Rajneesh, the true story of siddhi corruption

[Guest guest]

Beloved Satish,

 

If I call someone like Omprem a fool, its really not

very important. Even if I'm right, he really isn't

very harmful.

 

On the other hand, someone who manipulates or

convinces thousands with a false spirituality, that

harms or represses others, has an effect on all of

humanity. For someone like Osho to call a "great

swami" or a "great politician" or the Pope or Mother

Theresa, etc etc. a fool, he is doing something

worthwhile because these people have to be stood up

to. Until humanity doesn't suffer these kind of fools,

spreading their misery and suffering to others, there

is little hope of evolution for us all.

 

Love

Swami

 

--- Satish Arigela <satisharigela wrote:

> 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

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

OM Swamiji

 

You asked, so I respond. Please see your post 8655 and my

response 8662. Can you explain your italicizing 'swami' when

referring to Swami Sivananda Radha as something other than

misogyny?

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

[Guest guest]

Beloved Omprem,

 

Now I understand your statement, though I hope to

correct it. I did italicize "swami" for sivananda

radha, for two reasons. I find her "teachings" to be

spurious, and in my lineage as well as many others,

the female moniker for an initiate is ma or mata, not

swami. Unless Radha wanted to reject her femininity

and be masculine for some reason?

 

This is not misogynous however, it is on the contrary

a deep veneration for the feminine, for Devi. A woman

who seeks to reject her femininity to be more "male"

is dropping to a lower level, in my opinion. If Radha

really wanted to, I suppose she could call herself a

Swami, no problem. But I as a male could not be a Ma.

That Radha felt she had to "legitimize" herself by

taking on a male title is sad.

 

And though I do not accept her teaching, I still bow

at her feet as a representation of the divine

Feminine.

 

Love

Nisarg

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> OM Swamiji

>

> You asked, so I respond. Please see your post 8655

> and my

> response 8662. Can you explain your italicizing

> 'swami' when

> referring to Swami Sivananda Radha as something

> other than

> misogyny?

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

OM Swamiji

 

That was fast footwork but you only reveal how deep-seated your

prejudice against women is.

 

It was not Swami Sivananda Radha who referred to herself as

'Swami' but her initiator, Swami Sivananda. For her to do

otherwise, is to question her Guru.

 

Swami Sivananda was one of the first to initiate women into

Sannyasa. And he faced a lot of objections from traditional,

narrow-minded people such as you.

 

The whole idea of Sannyasa in the Saraswati order is to rise

above names and forms. You seek to maintain names and

forms. It is interesting that you seek to maintain set roles for men

and women especially when those roles tend to treat men better

or view them as somehow being more capable of being a

Swami and closer to the Divine. Try to get over your inferiority

complex. What do you have to fear if women are swamis? Who

cares what they or they initiator calls themselves.?

 

It does not matter whether you agree with Swami Sivananda

Radha's teachings or whether those teachings or how she

refers to herself differs from your lineage. She was called Swami

by her initiator. That is all you need to know.

 

To say that because you consider her teachings to be spurious,

therefore she is not a Swami is ridiculous. On that basis, we

could dismiss you as a Swami. Your teachings are not only

spurious but inconsistent and not logically valid.

 

Because your lineage treats female renunciants differently from

the Saraswati order does not invalidate the methods of the

Saraswati order. To claim that it does, as you do, is to claim that

your order is the ultimate standard by which all is to be judged.

How ridiculous. Those kinds of claims undermine the validity of

either your order or yourself. Which is it?

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem

 

 

 

 

, Swami Anand Nisarg

<swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

>

> Beloved Omprem,

>

> Now I understand your statement, though I hope to

> correct it. I did italicize "swami" for sivananda

> radha, for two reasons. I find her "teachings" to be

> spurious, and in my lineage as well as many others,

> the female moniker for an initiate is ma or mata, not

> swami. Unless Radha wanted to reject her femininity

> and be masculine for some reason?

>

> This is not misogynous however, it is on the contrary

> a deep veneration for the feminine, for Devi. A woman

> who seeks to reject her femininity to be more "male"

> is dropping to a lower level, in my opinion. If Radha

> really wanted to, I suppose she could call herself a

> Swami, no problem. But I as a male could not be a Ma.

> That Radha felt she had to "legitimize" herself by

> taking on a male title is sad.

>

> And though I do not accept her teaching, I still bow

> at her feet as a representation of the divine

> Feminine.

>

> Love

> Nisarg

>

> --- omprem <omprem> wrote:

> > OM Swamiji

> >

> > You asked, so I respond. Please see your post 8655

> > and my

> > response 8662. Can you explain your italicizing

> > 'swami' when

> > referring to Swami Sivananda Radha as something

> > other than

> > misogyny?

> >

> > OM Namah Sivaya

> >

> > Omprem

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

> http://taxes./filing.html

[Guest guest]

Omprem,

 

You do seem to love to argue! I wouldn't even respond

anymore but your attacks here are particularly low

blows. I, like most people on this list (I presume,

though I'm not very sure in your case) am on this list

because I am a GODDESS WORSHIPER. To call me

misogynist is therefore very hurtful.

 

Let me reiterate: if a woman chooses to call herself

swami, because a guru or priest told her to or for

whatever other reason, I have no objection. I would

have a far more serious objection to a man calling

himself "Mata".

 

I do think that it is foolish of her to want to have a

masculine title, because whether or not the world at

large believes so, the FEMININE title is the superior

one. Man can at best be "teacher" but woman can be

"mother". If she does not realize this, or her teacher

did not realize this, it is just demonstrative of some

form of ignorance on their part.

 

Love

Swami

 

 

 

--- omprem <omprem wrote:

> OM Swamiji

>

> That was fast footwork but you only reveal how

> deep-seated your

> prejudice against women is.

>

> It was not Swami Sivananda Radha who referred to

> herself as

> 'Swami' but her initiator, Swami Sivananda. For her

> to do

> otherwise, is to question her Guru.

>

> Swami Sivananda was one of the first to initiate

> women into

> Sannyasa. And he faced a lot of objections from

> traditional,

> narrow-minded people such as you.

>

> The whole idea of Sannyasa in the Saraswati order is

> to rise

> above names and forms. You seek to maintain names

> and

> forms. It is interesting that you seek to maintain

> set roles for men

> and women especially when those roles tend to treat

> men better

> or view them as somehow being more capable of being

> a

> Swami and closer to the Divine. Try to get over your

> inferiority

> complex. What do you have to fear if women are

> swamis? Who

> cares what they or they initiator calls themselves.?

>

> It does not matter whether you agree with Swami

> Sivananda

> Radha's teachings or whether those teachings or how

> she

> refers to herself differs from your lineage. She was

> called Swami

> by her initiator. That is all you need to know.

>

> To say that because you consider her teachings to

> be spurious,

> therefore she is not a Swami is ridiculous. On

> that basis, we

> could dismiss you as a Swami. Your teachings are not

> only

> spurious but inconsistent and not logically valid.

>

> Because your lineage treats female renunciants

> differently from

> the Saraswati order does not invalidate the methods

> of the

> Saraswati order. To claim that it does, as you do,

> is to claim that

> your order is the ultimate standard by which all is

> to be judged.

> How ridiculous. Those kinds of claims undermine the

> validity of

> either your order or yourself. Which is it?

>

> OM Namah Sivaya

>

> Omprem

>

>

>

>

> , Swami Anand

> Nisarg

> <swamiji_nisarg> wrote:

> >

> > Beloved Omprem,

> >

> > Now I understand your statement, though I hope to

> > correct it. I did italicize "swami" for sivananda

> > radha, for two reasons. I find her "teachings" to

> be

> > spurious, and in my lineage as well as many

> others,

> > the female moniker for an initiate is ma or mata,

> not

> > swami. Unless Radha wanted to reject her

> femininity

> > and be masculine for some reason?

> >

> > This is not misogynous however, it is on the

> contrary

> > a deep veneration for the feminine, for Devi. A

> woman

> > who seeks to reject her femininity to be more

> "male"

> > is dropping to a lower level, in my opinion. If

> Radha

> > really wanted to, I suppose she could call herself

> a

> > Swami, no problem. But I as a male could not be a

> Ma.

> > That Radha felt she had to "legitimize" herself by

> > taking on a male title is sad.

> >

> > And though I do not accept her teaching, I still

> bow

> > at her feet as a representation of the divine

> > Feminine.

> >

> > Love

> > Nisarg

> >

> > --- omprem <omprem> wrote:

> > > OM Swamiji

> > >

> > > You asked, so I respond. Please see your post

> 8655

> > > and my

> > > response 8662. Can you explain your italicizing

> > > 'swami' when

> > > referring to Swami Sivananda Radha as something

> > > other than

> > > misogyny?

> > >

> > > OM Namah Sivaya

> > >

> > > Omprem

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing

> online.

> > http://taxes./filing.html

>

>

 

 

 

 

Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

http://antispam./tools

[Guest guest]

Sometimes...silence really is golden. Devi Bhaktiji has expressed

hope that this could come to an end soon. If not please take it off

list as no one is wanting it here.

 

Brightest Blessings

Soma

[Bhagwan 0]

It is not true,that Osho had chronic fatigue syndrome as I already explained in the post about Osho and valium,and it is also true that he has helped to enlighten many people and brought many new effective meditation techniques into the world.Also,he was completely against abuse of siddhis and always would tell people to avoid such distractions on the spiritual path.Yes,he does have a unique philosohy which accepts the material world,and all the pleasures of it,but this is part of his vision and his great legacy,not some kind of corruption on his part! You have to look at his vision of the new world,Zorba the Buddha,to understand his philosophy.

Love,Bhagwan