus

> on

> > developing

> > siddhis or any of the other byproducts of

> Kundalini

> > but instead

> > should rigorously eschew such phenomena and

> continue

> > along

> > toward a merger with the Divine (Chaitanya or

> > Nirvilkalpa

> > Samadhi).

> >

> > Rajneesh not only allowed himself to wallow in

> empty

> > prana

> > accomplishments such as the siddhis of telepathy

> and

> > astral

> > projection but also steadfastly ignored warning

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

 

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

It is important because you don't want to refer to your linage, so it could

be untrue what you are saying there is nothing that guarantee you in your

talking.

So please tell as where do you come from?

Rambha

 

-----Mensaje original-----

De: Swami Anand Nisarg [swamiji_nisarg]

Enviado el: sabado, 14 de febrero de 2004 8:29

Para:

Asunto: RE: Re: Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi

corruption

 

 

 

Beloved Teresa,

 

I do not believe it is important, in the context of

the conversation I was having with Omprem. Why would

it be?

If you think what I'm saying is wrong, then me being

from a lineage you know or respect shouldn't change

that fact.

If you think what I'm saying is right, then me being

from a lineage you don't know or dislike should not

change the rightness of my words either.

 

Love

Swami

 

--- Teresa <rambha wrote:

> I think is very important to know who was your

> guruji or the one who

> initiated you as a swami

> why are you not clear about it, I want to apologice

> for my english, because

> is not my mother language,

> Rambha

> -----Mensaje original-----

> De: Swami Anand Nisarg

> [swamiji_nisarg]

> Enviado el: viernes, 13 de febrero de 2004 4:38

> Para:

> Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true

> story of siddhi

> corruption

>

>

>

> Beloved Omprem,

>

> There is really little point in debating against

> your

> lies and absurdities. You are on your path, perhaps

> someday you will be able to realize the futility of

> some of what you do.

>

> By court records, you are referring to the court

> records that demonstrate that the ONLY crime Osho

> was

> ever "convicted" of by the US government was

> immigration fraud, after a nearly five year campaign

> against him where they tried to accuse him of just

> about everything?

>

> I do not mention the name of the one who initiated

> me,

> because its not important. You probably would not

> know

> this person, and people's opinion of my words should

> not rest on some external authority, but simply on

> what I say. Considering the fear and terror with

> which you have reacted to Osho, and to me, I would

> not

> want you to similarly commit the harm of attacking

> my

> initiator.

>

> As for Calder, I am familiar with his writing about

> Osho; he is one of the many ex-students of Oshos who

> fell out with him after Osho changed styles,

> consistently turning away those who were merely

> looking for a guru who simply coincided with their

> own

> desires or prejudices. Calder's assertions are

> particularly absurd, as he doesn't merely claim that

> Osho was a fraud, instead claiming that Osho was

> enlightened (when Osho's external teachings happened

> to agree with Calders) and then somehow became

> "unenlightened" (when he started teaching in a way

> Calder didn't like). How exactly does a buddha

> become

> an unBuddha?

>

> Please don't think that last statement is actually a

> question directed at you, since you clearly could

> not

> recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

> staring you in the face.

>

> Love

> Swami

>

> --- omprem <omprem wrote:

> > OM Swamiji

> >

> > Isn't it interesting how the recitation of

> > publically available facts

> > which reveal certain people to be of a lower order

> > of morality

> > causes those people and/or their followers to

> > characterize the

> > facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak

> for

> > themselves.

> >

> > There is no attempt omn your part to dispute the

> > facts only an

> > attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone,

> who

> > prides

> > himself on his command of logic, you commit the

> > easiest logical

> > fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

> >

> > Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers by

> > his display of

> > siddhis. One of his early followers, Christopher

> > Calder, reports

> > that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> > also says that

> > Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and direct

> > energy

> > transmission for the benefit of his followers.

> This

> > seems to

> > invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never

> used

> > his

> > siddhis. Calder was there and had direct

> experience

> > of

> > Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

> >

> > Strange how the facts on public record keep

> refuting

> > your twisted

> > viewpoints.

> >

> > Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the

> > unprepared

> > ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

> >

> > You remain an excellent example of how

> desperation,

> > spiritual

> > pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make

> > someone say

> > and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami

> Sivanada

> > is

> > pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be goofy

> > enough to

> > prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami

> > Sivananda's

> > regardless of what their spiritual path may be.

> Your

> > vindictive

> > nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone

> from

> > taking

> > you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle

> > Brahmacharya

> > just say so. We will understand.

> >

> > By the way, you still have not revealed who

> > initiated you into

> > Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did

> you

> > merely

> > promote yourself to Swamidom without the benefit

> of

> > any

> > preparation or instruction? Please remember that

> > even a parrot

> > can be taught to recite the Holy Gita but that

> does

> > make the

> > parrot holy or a Swami.

> >

> > OM Namah Sivaya

> >

> > Omprem

> >

> >

> > , Swami Anand

> > Nisarg

> > <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> > >

> > > Beloved Omprem,

> > >

> > > I think the interesting thing about your latest

> > attack

> > > on Osho is that Osho himself NEVER showed off

> any

> > > siddhis, specifically rejected the idea of using

> > > siddhis, and reserved his harshest criticism for

> > those

> > > fraudulent masters like Muktananda and Sai Baba

> > who

> > > resorted to cheap parlour tricks in the guise of

> > > "miracles" to gain converts to their cults. The

> > very

> > > essence of Osho's teaching was that no magic

> > powers

> > > will be of any help in the spiritual quest and

> > that

> > > one cannot put one's blind faith in "messiahs"

> who

> > > claim some special divine authority that makes

> > them

> > > better than the rest of the world, or their

> > students.

> > > He often reminded his students (though not

> always

> > > successfully at getting them to listen) that he

> > was

> > > just an "ordinary man".

> > >

> > > This didn't mean that he didn't have a powerful

> > > spiritual energy. He did. But he never relied

> on

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

 

 

 

 

Links

[Guest guest]

"It is important because you don't want to refer to your linage, so

it could be untrue what you are saying there is nothing that

guarantee you in your talking. So please tell as where do you come

from? Rambha"

 

I've been reading all these messages. Now I am wondering weather all

these are necessary. Questions like : Who is your guru? Which Lineage

from etc? Should it be brought in this public discussion.

 

Yeah! it is nice if your guru is someone popular, well like by

millions etc and you can be proud and boast about it, but is this

what it is suppose to be?

 

As far as I am concern I am not taking sides. Both Omprem and Swami

are equally knowledgeable and I respected both of them. So I will

continue to read, observe and when I feel that something is not

right, I will voice out. A wise man told me once : it is always the

sisya that gives the guru the bad name. I am beginning to agree with

him now.

[Guest guest]

How could what I am saying be untrue because of my

lineage.

 

If I say "the sky is blue" and I come from a lineage

you don't like, is the sky suddenly green?

 

The only way my lineage has anything to do with any

claims I make is if I make claims about my lineage,

nothing more. Anything else I say you should accept

or reject based on ME, not my guru.

 

I come from the infinite, like you.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

--- Teresa <rambha wrote:

> It is important because you don't want to refer to

> your linage, so it could

> be untrue what you are saying there is nothing that

> guarantee you in your

> talking.

> So please tell as where do you come from?

> Rambha

>

> -----Mensaje original-----

> De: Swami Anand Nisarg

> [swamiji_nisarg]

> Enviado el: sabado, 14 de febrero de 2004 8:29

> Para:

> Asunto: RE: Re: Rajneesh, the true

> story of siddhi

> corruption

>

>

>

> Beloved Teresa,

>

> I do not believe it is important, in the context of

> the conversation I was having with Omprem. Why

> would

> it be?

> If you think what I'm saying is wrong, then me being

> from a lineage you know or respect shouldn't change

> that fact.

> If you think what I'm saying is right, then me being

> from a lineage you don't know or dislike should not

> change the rightness of my words either.

>

> Love

> Swami

>

> --- Teresa <rambha wrote:

> > I think is very important to know who was your

> > guruji or the one who

> > initiated you as a swami

> > why are you not clear about it, I want to

> apologice

> > for my english, because

> > is not my mother language,

> > Rambha

> > -----Mensaje original-----

> > De: Swami Anand Nisarg

> > [swamiji_nisarg]

> > Enviado el: viernes, 13 de febrero de 2004 4:38

> > Para:

> > Asunto: Re: Re: Rajneesh, the

> true

> > story of siddhi

> > corruption

> >

> >

> >

> > Beloved Omprem,

> >

> > There is really little point in debating against

> > your

> > lies and absurdities. You are on your path,

> perhaps

> > someday you will be able to realize the futility

> of

> > some of what you do.

> >

> > By court records, you are referring to the court

> > records that demonstrate that the ONLY crime Osho

> > was

> > ever "convicted" of by the US government was

> > immigration fraud, after a nearly five year

> campaign

> > against him where they tried to accuse him of just

> > about everything?

> >

> > I do not mention the name of the one who initiated

> > me,

> > because its not important. You probably would not

> > know

> > this person, and people's opinion of my words

> should

> > not rest on some external authority, but simply on

> > what I say. Considering the fear and terror with

> > which you have reacted to Osho, and to me, I would

> > not

> > want you to similarly commit the harm of attacking

> > my

> > initiator.

> >

> > As for Calder, I am familiar with his writing

> about

> > Osho; he is one of the many ex-students of Oshos

> who

> > fell out with him after Osho changed styles,

> > consistently turning away those who were merely

> > looking for a guru who simply coincided with their

> > own

> > desires or prejudices. Calder's assertions are

> > particularly absurd, as he doesn't merely claim

> that

> > Osho was a fraud, instead claiming that Osho was

> > enlightened (when Osho's external teachings

> happened

> > to agree with Calders) and then somehow became

> > "unenlightened" (when he started teaching in a way

> > Calder didn't like). How exactly does a buddha

> > become

> > an unBuddha?

> >

> > Please don't think that last statement is actually

> a

> > question directed at you, since you clearly could

> > not

> > recognize a Buddha in the first place, if he was

> > staring you in the face.

> >

> > Love

> > Swami

> >

> > --- omprem <omprem wrote:

> > > OM Swamiji

> > >

> > > Isn't it interesting how the recitation of

> > > publically available facts

> > > which reveal certain people to be of a lower

> order

> > > of morality

> > > causes those people and/or their followers to

> > > characterize the

> > > facts as 'violent attacks'. Court records speak

> > for

> > > themselves.

> > >

> > > There is no attempt omn your part to dispute

> the

> > > facts only an

> > > attempt to discredit the messenger. For someone,

> > who

> > > prides

> > > himself on his command of logic, you commit the

> > > easiest logical

> > > fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.

> > >

> > > Rajneesh did in fact dazzle his early followers

> by

> > > his display of

> > > siddhis. One of his early followers,

> Christopher

> > > Calder, reports

> > > that he received shaktipat from Rajneesh. Calder

> > > also says that

> > > Rajneesh made liberal use of telepathy and

> direct

> > > energy

> > > transmission for the benefit of his followers.

> > This

> > > seems to

> > > invalidate your contentions that Rajneesh never

> > used

> > > his

> > > siddhis. Calder was there and had direct

> > experience

> > > of

> > > Rajneesh's siddhi usage. Were you there?

> > >

> > > Strange how the facts on public record keep

> > refuting

> > > your twisted

> > > viewpoints.

> > >

> > > Rajneesh remains an excellent example of how the

> > > unprepared

> > > ego can be corrupted by siddhis.

> > >

> > > You remain an excellent example of how

> > desperation,

> > > spiritual

> > > pride, and willful ignorance can combine to make

> > > someone say

> > > and do foolish things. Your attack on Swami

> > Sivanada

> > > is

> > > pathetic. Do you think that anyone would be

> goofy

> > > enough to

> > > prefer your spiritual authority over that Swami

> > > Sivananda's

> > > regardless of what their spiritual path may be.

> > Your

> > > vindictive

> > > nature alone would be enough to preclude anyone

> > from

> > > taking

> > > you seriously as a Swami. If you cannot handle

> > > Brahmacharya

> > > just say so. We will understand.

> > >

> > > By the way, you still have not revealed who

> > > initiated you into

> > > Sannyasa. Are you ashamed of your Guru? Or, did

> > you

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

-

Swami Anand Nisarg

Saturday, February 14, 2004 7:41 AM

RE: Re: Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi

corruption

 

 

 

Beloved Rambha,

 

And respectfully back to you,

 

I did not meet Muktananda in person. I have studied

his teachings, however, and found little in them to be

worthwhile (though there's always something that can

be said to be worthile in just about any teaching, but

certainly nothing in his that could not be found from

better sources). I have also run into a number of

followers of his, both ex-followers, and those who are

still currently devoted to him or to one of the two

warring camps of his successors (chidvilasananda and

her little brother nityananda).

 

There are a number of issues with Muktananda beside

the fact that his teaching was relatively shallow.

The greatest of these is hypocrisy. You have already

seen my feelings regarding gurus who advocate extreme

sex repression; however it is one thing to advocate

it, and quite a worse thing to have advocated it and

then fail to follow your own teachings. Muktananda

was/is involved in a great deal of scandals regarding

his sexual activities with teenage girls.

 

 

I think that the fault lies in the fact that in India all dead bodies are now

burnt and dead bodies are no longer left on the ground to rot or to be eaten by

jackals and vultures. This deprives Sadhakas of Shivastika because there are no

longer any rotting dead bodies to contemplate.

[Guest guest]

-

krishnamoorthy shankar

Saturday, February 14, 2004 2:55 AM

Re: Re: Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi

corruption

 

 

Dear friends,

I have gone thru some of books by rajaneesh & they

are really helpful. Strange are the ways of saints &

sadhus & we surely cant a reason for each & everything

as neither we have the mindset nor the intelligence.

The great sri krishna preached bhagatwat gita to

arjuna & nama mantra of visnu sahra naam via bhisma

pitamaha. He showed the beauty of raas lila to gopis.

 

This ras lila of Krishna and the Gopis is just symbolic of the tathata of the

tattvas together with the tattvas themselves.

 

... even the great jayadeva did not realize the beauty

of madurya bhava "thinking how can krishna fall at the

feet of radha" however the all mighty god took pity on

him --- we have the story of jayadeva writing

astapadhi & going for a oil bath. sri krishna meets

the wife of jayadeva has his food when jayadeva

comesback for food his wife says he has already taken

that now jayadeva realizes that it was god indeed who

has corrected his verses & taken his food so he falls

at the feet of his wife (as only god meets a true

devotee) & thus realizes the truth of his verse " saru

sile priye..."

if dharma can vary from person to person so can the

way to get moksha vary....

so let us not hurl missiles at each other saying

this is wrong that is wrong etc. may be the teaching

is not meant for our mindset. even if i think i aver

to be a swamiji it is a lot of sacrifice. so let us

learn to respect each other. we have not yet reached

the stage of rajneesh to comment about him.

may be i am wrong still

with warm regards

shankar

[Guest guest]

> It is important because you don't want to refer to

> your linage, so it could

> be untrue what you are saying there is nothing that

> guarantee you in your

> talking.

> So please tell as where do you come from?

 

Dear Ones,

Namaste.

In my opinion, Swamiji is right in not sharing his

lineage with the group. The information can really be

of no use to us. Even the idea of knowing in order to

validate his words, to me, seems wrong. If words

contain a truth that strikes to the heart of some,

then let them be, regardless of the messenger. If a

theif proclaimed that God is Love, would it be less

true?

 

We should question EVERYTHING!! Inquire into the heart

of the teachings of masters, but how can we ever

presume to know who they are? Let us not get caught up

in criticizing. Instead of expending our energy

finding fault with others, let us focus on removing

the mud from our own hearts.

 

Even if someone speaks ill of your own guru, try to

think, 'would guruji want me to defend him/her?' A

genuine master does not need the defense OR promotion

of the disciple. His/her work on this earth could not

be dependant on that, or they would not be a real

Satguru.

 

Pranams to all,

Brianna

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

> right, I will voice out. A wise man told me once : it is always the

> sisya that gives the guru the bad name. I am beginning to agree

with

> him now.

 

LOL. I had a good laugh over this one, but yes how true!

 

-yogaman

[Guest guest]

Brianna Mosteller [rubyrapunzel]

 

Even if someone speaks ill of your own guru, try to

think, 'would guruji want me to defend him/her?' A

genuine master does not need the defense OR promotion

of the disciple.

 

Very well said. I remember such an incident recorded in THE GOSPEL OF SRI

RAMAKRISHNA, where the Master prevented his students from defending him from

slander. I couldn't find this anywhere on the web, but did find another very

instructive incident from the site of the Sri Ramakrishna Math:

 

http://www.sriramakrishnamath.org/Learn/Learn3.shtml

 

While returning to the monastery, Atmaprakashananda said

in an aggrieved tone: "Swami, I am extremely sorry. It is

for my sake that you have had to put up with an insult

unworthy of your position.Who can insult me?" Saradananda

replied. "If my mind does not accept the rudeness, how can I

be insulted? Have I kept anything for myself? I have already

offered body, mind, and soul at the blessed feet of God,

where there cannot be any room for good and bad, honour and

dishonour. Be at ease. You need not worry on my behalf."

 

In Her Service,

 

KG

 

----

Kensho Godchaser

http://www.KenshoGodchaser.com/

 

Why should there be anything new? The object of spiritual seeking is to find

out what is eternally true, not what is new in Time.

 

- Sri Aurobindo

[Guest guest]

OM Kanna Krishnan

 

If you are trying to say that the so-called "swami" is an unsattvic

illusion of Maa's, then I have to say his fraudulence is now clear

to all concerned and the rest is up to them.  As Brianna has

already said, "why worry about false guides and their followers?"

 

It fell to me to caution readers about the falsity of both Rajneesh

and this fake swami, initially because of the discussion of

siddhis and their possible effects and later because of the

ridiculous spiritual puffery of the fake, mysogynistic swami. Now

that is done. The rest is up to the readers.

 

To have done nothing and slough off Rajneesh and this fake

swami as Maa's lila is a too fatalistic, too sterile, interpretation of

karma. It is not sufficient to do nothing for the reason that

Brianna has said, i.e. "It is in Her hands, and we cannot

presume to know Her plans." If that were true, no one would do

anything. We would be as addicts, victims of our need to create a

false world with its sensations of oblivion intended to bury our

sensibilities. So we must act. But, once, we have done

something, we cannot take responsibility for the subsequent

actions of others.

 

I suggest that we get on with our life.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

I havent read about Rajneesh much except for a few articles

explaining his ideas and read 1 or 2 of his speeches.

 

In one of his speeches I found that he called a particular swami "a

fool" and another philosopher too in similar manner. For me that is

enough to convince me not to waste time reading him.

 

I am surprised because, I thought it showed Osho's

anger/frustration towards this Swami and philosopher, for whatver

reasons. I dont think any true jnani would call another and that too

someone who is followed by so many as fool.

 

Rgds

 

, "omprem" <omprem> wrote:

> OM Kanna Krishnan

>

> If you are trying to say that the so-called "swami" is an unsattvic

> illusion of Maa's, then I have to say his fraudulence is now clear

> to all concerned and the rest is up to them.  As Brianna has

> already said, "why worry about false guides and their followers?"

>

> It fell to me to caution readers about the falsity of both Rajneesh

> and this fake swami, initially because of the discussion of

> siddhis and their possible effects and later because of the

> ridiculous spiritual puffery of the fake, mysogynistic swami. Now

> that is done. The rest is up to the readers.

>

> To have done nothing and slough off Rajneesh and this fake

> swami as Maa's lila is a too fatalistic, too sterile,

interpretation of

> karma. It is not sufficient to do nothing for the reason that

> Brianna has said, i.e. "It is in Her hands, and we cannot

> presume to know Her plans." If that were true, no one would do

> anything. We would be as addicts, victims of our need to create a

> false world with its sensations of oblivion intended to bury our

> sensibilities. So we must act. But, once, we have done

> something, we cannot take responsibility for the subsequent

> actions of others.

>

> I suggest that we get on with our life.

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

[Guest guest]

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> It fell to me to caution readers about the falsity

> of both Rajneesh

> and this fake swami, initially because of the

> discussion of

> siddhis and their possible effects and later because

> of the

> ridiculous spiritual puffery of the fake,

> mysogynistic swami. Now

> that is done. The rest is up to the readers.

 

"mysogynistic"?

 

Uh, Omprem do you even know what that word means? If

so, how does it apply in any way to me? Of course

most of what you've said about me doesn't apply but I

find this particularly odd.

 

Love

Swami

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html