Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 62.47.23.131 (talk) at 04:47, 16 February 2008 (→Falsification of sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Rajneesh received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rajneesh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Oregon Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Child abuse

Why there is no mention in this article (neither in the Osho movement one) about the sexuality habits of Osho followers ? Female teens of 13 were sexualy abuse in the Osho commune of Amsterdam (and certainly in other commune aswell). This fact is unequivocally presented in the docmutenry of the dutch realisator Maroesja Perizonius Child of the commune .

There is a clip from and link (pay-per-view) to the programme here. I haven't seen it yet, but will try to have a look at it over the next few days. Jayen466 09:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you never got back about this subject, I've included the real link and description. The clip from the link you have is on YouTube, and not the original source. The clip shows only the best things about the ashram in the couple minute opening, and not what the content contains. The pay-per-view can be found here and is called "Child of the Commune." One will have to do a search to find it there.

Here is what the clip's description includes:

Story

"Child of the Commune" is a personal story of a woman whose mother joined the commune when she was six years old. They left the commune when she was 14.

Social Interest

This shows what life was like in the commune, in more than one country, from many sources. The guru's teachings are defined in this documentary.

Commentary: I watched the film after paying a fee. It was a woman's quest to find out why her mother and other commune adults had acted irresponsibly in sending youth to the commune school in England (and also abandoning them at the Oregon ashram, where they never saw their real parents). The mother admits in the film to having walked in on her 13 year old daughter engaged in sexual intercourse with an adult from the commune and did nothing to stop it. It describes this as a common occurrence with all the girls of that age at that school. It also described the child labor, that they were sent to "school" for three months but in fact worked from 5:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. and later every day. Their only schooling was about one hour a week. Osho claimed that they needed real life lessons, which is why they made them work instead of traditional schooling.

Parents signed consent forms for their young children to have contraceptives administered, a document that the woman in the film had shown her mother. Her mother denied ever having signed anything, and in fact, denied any knowledge of any problems. Even when confronted why the mother didn't intervene in the young teen's sexual activities, the mother gave her daughter the blame, saying the teen wanted it that way.

When showing coverage of devotees greeting Rajneesh, the compulsory act at gunpoint, was exposed.

There are numerous references to responsibility in the film. Parents would abandon their children and live at the adult commune.

Coverage of these topics seems paramount to a full picture of Rajneesh's life.

Solarain (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There is the more obvious charge that most children at Bhagwaan's communes were routinely neglected and basically just left to wander about. The deliberate anarchy of the adult's led to a very poor environment for raising children. Tim Guest's book for example would be a good example of this (He also describes children of 8-10 being sexually active at the ranch, including with the adults, so I would revise that figure downward.) http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Orange-Growing-Guru/dp/015603106X--77.101.56.9 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Homophoby

Is it possible to say something about his strong homophoby ?

"If you want to be angry, be angry against Jesus Christ. Be angry against all the founders of religions. They all say, "Believe and you will be saved." And I say to you, "Believe and you are drowned." I say to you, "Doubt, because that is something that you have come with. Nature has provided you a method for inquiry. Doubt is a method of inquiry." In ten thousand years of religious history, religions have not contributed anything -- except AIDS, homosexuality, lesbianism, sadism, masochism, wars, discrimination -- all kinds of crimes: killing millions of people, burning living people. They are all based on belief. Science -- which is based on doubt -- has contributed within three hundred years everything from the smallest safety pin to the rocket that reaches to the moon. If you count the blessings that science has showered on you you will be surprised. Your clothes, your glasses, your watches, your health, your medicine, your food -- everything science has improved. Science has only been unsuccessful in improving you, because all the religions are sitting on your neck. I want you to get rid of all the religions and become a scientific seeker. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.94.86 (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In Iran, the punishment for homosexuality is death -- although because of this punishment, more Iranians are homosexual than anybody else. Because when something is so dangerous, people become interested: "Naturally there must be something in it. When the punishment is death, that means there must be something higher than life in it, more than life in it. It is worth taking the risk!"

But why should people be worried about others? About everything the society remains alert: nobody should have his own individual way about his sex, about his love, about his clothes, about his way of talking, manners. Every society imposes a fascist rule on its members. It destroys much that is beautiful. (Osho, Ah, This!)

In the West, if you are walking hand-in-hand with a woman no problem arises, because the society is also the same. But walk hand-in-hand with a man, two men walking hand-in-hand, and people start looking at you. Something is wrong -- you look homosexual, you look gay. It is dangerous!

Now homosexuals have been one of the tortured minorities in the world, very much tortured. In some countries they are killed. In some countries, for example in Iran, if it is found that two persons are living as homosexuals or lesbians, then the only punishment is death. What nonsense! They have not committed any crime against anybody, they have not harmed anybody! Two men living together, or two women living together, this should be nobody else's business. But there is a great fear of homosexuality, and the reason is that homosexuality has been repressed down the ages. ...

The homosexual has a very different lifestyle, and you are heterosexual. He belongs to another religion, he has another politics, he is not a man like you. The moment somebody says that he is gay, a gap arises, a great gap. Now how can you communicate?

But all these fears have to be dropped; these are all defense measures. They simply show that you are not yet settled in your being -- afraid any outside influence may take you away, off your ground. (Osho, Be Still and Know)

... Homosexuals are called "gay" people. They are really gay! The heterosexuals look so sad. Whenever you see a couple you can immediately know whether they are married or not: if they are sad they are married, if they are looking dull and dead they are married. Marriage kills all joy for the simple reason that it creates so many conflicts. Hence all societies have condemned homosexuality, for the simple reason that if it is not condemned, what will happen to reproduction? In the past it had some meaning, but now it has no meaning.

Now the day has come when homosexuality CAN be accepted, should be accepted as a natural outlet of your sexual energies. I am not against it, I am not for it either. I am simply saying that if you have to live your sex you can choose your style, you are free to choose your style. If you decide to be stupid, at least you should be given the freedom to choose what kind of stupid you want to be! I give you total freedom.

My effort here is to help you to go beyond it, so if you are homosexual you have to go beyond homosexuality, if you are heterosexual you have to go beyond heterosexuality. And there are other people also who are neither, who are autoerotic, autosexual. They have to go beyond their autoeroticism. Man has to transcend sex, whatsoever kind of sex it is, because unless you go beyond your biology you will never know your soul. But meanwhile -- before you go beyond -- it is your freedom to be whatsoever you want to be.

You say, "I am homosexual. I feel terribly oppressed and stricken by the stigma of homosexuality."

There is no need to be "terribly oppressed." You must be accepting people's condemnation. Deep down somewhere you are also against it; otherwise, why feel oppressed? If people are against, let them be against! You need not declare to everybody that you are a homosexual. You need not move with a flag that you are a homosexual! You can remain a homosexual. Of course, you cannot hide it because your sex style changes your body language. The way the homosexual walks is totally different from the heterosexual; the way he talks is totally different. And he looks so gay, so happy!

So you will have to remain a little less happy, that's all. Don't look so happy, and walk a little more consciously, that's all. (Osho, The Way of the Buddha)

I could find you dozens and dozens of quotes of this type. Jayen466 23:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

This is not a neutral article. This is damn near a "love letter" to the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and it glosses over the crimes the man committed and attempts to present this criminal in a positive light and sell his "message". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coelacanth1938 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)

You create the impression that Osho had committed a number of crimes for the article to gloss over; this is not so. The immigration issues (and even these were subject to a plea bargain, see p. 233, Carter 1990) are mentioned, and Osho has never been accused of anything else (ibidem). Osho is seen very much in a positive light today, at least in his home country, India (see for example India Today cover celebrating 60 years of Indian independence). -- Jayen466 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He is surely _not _only seen in positive light, both in the US and in India. A magazine cover does not prove the opposite as for example Hitler has made many covers in connection with German history and most people would not claim this makes him stand in positive light. It is merely an acknowledgement of his impact on his followers. It is obvious that this article is written by a bunch of people on a crusade distorting reality beyond the point of being bearable. Let me stress that I have no interest in editing content on wikipedia for exactly that reason. Why were there allegations against his followers in Oregon, in Amsterdam, etc.? Why did all this happen around one person? Why did some of the followers in Oregon amass weapons and threaten neighbours? Why would any reasonable person look at anything about him in a positive light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.37.229 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

One reason they may have amassed weapons is that circulars appeared all over Oregon at turkey shoots and the like, declaring an "open season on the central eastern Rajneesh, known locally as the Red Rats or Red Vermin", offering advice for "dressing out", "gut shots" and the use of "a Rolls Royce as bait" (Carter, 1990, p. 203). A Rajneeshee-owned hotel in Portland was the victim of a bomb attack a year or two prior; several attempts had been made on Osho's life in India.

As for how Osho is seen in the Indian subcontinent, I cannot think of anything that would make a philosopher more mainstream than the endorsement by several current or former prime ministers and presidents. Study the sources given in the article, or survey the Indian press for yourself for a while. To give you an example, this is the Prime Minister of the world's most populous democracy, speaking in 2000 (he was then leader of the opposition): 'Dr. Singh described the guru as "the most modern patron saint of India" as he had expressed his thoughts on all the problems perplexing mankind today, including environmental degradation, gender equality, human rights and so on. Releasing a compact disc of Osho's analysis of Japuji, which encompasses the basic thought that pervades the Guru Granth Saheb, the leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha said analysis of this kind would inspire future generations of people in all parts of the world. "Whenever human beings ask these questions on how to improve human condition, I am sure Osho's thought will be uppermost on their mind", he added. While he had never met Osho, Dr. Singh said that he had always increasingly found that "his is truly a psalm of peace which gives me contentment. It also enlightens me and it opens up new vistas of exploration about the redemption of the human condition." Later Dr. Singh wrote in the Osho World visitor's book that Osho's "life and work will continue to inspire future generations of humankind and his powerful message of essential unity of mankind will equip us to evolve a new global ethics for the improvement of the human condition."' -- Jayen466 16:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a neutral article but more of a love letter by fanatic followers. It should be rather rewritten completely than making minute corrections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.7.180 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, guys! Let's talk about it. ...hmmmm, but these comments were unsigned so I guess you may not want to talk. ---- Murftown (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• If all that was said above about the massive amounts of weapons, as well as the threats to the various individuals, and this can be referenced in secondary sources - then that should all be presented in the article. If not, I agree with the other anon-ips from above, that it seems like this is a "love letter" that "glosses over" criminal activities, as that person put it. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC).

• • I disagree. If the surrounding environment made violent threats against sannyasins, and the official Rajneeshpuram Peace Force (built up and trained under the auspices of the State of Oregon) increased its defence capabilities accordingly, then this should be covered in the article on Rajneeshpuram. Yes, to the extent that Osho was directly impacted by the presence of weapons (e.g. in latter years, his Rolls-Royce was accompanied by an armed guard, and he defended the presence of armed guards in his discourses), this can be covered in the article. As for glossing over criminal activities, this is the article about Osho, the individual, not the article about Rajneeshpuram or Ma Anand Sheela or the Osho movement. -- Jayen466 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• some links with infos that should be at least critically mentioned: 1) Jim Weaver, congressman for Oregons 4th district at the time ; 2) Although I do not agree with all of the authors statements, the following article contains interesting pieces of information . Its just the tip of the iceberg. There are many critics out there with valid points. It just gets drowned by all those who heard what they wanted to hear and who want to beleive it so badly. Its fundamentalism at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.37.229 (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• • The Weaver article is nowhere near reliable, claiming, as it does, that Sheela and Osho left Rajneeshpuram together (!). Neither Carter nor FitzGerald, who spent months on site before and after Osho's leaving, report anything like it. As for the other website, see Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). -- Jayen466 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • The entry - as is - excludes most of the criticism raised. Mentioning an article critically could include commenting on open questions. The entry is perceived as a "love letter" as it voluntarily makes assumtions in favour of Osho but does not mention the far spreat criticism in any detail. Furthermore, if one single wrong statement would discredit the complete source almost no article in wikipedia would be useful or stand up to its own demand. But what to expect in an article about a person with whom interviews seem like discussions with a common forum troll?

I have added a review of various criticisms, sourced, to the criticism section, as a "quick fix". More revisions will follow; both the Poona and Oregon sections require expansion. -- Jayen466 21:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Surely, the question to be asked is the opposite one: Why should an article in a small-circulation local paper, recording evidently faulty reminiscences of an elderly gentleman, be considered a preferred source for encyclopaedic information, given that there is a wealth of well-researched academic sources available? I'll gladly add a summary of criticism, based on reputable secondary sources. As I have said elsewhere, I had intended to revise the article for some time, to remedy its primary source bias, but have been busy with other things. (In particular, I bought the book by Fox recently, which covers all of Osho's life, rather than any specific episode.) -- Jayen466 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• An interview with Osho for the German political magazine "Der Spiegel" (in German - shortened). It can mildly be perceived as self contradictory. . Also the full article in DER SPIEGEL Nr. 32/1985 contains some very questionable comments not contained in the short version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.50.37.229 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable info to add to the article

• Leadership, Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Joseph R. Greene, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Previous to this, Mr. Greene served as deputy district director of the Portland District in Oregon. In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers. For his action in this investigation Mr. Greene was awarded the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 1986.

I do not know how often the "Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service" is awarded, but this should be mentioned in the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

That same info is also corroborated, here. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Isn't Mr Greene's getting a medal rather peripheral to the article's subject? Or do you mean there should be mention of the fact that there was a major criminal investigation of Rajneeshpuram by the US authorities? The latter is certainly true, and could be expanded. -- Jayen466 21:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd think that certainly if it is rare for the "Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service" to be awarded, then that could be worth mentioning. Certainly the source itself could be used in the article, and most definitely, yes, the issue itself of "a major criminal investigation of Rajneeshpuram by the US authorities" as you put it, is undercovered in the article at present, if barely at all. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Btw, well done for sourcing a public-domain picture! -- Jayen466 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It is an interesting presentation, if you have the time to take a look. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Lacks Objectivity and Neutrality

Any human event can be perceived in a variety of ways, thus subjective by the eyes of the beholder.

What seems to be missing here is objectivity. What is enlightenment? And who can define it except the enlightened? It seems that an enlightened one would never see themselves as such, or proclaim it publically. The ego itself can deceive as to enlightenment, so to use one's own judgment in this regard is using ego.

A person in their early years of life, if enlightened, does not change from night to day and become egoistic in later life. If power has corrupted them, they could not have been enlightened to begin with. It just hadn't surfaced yet.

Just as we see that Hitler had good intentions at one point in his early years with creating more jobs and commonwealth for the German people, the power corrupted. He himself did not personally murder countless Jews. His employ did so in his stead.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that even if Osho/Rajneesh did not personally spray salmonella on salad bars, rape minors (but did rape adults), tape conversations in the compound, carry weapons, carry out suicide bombings to Oregon legislature buildings, he employed those who did. He entrusted his staff to do as he wished. There are taped recordings of these facts.

Egolessness would mean non-attachment to results. The fact he wanted to be elected mayor, had material attachments to numerous high priced luxuries, was "seduced" into drug use, was a very sick man (diabetes, etc.) not only showed his human and ego sides, but his true non-enlightenment.

Humans that are enlightened do have their ego sides and human frailties, but they do not dominate as in the case of Osho. They leave behind a true legacy of love, compassion and acceptance of all people - whether the people agreed with them personally or not.

If one is attached to a guru, it means they are not enlightened nor self sufficient. If one is not self sufficient, they could never be enlightened. Getting angry over criticism of a guru is attachment. If one cannot live without their guru, they are not self sufficient nor self realized. Nor will they become as such. Dependency can not lead to non-attachment and is a form of desire.

The best that can be said about Osho's religion is that it was a hedonistic religion. It speaks to the most basic and crude of human nature, that of sexuality and desire. It's an easy religion in which one follows their ego's every whim and desire for self gratification. There is really no effort involved in such a religion, as it's much like letting a child loose in a candy store.

So bantering back and forth about if Osho committed crimes or not seems futile. To leave it up to one's own opinion (the ego and its own subjectivity/attachment/desire) seems the only option, as this is a highly subjective subject that won't be agreed upon universally. People who can't and won't face facts and the truth will always see Osho as innocent because their own egoistic desires are fulfilled through belief in hedonism.

It seems the Simpson's episode, where Rajneesh was depicted as a white gloved guru driving his Rolls Royce down a dusty commune road as his disciples felt joy at eating his road dust seems appropo. In the cartoon, the great guru tried to escape the commune with bags of cash in a homemade peddle driven flying machine. Solarain (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please spare us your ramblings on this talk page. Misplaced Pages articles are based on sources, not idle philosophising. -- Jayen466 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is your source for enlightenment? The only source is Osho's own words, which is no validated source. Because enlightenment is subjective, this article is as well. Every comment related to his criminal or immoral activities has been refuted or glossed over. Even the statement, "The only charge ever filed against him..." is a biased whitewashed recollection that serves to purposely thwart the topic. If stated unbiased, it would give the facts. It does not. This is only one sentence in a long article that is being refuted as unbiased. It's a daunting task to address every sentence, thus why people are complaining about its lack of neutrality. Credible coverage of negative points is lacking entirely. Solarain (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are problems with the article you should discuss them, not go off on a tangent rambling about Hitler and goodnessknows what else. If Osho claims to have achieve enlightment all we need is a source that verifies this. It is not necessary in fact it's rather silly for us to try an find additional third party sources claiming he achieved enlightment. We should not (whether about Osho or anyone else) say that he achieve enlightment simply that he claims to have achieve enlightment. Indeed failing to mention that he claims to have achieved enlightment would be a MAJOR failing on our part since for many people, the fact that he claims to have achieved enlightment does not put Osho in a good light. Also, please mind WP:NPA. Do not attack editors. If there are problems with the article you are welcome to discuss that but attacking editors, especially one who was simply telling you to stay on topic is unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The article states "Osho courted controversy throughout his life, appearing to challenge many traditional assumptions about enlightened behaviour." This is formulated in a way that suggests Oshos enlightenment. The article is full of suggestive formulations like this which should all be removed for a more neutral language. (Tarsilion (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages articles also should be neutral . This one is clearly not neutral in various ways. Notice that contents should be both verifiable AND neutral. A biased selection of citations also clearly violates the principle of neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.47.20.83 (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Was not "allowed to leave" United States, but rather was "deported"

According to Rajneesh's biography in Thomson Gale :

Nevertheless, Rajneesh's activities were brought to the attention of the federal government. The religious leader was soon charged with 35 counts of deliberate violations against immigration laws. On a plea bargain, he admitted his guilt in two of the charges and was deported back to his native India in 1985.

• "Acharya Rajneesh". Contemporary Authors Online. Thomson Gale. September 5, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This is not the same as being "allowed to leave the United States" and if acceptable sources say he was "deported" then that should be present in the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording in Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology :

The authorities were never able to connect him with crimes on the ranch, but he was found guilty of immigration violation and conspiracy to evade visa regulations (charges his followers claimed were entirely bogus). He was fined $400,000, given a suspended prison sentence of ten years, and ordered to leave the United States for a minimum of five years.

• Staff (2001). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Newsmakers 1990 :

Rajneesh arranged a plea bargain and was deported as a result. After being rejected from 21 other countries, Rajneesh settled again in Poona. He had changed his name in 1988 from "Bhagwan," which is a deity's title in Hindi, to "Osho," a Buddhist term meaning "On whom the heavens shower flowers."

• Staff (1990). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Newsmakers 1990. Gale Research. pp. Issue 2. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the wording of his being "deported", in Almanac of Famous People :

Cult leader known for preaching blend of Eastern religion, pop psychology, free love; deported from US, 1985, for immigration violations.

• Staff (2007). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Almanac of Famous People, 9th ed. Thomson Gale. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Here is the "deportation" of Rajneesh, as per a Forbes article from 1991 :

Rancho Rajneesh collapsed following the deportation of the guru to India in 1985 and the subsequent guilty pleas of top lieutenants on charges including arson, attempted murder, wiretapping and immigration fraud. Several Rajneeshee leaders are wanted for conspiracy to murder a U.S. Attorney. Rajneesh died in India last year.

• Stern, Richard L. (June 24, 1991). "Bhagwan Washington? (Dennis Washington's purchase of ranch owned by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)". Forbes. 147 (13). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Please do not remove this from this talk page.

These sources are relevant to this article, as Osho's being deported from the United States and arrested on thirty-five counts of immigration fraud is relevant to a biographical article about him and should be mentioned in it, if we are to avoid a whitewashing. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

In summary, the following sources state that Osho was "deported" from the United States:

1. "Acharya Rajneesh". Contemporary Authors Online. Thomson Gale. September 5, 2003. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Staff (2001). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology, 5th ed. Gale Group. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
3. Staff (1990). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Newsmakers 1990. Gale Research. pp. Issue 2. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
4. Staff (2007). "Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh". Almanac of Famous People, 9th ed. Thomson Gale. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. Stern, Richard L. (June 24, 1991). "Bhagwan Washington? (Dennis Washington's purchase of ranch owned by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh)". Forbes. 147 (13). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

This issue -- of whether Osho was "deported" or "allowed to leave the country" -- came up in another talk page, and arose in response to wordings present in various other reputable sources. These are the relevant posts from myself on the other talk page that Curt's posts above relate to:

The wording "allowed" is present in Carter, marked as a quote, leading me to assume that this was the official wording of the verdict. Carter was very close to events at the time and researched this more thoroughly than anyone else (have a look at the citations listed in his book), and so I believe that in general, his account should be given preference in such matters of detail over accounts published 15 or 20 years after the event. Cheers, -- Jayen466 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I just checked FitzGerald. She also does not use the word "deported"; her wording is "He received a ten-year suspended prison sentence, and agreed to pay four hundred thousand dollars in fines and prosecution costs, to leave the country within five days, and not to come back for at least five years without the explicit permission of the United States Attorney General." (The New Yorker Sept 29. 1986, page 111). I think that may be technically different from being deported, since in deportation there is to my knowledge no question of the deportee "agreeing" to anything, but I don't know, so I will have to look further into this. Fox (2002) btw also has "deported". Cheers, Jayen466 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Curt, I am simply drawing your attention to a discrepancy. I don't believe you have access to the Carter, so I'll give you the complete quote here:

"He was fined $400,000, given a ten-year suspended sentence, "allowed" to depart from the country voluntarily, and placed on probation for five years. An effect of this arrangement is that he is ineligible to reenter the United States for five years from the date of entering the plea."

The wording in the September 29 1986 issue of The New Yorker was: "He received a ten-year suspended prison sentence, and agreed to pay four hundred thousand dollars in fines and prosecution costs, to leave the country within five days, and not to come back for at least five years without the explicit permission of the United States Attorney General."

So in this case, yes, I believe it is possible that the other publications are wrong, simply because we have two extremely reputable, well-researched, temporally and physically close-to-the-event secondary sources substantially agreeing with each other, and contradicting various tertiary sources compiled years later. Frances FitzGerald is a Pulitzer prize winner, The New Yorker's fact checking department is legendary and unparalleled in the history of journalism, and Carter was an American sociologist from a reputable university who I believe spent more time researching Rajneeshpuram than any other scholar anywhere in the world. Compared to that, the "Encyclopaedia of Occultism and Parapsychology" or the "Almanac of Famous People" simply don't cut the mustard. -- Jayen466 19:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Carter refers to a "bargain arrangement" in the preceding sentence, FitzGerald refers to Osho's lawyers "cutting a deal" with the US Attorney's Office in the preceding sentence. What they describe, therefore, are simply the terms of the plea bargain. These included Osho's undertaking to leave the country, which he did the same day that he entered his plea, i.e. November 14 1986 (FitzGerald, p.112 The New Yorker 9/29/86 and p. 365 Cities on a Hill). This means that no deportation procedure was ever initiated; there simply would not have been time for one. Likewise, FWIW, the answers.com biography has: "He pled guilty with the understanding that he would be allowed to leave the country." Cheers, -- Jayen466 19:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have since accepted that the wording "deported" is very frequently found in the literature, and even on US government websites, and may, at least as a loose expression, be defensible. Even so, I still see no reason to doubt the veracity of the presentation in the excellent accounts by FitzGerald and Carter. -- Jayen466 22:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Methinks Jayen doth protest too much. All your jibber jabber over verbal constructions of phrases that basically and obviously indicate he was forced to leave -- it walks like deportation and quacks like deportation, so you may as well call it deportation as call it anything. Get real, already. Brian, 1/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.236.132 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Government sources also describe Osho (AKA Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) as "deported" and not simply "allowed to leave"

Bolding is emphasis added to quotes :

1. Staff (2007). "Oregon History: Chronology - 1952 to 2002". Oregon Blue Book. Directory and Fact Book compiled by the Oregon State Archives. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   "1985 - Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh deported and fined $400,000"

2. Staff. "Wasco County History". Oregon Historical County Records Guide. Oregon State Archives. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   "The Bhagwan was indicted on federal immigration charges and deported to India."

3. Staff (September 25, 2006). "Leadership, Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Joseph R. Greene". U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

   "In 1984, Mr. Greene was detailed to the Portland, Oregon district office to supervise the criminal investigation of the Indian guru, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, whose cult had taken over a small town in Central Oregon. This investigation, which began in 1981, resulted in the criminal convictions and deportations of the guru and many of his principle followers."

• The very website of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement refers to Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh as being deported from the United States, not "allowed to leave." Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Please do not remove these sources from this talk page.

Added here as well, because obviously Osho's deportation from the United States (as per the website of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is relevant in a biographical article about the individual himself. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC).

Are his many titles appropriate?

Looking at I doubt that Osho should be called like this. Did he give himself that title? Was he merely called like this by his followers? Could this be considered offensive to traditional Hindus? I just immagine how I would perceive someone callling themself god and cannot see a big difference. Can someone clarify this? (Tarsilion (talk) 21:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Determining the appropriateness of the title is probably beyond the scope of this article. To clarify, if you're speaking in generalities (i.e. do people get offended when anyone gives themself the title Bhagwan) then that information probably belongs on the Bhagwan page. If you mean, were or are there specific people who objected to this man's use of the title then we would need a published source where that person or person's specifically objected. Currently, the article does not state how he got the title, just that he did. Someone might wish to expand it to include that information. Perhaps a to-do list is appropriate for this article. Whether or not it's offensive also seems irrelevant to me, unless we have a published article which documents that people were offended by it.TheRingess (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that a title whose appropriateness cannot be determined should be removed. Misplaced Pages is by now an often referenced source and no one should be called the equivalent of "god" without at least some basic consensus within the group usually using the title (Hindus, Buddhists). One could also write that he called himself like that and was called so by some of his followers. As is it adds to the lack of neutrality for this article. (Tarsilion (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

I do not agree regarding appropriateness. That he called himself Bhagwan and that other people called him Bhagwan is documented and seems relevant to the article. How he acquired the title is also. Whether or not it was appropriate, inappropriate or somewhere in between is not.TheRingess (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He is known as Bhagwan or at least he always was. We should callt eh article by the name he is known best for, which is surely Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarsilion, Rajneesh is notorious for appropriating titles and lying about it - that's how he became known as "Osho", in fact. That is one of the many reasons why he is indeed offensive to traditional Hindus, as well as to other true religious people. Although I don't think the comparison to calling himself "god" holds any water. I agree that this particular matter is best answered in the article about the word "Bhagwan" itself.

Squeak, what do you mean by "always"? He used the titles/names of Acharya, Osho and Bagwhan at various times, but his name was Rajneesh. Luis Dantas (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tarsilion, the use of titles in the East has a different connotation than in the West. In India, you will meet many people referred to as "Bhagwan", or "Maharaj" (great king) and so on. It is used as a term of respect, and doesn't indicate that such a person is "Blessed" nor a "Great King". And, as the Misplaced Pages itself states, the meaning of Bhagwan is not God, but more accurately "blessed one" or "fortunate one". jalal (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of what the title means in the east or west, but the message that's being conveyed attempting to use such titles. There is no clarification about who gave all of his numerous titles, and it's obvious that he gave himself those titles. This is what should be pointed out - not leaving out the titles, but instead only having his name and then addressing at which time he chose to take on such titles. This keeps it objective. Also, the correct definitions of those titles should be stated, as he WAS Indian (East), his intentions were clear to use the commonly understood eastern interpretations. 67.183.235.146 (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

In one sentence, it says "Eventually the Jain community stopped inviting him because of his radical ideas." Then two paragraphs later, says that "he travelled throughout India, giving lectures critical of socialism and Gandhi, under the name Acharya Rajneesh (Acharya means "teacher"; Rajneesh was a nickname he had been given by his family." It does not give a source where or how he got the title "Acharya." It should be left out or clarified - as Acharya does not simply mean "teacher," and in the reference you used, it means different things depending on the religion. His family religion growing up was Jainism. The Jain definition for Acharya: is a monk who is one of the five revered panch-paremeshtis, and thus worthy of worship. The word "Suri" is equivalent to Acharya. An Acharya is the highest leader of a Jain order. He is the final authority in his monastic order and has the authority to ordain new monks and nuns. He is also authorized to consecrete new idols, although this authority is sometimes delegated to scholars designated by him."

(There are also two misspellings in the above paragraph that aren't corrected because they are copied verbatim)

Since the Jain community stopped inviting him, he could not have been appointed Acharya except by his own appointment, which has no validity. If you decide not to delete the Acharya title, then it needs to be explained that it was a self-stylized title he gave himself and his family gave him the Rajneesh title.67.183.235.146 (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Images

Has anybody got a decent image of him to use. Two pictures of cars, and a mirror don't do the article any favours. 78.151.245.185 (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, a good question. I am currently looking into getting some free-use "public domain" images related to this topic, from government sources in the United States. We shall see what turns up. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

I'd be grateful if people would stop deleting the picture of the Osho Commune. As I've pointed out before, I inserted it at the request of a reviewer, User:Nichalp. The place is notable; I believe it is, after the Taj Mahal, India's second-largest tourist attraction and mentioned as tourist attraction on Indian Embassy websites. In addition to its foreign visitors, it has hosted numerous cultural events involving leading cultural icons of India, and is regularly mentioned in the Indian press. Whether you like Osho or not matters diddlysquat. -- Jayen466 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

POV Pushing

• I'm afraid there is a neutrality issue here as there is with a lot of wiki pages representing religious organizations. This item runs like a full page advert for the Osho International Foundation and I suspect this particular page is being policed by said group. This is essentially a POV pushing issue. There also is an over-abundance of links to Youtube videos produced by OIF, this is unsavoury.

• Osho, L. Ron Hubbard, Sun Myung Moon, David Koresh, Ted Haggard, Louis Farakhan, Aum Shinrikyo etc. etc. varying degrees on a megalomaniacs scale. Disciples of any religious group will lie and twist the truth to keep up appearances and that is what is happening on this Wiki page dedicated to Osho.

• To a secular individual such as myself this is simply another control obsessed religious organisation. As with all such entities, they have a tarnished reputation which they are doing their utmost to polish up. Part of this effort involves manipulating perspectives through damage limitation measures (such as including the controversy section, but sweetening it in a manner that de-emphasises particular issues, while ignoring others completely). I find this similar to the way Scientology followers have attempted to manipulate any Scientology related entries in Misplaced Pages.

• The controversy surrounding Osho has been downplayed considerably. There is no mention of why he left India (tax evasion) for the US (entering by claiming he needed urgent medical treatment), no mention of the often violent group therapy sessions that were later suspended because of negative publicity, no mention of the issue with the school at Pemberton in Western Australia (children suffered deprivation, threats, and coerced into sex play), the link to the Rolls Royce parable as justification for Rajneesh's overindulgences (93 Rolls cars, jewel encrusted watches, planes, etc.) and then allege that "his followers bought for his use" is ridiculous, no mention of the arms cache that was acquired (that's a real message of peace) and the private army trained to use them, and what about the AIDS and general sexual health policy that arose from the positive testing of two commune members at Rajneeshpuram (the condoms, rubber gloves, and alcohol spray), no mention of Osho doing a runner with cash, jewellery, and his throne, and nothing about the acrimony between Rajneesh and Sheela: it boils down to his word against hers, irrespective of alleged lack of “evidence”; why do they never manage to get Mafioso bosses? because someone else does their dirty work, Osho was not a stupid man).

• Also, aside form all the Youtube links to OIF propaganda there is a direct external link to the Osho International Meditation Resort this is unacceptable as it amounts to advertising (it is a commercial organisation).Semitransgenic (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercial conflict of interests

• Lets be clear about this, what we have here is a commercial entity using wiki to further it's business. Note that the word OSHO is a registered trademark, it is a brand. The various meditative practices they claim to have developed, they are all trademarked. Any links in the text that point to You Tube go to OIF produced videos, or more precisely, OSHO advertisements. I believe this infringes wiki policy and I am requesting that someone with the appropriate editorial authority address this; as it compromises the integrity of the Misplaced Pages service. It is not here to sell OSHO goods and services.

Please do not remove this post until the issue is resolved.

Semitransgenic (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope you'll apply the same rigor to the Coca Cola and eBay articles. :-) -- Jayen466 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kindly review What should be linked:

1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

And FYI: I do not "own, maintain or represent" osho.com or any other related website. And I get the impression that you have a distinct bee in your bonnet about this individual. Cheers, -- Jayen466 01:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• • What's in my bonnet is none of your concern. POV and advertising is the issue here.

Please note wiki states:

Advertising is prohibited as an official Misplaced Pages policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:

  1. Clean up per Misplaced Pages:neutral point of view
  2. Delete remaining advertising content from the article
  3. Delete the article, by listing it at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion if no notable content remains.

Interesting that you should mention the Coke page because it's a good example of how external links should be dealt with, they are at the end of the page, and not strewn throughout the main body of the text.There are no links to Coke video adverts.

Arguably this is essentially a spamming issue. If you go and look at wiki guidelines regarding advertising you will note that it warns against "adding excessive external links to one's company"

Now, OSHO is a company, this is beyond dispute, as such, in relation to guidelines on company articles it should be noted that: "It is often better not to write an article about the company you work for or own. Firstly, you may have problems maintaining a neutral point of view, and secondly, it may be that your article will be quickly deleted. If your company is notable enough, someone else will write an article about it".Having reviewed this it should be clear that if members of OIF participate in the editing of this item there is a serious POV problem.

I'm not sure what your particular position is in terms of association with OFI but if one were to assess the level of engagement you have with the editing of the OSHO item then you may indeed be a member of OFI (or one of it's international offshoots). If it can be verified that you are an associate of OFI there is then a conflict of interest as you are seen to be "foregoing the advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages in order to advance outside interests." Semitransgenic (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion that OSHO is nothing but a registered trademark, a brand, fails to acknowledge that Osho was a person and the founder of a religious movement. It is this person that this article is about, not a trademark or brand.

As for links to video recordings of the man, please refer to WP:Linkspam: Generally, a video is not a spamming video if it is posted by the official site associated with the Misplaced Pages article. For example, if the Misplaced Pages article is on a movie named "xyzMovie" and the official site for the movie is "xyzMovie.com" then links or references to "xyzMovie.com" are legitimate for a video at a video sharing page—however, all other links at that video page still must also be legitimate. Some judgement is needed here. If the posted video just advertises a bunch of products associated with the movie, then it is a spamming video even though it is posted by the official site. :The video links in question contain a reference to www.osho.com, nothing else. osho.com is the official site associated with the subject of this WP article, hence I see no violation of the linkspam guidelines. Such violation would be the case if video links of this type were placed in other, unrelated articles, but not here.

I could add that Osho videos fulfil a scripture-like function within the Osho movement; they are shown on a daily basis in the Meditation Resort in Pune. Hence I see no difference between linking to an Osho video that backs up a specific statement made in this article, and linking to an online Bible or Koranic reference in an article on a Christian or Islamic topic. For example, you will find links similar to the ones here in articles like Nontrinitarianism, Sahaja Yoga, American Jews, Protestantism and Catholic Church. As for the alleged commercial nature, I don't think you understood my point. The article on Coca Cola shows images of various Coca Cola advertisements, the article on eBay has in-line links to various commercial eBay sites, even though there is much less reason to include such links than there is here, as these links do not back up statements made in the article. Overall, I see no reason not to reinstate the links. However, I welcome further discussion on this. -- Jayen466 16:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• I have no interest in understanding your point. You are a cultist with a hidden agenda, discussion is futile. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Glad you are finally admitting that the page is being controlled by Osho International Semitransgenic (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Please take note of the fact that there are 20 references to material written by BSR, two of which are autobiographical, this is more evidence to support the assertion that a POV issue exists.

General notability guidelines:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

"Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criteria, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.

"Sources,"defined on Misplaced Pages as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

Semitransgenic (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

These are notability guidelines used to justify the presence of an article on a topic in Misplaced Pages. They have nothing to do with what you are talking about. The notability of Osho is beyond question. There is considerable academic literature on Osho; in India, students of philosophy write doctoral theses on Osho's thought. Please note that the English-language Misplaced Pages is also the Indian Misplaced Pages. Re your question on the "influential paper", this is the wording used in Fox, an academic treatment of Osho's life and work by a sociologist of religion. I believe it was a Bombay daily; I can check up on this if you like. Cheers, -- Jayen466 17:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For your reference, these are the relevant sections of the Bombay High Court tax judgment used to source the "sea change" statement:

12. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as two of the three members of the Appellate Tribunal have rightly observed that the perception of the people towards the preaching of the philosophy of Acharya Rajneesh has undergone sea change during the last few years. While earlier, he was supposed to be controversial personality and most of the people of this country were averse to his thinking and preaching, during last few years his teachings and philosophy have become more acceptable to the society. About 650 books written by Acharya Rajneesh have been widely studied and translated in many European and Asian and Indian languages. He wrote on diverse subjects like Vedanta, Geeta (Geeta Darshan), Sant Kabeer (Kahe Kabeer Diwana), Guru Nanak (Ek Omkar Satnam) which is commentary on the Sikh scripture known as ‘Japuji’, hailed as best commentary by Gyani Zail Singh, former President of India. The complete Osho literature was accepted in the Parliament library and Mr. Shivraj Patil, the then Speaker of Lok Sabha, who received the literature from the trust, termed the literature as ‘original creation’. He observed that essence contained in all the volumes is that one should find peace in one self, only then can peace be attained in the society and in the entire universe.

13. Not only Acharya Rajneesh is being studied by number of universities abroad but several students have also prosecuted higher studies in the philosophy of Acharya Rajneesh in the Jawaharlal University, Patna University, North Gujarat University, Banaras Hindu University for Ph.D. Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur has established an Osho Chair with the financial support of the Government of Madhya Pradesh for the study of his philosophy. In response to the letter dated 28-3-2001 from the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Headquarters) to the respondent seeking certain clarifications for the purpose of application for exemption under section 80G, the respondent gave the details about its activities in the explanation dated 9th April, 2001. It was pointed out that some of the important purposes and objects of the trust are, besides to spread and impart preaching of the philosophers, to conduct and arrange seminars, tours, shivirs, research and other programmes, to start, promote and conduct Gyan Yagna, Sadhana centres, seminars, discourses, study groups, to give loans, freeships, scholarships, prizes, monetary assistance to carry out research and preach philosophy, to impart medical knowledge by way of Sadhana and other suitable systems beneficial to physical and mental health. It was pointed out that the main and fundamental activity of the trust is meditation which is gaining momentum and popularity in the country. It is pointed out that Acharya Rajneesh had developed several techniques of meditation for improvement of mind and body. Over the ages, meditation has been the bed-rock of the Indian philosophy. Important religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism have emphasised the importance of meditation as a means towards attainment of eternal peace. The respondent contended that the trust activities are for the benefit of general public at large with its fundamental charitable object to develop human mind, body and soul with a view to achieve physical, mental and spiritual well-being with the ultimate aim of achieving self-consciousness. With these objects, the respondent claims to have opened 250 centres around the country. Swami Satya Vedant and many other disciples of Acharya Rajneesh conduct seminars and meditation camps all over India for the benefit of people without any remuneration. It is contended that the activities of the respondent are for the benefit of human beings and not for the profit.

14. Whatever might be the perception of people about Acharya Rajneesh and his teachings in the earlier phase, it must be accepted that in view of the developments pointed out above, the philosophy and teaching of Acharya Rajneesh have become more acceptable to the people during the last few years. Admittedly, main thrust of the respondent is on meditation and nobody can dispute that in India meditation has been very important source for physical, mental and spiritual well-being of the human beings. Cognizance has to be taken that the meditation and Yoga are becoming more and more popular among the Indians who are now becoming conscious about their physical, mental and spiritual health. Not only in India, meditation and Yoga are being accepted in the Western Countries also as a great source for physical and mental health and spiritual attainment. When a large number of people feel that meditation is a great source for physical, mental and spiritual well-being, it must be held to be an activity for the advancement of general public utility. -- Jayen466 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Just for amusement value, and to demonstrate "notability", this is the cover of a recent India Today edition celebrating 60 years of Indian independence; it shows the 40 or 50 individuals held to have been most influential in India since independence: -- Jayen466 17:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • yeah whatever, money talks/people walk, Osho International waved some cash in the right direction and some corrupt officials did there bidding, that's how things work in India, still one of the most corrupt place on the planet, who are you trying to fool?

Semitransgenic (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility

In view of the fact that the edits made by the IP numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/86.12.240.186 http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/143.117.78.169 etc. all track to the same geographical location and match the edit history of User:Semitransgenic, I would like to point out that edit summaries like this one are absolutely unacceptable.

Likewise, this edit summary raising the accusation that the link to 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack had been "intentionally obscured" is a gross violation of WP:AGF, in particular since I was the one who introduced the link in this article a few weeks back. I would therefore appreciate it if henceforth we could work constructively on this article, without the abuse and innuendo. Thank you. -- Jayen466 18:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, don't come in here waving some WP:AGF flag when you have lied about your background; in relation to this article. You are a worm. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW weren't you the one who got wrapped up in a dispute about the bio-terror article? bit of a coincidence. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You will note that this was a very civil dispute, which was resolved to my and Cirt's satisfaction. We have the barnstars to prove it. The article subsequently achieved GA status. ;-) -- Jayen466 23:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors Please note

Without doubt Jayen is an Osho disciple operating on this wiki item as a protector of Osho's name, I imagine this is why he also saw to it that the documentary that was linked to this page was pulled by Osho International, and why he resists the inclusion of anything that might be seen to tarnish his gurus image; irrespective of it's relevance or pertinence.

This also explains why the entire article rests heavily on citations from one publication (Fox) and a large number of self-published (and auto-biographical) items; despite the existence of dozenS of academic writings that offer a less rose tinted version of particular events.

There is a persecution complex at play here, I mean is there really any rational explanation for a sentence like this: His followers succeeded not only in rationalising the disastrous scandal in the United States, but in making Osho a heroic martyr who had been unjustly persecuted by the oppressive, imperialist U.S. government

So what is the point in all of this? Well simply that if this individual is allowed to monopolize this article and control how it is edited a "fair and balanced" perspective will never be arrived at. He has already attempted to quickly usher through a peer review but failed.From what I can see there is a suppression campaign being waged by Osho International Foundation. This is being aided and abetted by followers such as Swami Jayen.

Semitransgenic (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read and abide by WP:NPA, in particular . Thank you. The sentence you quote above is taken as close to verbatim as allowable from the cited University of California Press publication. -- Jayen466 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that we should somehow ignore your affiliation with OIF? Your views on this Osho matter are significantly biased; by your devotional adherences. As such, this discounts the usefulness of your contributions, especially as your goal appears to be that of protecting your masters good name at all costs. This serves only to exacerbate the POV issue associated with this page.Semitransgenic (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

So let's look at the sentence above, the book from which it is taken is basically a general overview of Tantric practice and contains approx. 365 pages, 8 of which deal with Rajneesh. On one of those 8 pages there is 1 paragraph that expresses the authors personal opinion, he is surmising, note he begins the paragraph with the word 'perhaps'. You also use another biased opinion to back this assertion, that of Swami Annad Jina, again we are supposed to accept that a devotee can offer objectivity. I find this dubious to say the least. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are the verbatims from the book cited; I reckon it will pass as fair use if I quote it here:

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the Rajneesh phenomenon lies not so much in his scandalous career in America, but in his remarkable apotheosis and rebirth upon his return to India. A truly global Tantric guru, Rajneesh made the journey from India to America and back to India again, finally achieving even more success in his homeland, perhaps in large part because of his status as a figure who had a massive U. S. and European following. Rather incredibly, his followers were not only able to rationalize the disastrous scandal in the United States, but even to make Rajneesh a heroic martyr who had been unjustly persecuted by the oppressive imperialist U. S. government: “ was crushed from without by the Attorney General's office… like the marines in Lebanon, the Ranch was hit by hardball opposition and driven out. ” 122 ...

Rather remarkably, however, Osho seems to have become only more popular since his death. Indeed, he has published perhaps more books and received more acclaim as a disembodied photograph or video image than he ever did while still incarnate.

Publication Information: Book Title: Tantra: Sex, Secrecy Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion. Contributors: Hugh B. Urban - author. Publisher: University of California Press. Place of Publication: Berkeley, CA. Publication Year: 2003. Page Number: 242.

It is an academic source, and it is on topic. I do not think the passages sourced to this departed from the meaning of the original. -- Jayen466 23:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever, it's still the guys opinion, I've read the chapter in full, it's actually not very academic by European standards, fact is, disect the language and it's basically conjecture, he makes a number of claims and supports none of them, and rounds it off with a quote from another biased source, but if you are going to fish from something like this, you can't object if I join you.Semitransgenic (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, any published view is someone's opinion, isn't it, and I am sure the University of California will be untroubled by your assessment that they are "actually not very academic". And no, I don't object if you fish from academic sources; I believe using academic sources is good practice. -- Jayen466 01:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi- the appropriate place to discuss potential or alleged conflicts of interest is Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Please limit the discussion on this page to how we can improve this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Beback this is an ongoing POV issue so quit with your weighing in on something you haven't even taken the time to look into properly.Semitransgenic (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not weighing in on the content dispute. I'm telling you to stop discussing editors on this page. "Comment on the edits, not the editors". Further off-topic discussions of editors will be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

New material added, for discussion

The following passage just added contains a number of inaccuracies. I propose we discuss these sections here and bring them up to scratch.

The group very soon ran into difficulty with the local community regarding land use laws and over time became increasingly antagonistic towards it's American neighbors. They clashed first with the local residents of Antelopes peaceful retirement community, whom they attempted to displace and push out using terrorist tactics. These began initially with activities such as dumping animal parts on the lawns of local officials and then escalated, in an attempt to effect the outcome of county elections, to a bioterror attack on the citizens of The Dalles, Oregon, using (salmonella); an incident that resulted in the poisoning of seven hundred and fifty individuals and which is one of only two confirmed terrorist uses of biological weapons to harm humans

Osho ended his period of silence in October 1984. In July 1985, he resumed his daily public discourses in the commune's purpose-built, two-acre meditation hall. According to statements he made to the press, he did so against the wishes of Ma Anand Sheela (Sheela Silverman), his secretary and the commune’s top manager. By this time the community had also come under serious investigation by the U.S government, specifically around the issue of the interlock of the Rajneesh Church and the city of Rajneeshpuram, and it's claim to tax-exempt status (in 1986, the state attorney general finally decided that Rajneeshpuram violated the church state separation clause of the Constitution). Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities - which included, among other charges, counts of electronic eavesdropping, immigration conspiracy, lying to federal officials, harboring fugitives, criminal conspiracy, first-degree assault, attempted murder, burglary, racketeering, and arson.

The commune's management team (who were suspected of carrying out of said crimes) left the U.S. in September 1985, fleeing for Europe. Osho then convened a press conference and called on the authorities to undertake an investigation. This eventually led to the conviction of Ma Anand Sheela and several of her lieutenants. Following this, in late October 1985, Osho was arrested in North Carolina as he was allegedly fleeing America, en route to the Bahamas. However, with the U.S. government having no evidence to prosecute Osho for more serious offenses, he was instead accused of immigration violations. Osho, on advice from his lawyers, entered an "Alford plea" – through which a suspect does not admit guilt, but does concede there is enough evidence to convict him. He was finally given a suspended sentence, fined $400,000, and deported from the United States with an order not to attempt to return for at least 5 years.

Although Osho was not directly implicated in the more serious crimes his reputation suffered tremendously, especially in the West. The movement, the state attorney general concluded, had become sociopathic. At this point, with relation to the question of whether or not Osho had endorsed Sheela's criminal activities, even amongst some of his followers, opinion was divided; others simply questioned Osho's intentional abdication of responsibility as a means of deflecting culpability for the actions of his disciples.

In late December 1988, he said he no longer wished to be referred to as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and shortly afterwards, took the name Osho. This was undoubtedly a step to salvage his reputation and protect his personal charisma; the fall out from Sheela's conduct having the potential to both threaten and discredit his position. He at this point disassociated himself from the organization and religion, Rajneeshism, which had in effect suffered an institutional "loss of charisma."

To be commented below. -- Jayen466 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

funny you should bring this up because a lot of it uses your sources. So are you now disputing your own source material? Gimmie a break, show what's wrong then do your revert, as it stands it's better than the crap that was there orignally Semitransgenic (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources: Much of Latkin's "Seeing Red ..." is available in Google Books:

The article by Palmer (who is also the editor of The Rajneesh Papers, btw, whence the quote of Anand Jina) is here in Google books.

"Feelings after the fall" by Latkin et al. is available here

Carter is not available online, I believe, but I for one have a copy here. -- Jayen466 00:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Starting with the first sentence, then, Latkin also addresses the antagonism, hatred and prejudice the commune experienced from the local population -- hate mail, bullet-holed road signs in Rajneeshpuram, fundamentalist Christians driving through Rajneeshpuram, reading from their bibles and declaring Bhagwan to be the devil (p. 352), the bomb placed in the Rajneeshees' Portland hotel, etc. There were two sides to this conflict, and Latkin brings this out quite well. You only represent one side of Latkin's analysis. -- Jayen466 00:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The passage you source to Carter, p. 63-64, is not present on these pages, so at least the page references are wrong, if not the content. At any rate, Carter also covers the other side of the conflict, such as the declaration of an "open season on the central Eastern Rajneesh, known locally as the Red Rats or Red Vermin" circulated in Oregon gun clubs, offering advice on "gut shots", "dressing out" and the use of a Rolls-Royce as bait (Carter, p. 203). In addition, the sociological analysis of this conflict belongs in my view more properly in the article Rajneeshpuram, since Osho's actual involvement in these matters was minimal, apart from gun shots directed at the vehicle accompanying him on his drives through the Oregon countryside (as reported by Milne). -- Jayen466 00:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Latkins conclusion. It's pretty clear what he has to say.Semitransgenic (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Portland Bomb, you have an item elsewhere supporting the accusation that this was an inside job on another, another disputable topic. Considering this was the most notable period in his life, and the period that has gernerated the most coverage, it is of particular importance that it be addressed in detail on his page. You are persistently trying to gloss over this fact.Semitransgenic (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that Osho was involved in these matters, this has always been covered in the article. I am simply against giving undue weight, in this article, to crimes that he was never accused, let alone convicted of. So yes, in that sense, I am interested in protecting his name. As for the Portland bomb, IIRC it was placed by a Californian fundamentalist; he injured himself in the process and was caught. -- Jayen466 01:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the following: "However, with the U.S. government having no evidence to prosecute Osho for more serious offenses, he was instead accused of immigration violations." I think it is accepted by many that if they could have done him for the crimes they would have, but there was no evidence, so instead they got him for what they could, this is not a stretch of the imagination nor is it propaganda. However the sentence: "Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities", is misleading so it will be changed.Semitransgenic (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You can find further details on the Portland bomb in the Misplaced Pages itself Jamaat_ul-Fuqra, search for Stephen Paul Paster. jalal (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Latkin:"It is important to note that understanding the causes of the hostilities is by no means an excuse for the Rajneeshees' behavior. Let us not forget that the people in the neighboring town of Antelope lived in terror of the Rajneeshees, that Rajneeshee leaders admitted responsibility for poisonings within and outside the commune, and that the state spent millions of dollars on the Rajneeshee legal cases."

Latkin:"The enormity of the crimes perpetrated at Rajneeshpuram surprised many individuals. Although there were discussions about storming- the commune to arrest Rajneesh, the precipitious fall of Rajneeshpuram and the revelation of the enormity of crimes committed by the Rajneeshees came as a surprise to scholars, law enforcement officials, and the news media. This failure to predict the intensity of Rajneeshpuram conflict might be due in part to a tendency to underestimate the power of religious beliefs to influence behaviors. This article provides an analysis of several features of the Rajneeshpuram conflict, yet the role of religiosity in the conflict has not been fully elucidated. A final caveat is that although the Rajneeshees held negative attitudes toward outsiders, most Rajneeshees at Rajneeshpuram were indifferent to the intergroup conflict. It was not real to them. They were unaware of criminal activities and unconcerned about intergroup tensions. For example, although sannyasins at Rajneeshpuram could buy a daily Oregon newspaper, few did. The outside world, the political world, was not relevant to their spiritual pursuits and yearnings for personal growth." Semitransgenic (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The crimes at and around Rajneeshpuram should be documented in the correct place Rajneeshpuram. This page is a biography page. jalal (talk) 09:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, as stated earlier, "Considering this was the most notable period in his life, and the period that has generated the most coverage, it is of particular importance that it be addressed in detail on his page". Also, one has to consider that Rajneeshpuram was, in a sense, a material manifestation of Osho's narcissistic delusion, his "vision". People with vision tend to keep to their eyes on the ball; instead Osho got lost up his own arse and abdicated responsibility for the realization of said vision to others. This is noteworthy in a biographical context.Semitransgenic (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(It's language like this which discredits you as having your own private agenda here.) BTAIM, I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, but the documentation for R'puram has it's own place and there is no good reason that I can see for duplicating it. Rajneeshpuram was more likely the 'narcisstic delusion' of his followers, but I don't want to turn this into a discussion forum. Lets try and stick to facts and objectivity and keep our personal trips to one side. jalal (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the euphemism, it's simply a quick way of expressing a particular view of events. This view can be legitimatized by many informed accounts, as well as religio-psychological interpretations of the matter. You are a devotee, therefore your objectivism is skewed. I am interested in facts, but when I arrived at this page it was a bunch of crap, as one editor put it "This article is a joke - it is pure hagiography". The personal trip is necessary, otherwise individuals such and you an Jayen will promulgate the official OIF version of events, in an attempt to rewrite history. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

SemiT - I'm not a devotee, I've no idea where you get that idea. I'm interested in having a fair and accurate biography of Osho, a man I've met and admire. Nothing more, nothing less. "This article is joke" and other similar comments are invariably by anonymous IP posters. You at least have a name, although you don't declare what you agenda is here. jalal (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My agenda is simply to get all the information on the table and let people decide for themselves. I'm here without affiliations of any description, figuring things out as I go, trying to broaden my understanding of this matter, whereas devotees seem interested in only one version of reality and would rather that others never look beyond this; this has been demonstrated time and time again here. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The attempted murder charge against Sheela concerned the poisoning of Osho's personal physician by Sheela and Co. It is incorrect to imply that Osho was investigated for trying to murder his own physician, he wasn't. He wasn't indicted or otherwise accused of involvement in the salmonella poisoning, either, or the attempts on the Oregon officials, having alerted the authorities, almost a year after these events, to these matters, in the September 85 press conference; the investigation followed as a result of his statements. Until then, the salmonella poisoning was believed to have been due to food contamination by food handlers; the poisonings of Hulse and the other official had not been recognised and investigated as such at the time. -- Jayen466 01:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The passage "... shortly afterwards, took the name Osho. This was undoubtedly a step to salvage his reputation and protect his personal charisma; the fall out from Sheela's conduct having the potential to both threaten and discredit his position. He at this point disassociated himself from the organization and religion, Rajneeshism, which had in effect suffered an institutional "loss of charisma."" is an anachronism; the name change occurred 1989, several years after said disassociation from Rajneeshism etc. The juxtaposition is yours, and not present in the source quoted. -- Jayen466 02:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

funny you should bring this up because a lot of it uses your sources. So are you now disputing your own source material? Gimmie a break, show what's wrong then do your revert, as it stands it's better than the crap that was there orignally: "Using" sources does not mean copying <ref>source</ref> content and putting it into text that has nothing to do with what these sources say. Pages 63 and 64 of Carter (referenced three times in the proposed new text passages above as footnote ) cover Osho's relationship to the Janata government and Morarji Desai, and contain no comment on the time period you are writing about. This is getting quite tedious.

Your text continues,

Osho and his disciples had also come under investigation for their various criminal activities - which included, among other charges, counts of electronic eavesdropping, immigration conspiracy, lying to federal officials, harboring fugitives, criminal conspiracy, first-degree assault, attempted murder, burglary, racketeering, and arson. The commune's management team (who were suspected of carrying out of said crimes) left the U.S. in September 1985, fleeing for Europe. Osho then convened a press conference and called on the authorities to undertake an investigation.

Again, the same source ref is given, which does not back up a single one of these statements. Moreover, the time scale is completely wrong. Osho and his disciples had not "come under investigation" for electronic eavesdropping, first-degree assault, attempted murder, or arson, and the commune management team in particular had not come under suspicion of any of these crimes when they left in September 1985. There were immigration-related investigations, and these were justified, since there were a number of sham marriages in the commune designed to circumvent immigration restrictions. Sheela and Co. apparently believed their arrest because of immigration-related matters was imminent, and this was one reason for their leaving when they did. The investigation of electronic eavesdropping, first-degree assault, attempted murder, and arson began after their leaving and after the September 16 1985 press conference, in which Osho told the media that he had, in the days following Sheela's departure, received information from sannyasins coming forward that crimes had been committed, and listed these in detail to the press – i.e. electronic eavesdropping, first-degree assault, attempted murder, the 1984 salmonella poisoning in The Dalles, and arson (Carter p. 230, FitzGerald, The New Yorker, 29 Sept. 1986, page 108). After coming forward with this information, at no time was Osho considered a suspect in these crimes. (In my view, it would have made no sense to convene the press to tell them of all these undiscovered crimes committed a full year prior if he had been the perpetrator.) In addition, the murder attempt had been directed against his personal physician, a person who enjoyed and continued to enjoy Osho's closest trust to the day Osho died, and the electronic eavesdropping activities extended to Osho's own bedroom. Again, no one suspected or accused Osho of having planned that one. Almost everything you have written here is mis-attributed, garbled and at variance with the relevant literature. -- Jayen466 12:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

actually smartass, I have the original texts, simply forgot to adjust the page numbering will be addressed. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm really glad you elaborated on that because the "coming under investigation" bit it is taken almost verbatim from the text you were propounding the validity of yesterday, namely, Hugh B. Urban: Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion. So suddenly his opinion is not good enough for you? It's acceptable for you to cherry pick and interpret as you see fit but, you resist the attempts of others to do likewise. Yes there is an error with the time line it will be addressed. Where are your sources to backup the reasons for Sheela et al leaving, and Oshos rationale behind making the announcements when he did (how long he had known, what he knew, and how he came to know it are not explored). The investigation by the FBI included Oshso, there was due suspicion (if not why all the claims claiming he was "persecuted" when he actually got off with a slap on the wrist?). Semitransgenic (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kindly cut the invective. As for Urban, you simply look at the sources and establish where they agree or disagree. (So I guess some exercise of critical faculties is required, even for Misplaced Pages. :-)) Urban wrote in 2003, that is twenty years after these events. Sources like FitzGerald and Carter are more reliable for 80s events, since they were based on copious and intense first-hand research. When it comes to events in 2003, these are things that Urban researched himself, and as his presentation matches other contemporary accounts such as Fox, as well as journalistic evidence, I consider him reliable for this time frame. As for the reasons for Sheela's leaving, I'll have to get back to you, I can't remember off-hand where that is. As for Osho's rationale, perhaps you are right that the FBI looked at his potential involvement too -- I have no source either affirming or denying that. What is certain is that he made the statements when he did, a year after these uninvestigated crimes had occurred, and that no charges against him ever came forth in these matters, not even after Sheela's lie-detector testimony in 1986 (Carter p. 237). The charges brought against him were restricted to immigration matters (and subject to a plea bargain). -- Jayen466 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Sheela: When Sheela and fifteen other sannyasins left the ranch in mid-September , their main motive, according to the testimony of sannyasins, was to escape indictment for immigration fraud by a federal grand jury—an indictment they supposed would be announced by October 3rd. (They had the date wrong; the announcement was planned to come down by November 1st.) FitzGerald, The New Yorker, 29 Sept. 1986, p. 119. (Also available in FitzGerald, Cities on a Hill.) -- Jayen466 14:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, seriously, despite any personal theories I have regarding Osho, I think we can all agree that he was one smart cookie, I think we can all also agree that the US government are a sneaky shower of cunts, so are you seriously telling me you think they did not suspect Osho was up to no good? irrespective of whether he actually was or not (that boils down to a matter of opinion, Sheela still maintains she was acting under orders). In a criminal investigation such as this, anyone closely involved would be initially considered a suspect, therefore it is not incorrect to say Osho was investigated - even for the attempted murder of his own doctor, as stupid as that may sound - that's simply par for the course, he was interviewed, as others were. He was not prosecuted for the more serious crimes, this does not mean to say that he was not investigated for them. I fail to see how you can refute this. As for Urban, he is telling us nothing new, he cites two people, a swami dude and Carter, you cherry picked because you identify with his bias. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheela still maintains she was acting under orders: You may be surprised to know that Sheela also still maintains -- not credibly, in my estimation, but that is neither here nor there -- that

• no Rajneeshees were ever involved in the salmonella poisoning,
• it was just the food handlers' fault (which was the conclusion of the original health authorities investigation in 1984 (Carter, p. 224))
• she and her colleagues simply got framed.

There is a very recent video interview with her available on http://www.zouddha.com (you have to register to see it). So even if she says she did what she was asked to do, this does not include her role in the salmonella poisoning, since she denies any such role. To my mind, she is an unreliable witness one way or the other. Otherwise, I can follow your reasoning above. Cheers, -- Jayen466 18:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In relation to Osho's proclamation of innocence we find this: "That glib profession of innocence didn't impress all who heard it. After all, it was Sheela alone who had the privilege of private conversations with the guru during his self-imposed silence of three years. Furthermore, Sheela has been abroad this year, mostly in Europe and Australia. But Bhagwan insists that Sheela had "become addicted" to power and fame and was dissatisfied with playing second fiddle since he began to speak again.Skeptics, and enemies, wondered aloud whether the media-savvy Rajneesh and Sheela might have concocted the whole thing to defuse and divert immensely negative PR against the group, painting Sheela a scapegoat and Rajneesh the innocent victim of her ambitions. Others think he could be paving the way for leaving Oregon should current problems get too hot, sending Sheela and funds ahead. "The movement is in trouble," said Margaret Hill, former Antelope mayor, "and Bhagwan is trying this means to rescue it." A Hawaii librarian scoffed, "He can't think we're going to believe that he rides around in all those Cadillacs and runs those businesses and didn't know about these things. Nobody's that gullible." Her sentiment was echoed by Diane McDonald, a critic from Madras, Oregon: "It just doesn't wash." She noted a month ago Rajneesh himself publicly said of Sheela, "I have been preparing her like a sword. I told her to go out and cut as many heads as possible." http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1985/11/1985-11-08.shtml

The question of gullibility is a an important one, if we concede that Osho was an intelligent man (some might argue enlightened), how could he possibly have missed what was happening around him, did he really just watch cartoons, pop Valium, and inhale nitrous oxide while things were melting down outside? I'm sorry but it just does not add up. If this were a politician there would be no mercy with the accusations of corruption, and people would get to the bottom of it, why is this unacceptable in the case of an alleged holy-man? Religiosity is interfering with the process of analysis at hand, again that is why I find it difficult to accept that key editorial decisions should be determined by devotees. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Osho never claimed to be a holy-man, on the contrary, he described holy-men as phoney. Your comparison with politicians is basically valid. But in the case of Richard Nixon, for example, they had tapes proving his involvement. Sheela claimed to have such tapes, but apparently could never produce them, even when producing such tapes might have helped her own defence. If there had been such tapes proving Osho's involvement -- and his living quarters were bugged by Sheela -- then he would deserve everything you could throw at him, just like Nixon, but the facts of the matter are different. -- Jayen466 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of Osho's denial of saintly status, but many appear to have lost this point entirely, they refuse to accept that he was simply a smart guy who weaved a huge web based upon the mythologizing surrounding his alleged saintly status (despite the fact that he denied it!) From what I can see he let that happen, and he sold (literally, it all cost money, and still does) a dream based upon a utopian ideology, yet when things went pear shaped, he failed to accept responsibility for the consequences of his roleplay, he simply got in his jet and split. I see both sides to the cosmic play in all of it but that does not make any of it justifiable, in human terms; someone simply saying "ha ha what a funny joke Bhagwan played on us all" really does not wash when you look at the degree of negativity the situation engendered, the fallout was considerable, but it seems many want to ignore this fact. I do not see this as the behavior of a master (religious exemplar); irrespective of his denial of having assumed this role Semitransgenic (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

editorial decisions should be determined by devotees.: Do you think I never had doubts about Osho? Yes, I went to Pune 28 years ago, as a nineteen-year-old, and was bowled over by his presence. But much that happened in the years following did not add up, and I have not been back to Pune since. So my critical faculties are quite intact, and I am researching these matters as much for myself as for Misplaced Pages. And for me the jury is still out on what exactly Osho was. At any rate, though, he was a most remarkable man. -- Jayen466 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Editorial decisions should be made on detachment and facts. A devotee could never be objective. If after the voluminous accounts of problems in that community, one feels he was a "remarkable man," it still shows that same bias in his favor. This is not good editorialism. People have been bowled over by the power and presence of numerous con artists and lunatics - just look at the Jim Jones] suicides or decimation of the Jews in support of an extremely charismatic leader. The way we feel is not a gauge for objectivity. In this sense, the jury is not "still out," but in fact, your very next sentence contradicts the first: that you still feel he's a remarkable man. This contradictory nature seems to be quite a phenomenon with Osho, as he appears to have reaped what he sowed in spades based on the crimes committed allegedly by his devotees. I remember the Charles Manson case, where his followers were found guilty of crimes he influenced them to commit, as if under a spell of hypnotism (drugs didn't help matters). There are many parallels but this is on a grander, more chaotic scale. I forgot my login password, otherwise I'd post under my name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.235.146 (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do with/never heard of

Jalal, for your reference, the relevant passage in Fox that this was sourced from is, "As the epitome of the alternative spiritual health resort, the Poona commune exudes prosperity and is becoming one of the main tourist attractions of India. Fifteen years earlier, the majority of ordinary South Asians wanted nothing to do with the commune; now they too are coming to pay their respects in increasing numbers." (Judith M. Fox, Osho Rajneesh, Studies in Contemporary Religion Series, Signature Books, 2000) -- Jayen466 11:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. But it seems clear to me that the majority of South Asians had never heard of Osho. We are talking about a large percentage of the worlds population here. If Ms. Fox had stated that 'majority of Puneites' had wanted nothing to do with Osho, then that is believable. Just because someone writes something down, doesn't mean we should suspend our critical faculties. After all, if she wrote that Osho walked on water, we would be right to question that. And probably not use it as an authoritative quote. jalal (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Swami number two on this one.Semitransgenic (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

who is "Swami 2"??? jalal (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

dude, that's you! Semitransgenic (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can't just make this up. If we want to say that most people in South Asia hadn't heard of Osho, then we have to find a source that says that. And we can't say it and then cite it to Fox, who said something else. Better then to drop the statement altogether. (As for "critical faculties", I would suggest a perusal of WP:OR.) -- Jayen466 12:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True enough. It should be removed. Unfortunately that means the next sentence needs to be reworked a little to make sense. But no biggie....(I couldn't find any mention of critical faculties on WP:OR).jalal (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any mention of critical faculties on WP:OR): Exactly. ;-)) -- Jayen466 13:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

Semi, the matter with the encounter groups is now mentioned twice – once in 1971-80, and once in the first sentence of 1981-1990. Chronologically, it belongs in the seventies, since the practice of allowing physical confrontation in the groups had been discontinued by January 1979 (FitzGerald, TNY, 22/9/86, p. 84, Fox p. 17). Re drug use, Fox mentions that drug use and even tobacco were banned in the ashram itself (Fox p. 18–19). However, quite a few visitors were hippies putting in a stopover in Pune on their India trip, and I dare say that smoking hasheesh might have been relatively common in that demographic in the seventies – if not in the ashram itself, then outside it. -- Jayen466 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence merely suggests that things had come to a head, and gives examples of problematic issues. I don't see the problem with this. Also, the drug issue is broader than a few dudes smoking spliff. There are drug running allegations, which are already mentioned in the article, so I don't see the issue. If you want more to back this up, not a problem. Semitransgenic (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

On another note, the legacy section features no information about the split, are you intending on dealing with this? It is relevant. I know little about the details yet so you could save me the trouble and make a start. Also the copyright cases should be mentioned.Semitransgenic (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Harvard referencing

Okay, let's standardise on the Harvard format from now on. For ease of reference, I append the relevant section from the WP:HARV below:

Complete citations must be provided, in alphabetical order, in a References section following the text.

For a book: in the case of (Author 2005a) and (Author 2005b), this might be:

• Author, A. (2005a). Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4
• Author, A. (2005b). More Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4

For an article: in the case of (Traynor 2005) or (The Guardian, December 17, 2005), this might be:

• Traynor, I. "Judge tells Ankara to decide on fate of leading author", The Guardian, December 17, 2005.

-- Jayen466 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

1 million or 1.5

As you've correctly noted, Carter contradicts himself. It's ironic that he has the cash amount to the dollar, but gains half a million in the space of a few pages.

OTOH, these here also make it 1 million --

• http://nwda-db.wsulibs.wsu.edu/findaid/ark:/80444/xv60199
• http://wweek.com/editorial/3118/6081/story.php?story=6104

Can't find a reference saying 1.5m. What have you got? -- Jayen466 20:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

no idea, I thought you had it wrong, 1, 1.5, much of a muchness, basically a bunch of expensive jewelry Semitransgenic (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Rolls

Please provide a better supporting reference for the "bought by his followers" assertion, it's vague and potentially misleading. The current link goes to a story that has nothing to do with the matter, it's a generic item on Rolls. Most likely it was Rajneesh Services International or one of the other Rajneesh corporations that bought the cars, Philip J. Toelkes has stated that Rajneesh did at least choose the colour. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

all the cars were repainted when they arrived. That is the colour that Toelkes is referring to. The Rolls' were paid for privately and donated to RSI (or similar, I think there was a special Trust setup for that). And, no, I don't have a source, it's just for informational purposes. jalal (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Palmer, Charisma and Abdication, "The Rolls Royce collection was a wise investment of the commune's money". See also http://books.google.com/books?id=6TMFoMFe-D8C&pg=PA402&dq=rajneeshpuram+rolls&sig=SaXz9_5BMSp7Sdlxx8CRo3ehB4k And, not to forget, http://bluebook.state.or.us/kids/trivia/this2.htm Of course, some of the commune's money was his, since the royalties from all his x-hundred books went into its coffers (he had given Sheela unlimited power of attorney). At any rate he did not walk around with cash or a cheque book and would not have been the one paying. -- Jayen466 19:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the Palmer reference, so why not use it? (The whole quote, not just a number) --- there was an edit conflict while trying to submit the following -- Ok but the acquisition procedure has to be accounted for somewhere - there were 93. And "followers" could mean the general populous of Rajneeshpuram or it could be referring to wealthy patrons such as John Shelfer, but also, Rajneesh Investment Corporation was the final holder of assets following the sale of cars.It's rather vague. If the cars were "donated" was it by individuals? If the cars were "bought by his followers" what's to say RIC didn't simply buy then using money made from Rajneeshpuram and other business enterprises? Semitransgenic (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it varied; some were bought by the commune, a few were gifts from outsiders (I seem to remember reading that Hasya, the wife of a Hollywood mogul, gave him one). At any rate, as you rightly observe, there was a trust that received the funds from the sale. Happy to use Palmer as ref.; we could use this (wording altered to avoid copyvio) as a following sentence: The collection of Rolls Royces was explained to a skeptical public as "a sign of the great love between master and disciple," or, alternatively, as a "joke". Is that what you meant? Just came across another ref: -- Jayen466 19:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In light of the points raised below, I would like to see the suggestion of investment being mentioned also. Readers will make up their own minds about what that might imply, just as they would about the 93 Rolls Royces being "given to him by his followers". The strategy of seperating Osho from RIC I think is a bit disingenuous. As Jalal has pointed out, a lot of money was made from the books Osho "wrote", did he give that away? I don't think so. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewording on the number of Rolls Royces, Jalal. That's definitely better. However, I would like one of us to revert your deletion of the word "expensive" that I added before Rolls Royces. You are right that there are no cheap Rolls Royces, of course. However, I think that to be encyclopedic, it's useful to have that adjective there. I'm 46 and am well aware of the Rolls' symbolism. However, my children (8 and 11) have never heard of the car, and my perception is that the car is not nearly as famous with, say, 20-year-olds in the U.S. has it has been in the past. 20 years ago we could have said "Rolls-Royces"; now it's important to say "Rolls-Royce cars."Msalt (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fox

The reasons I like the book by Fox are

• it has good academic credentials – Fox is a Doctor of Sociology of Religion who teaches (or taught) at the London University's Department of Study of Religions (School of Oriental and African Studies),
• it's recent, so it has the benefit of hindsight, covering the whole span of Osho's life,
• it is well-researched – there is almost nothing in it that I could say is factually wrong.

That is in contrast to people like Urban – the other day I read this priceless description of Dynamic Meditation in a paper of his: ... a method called ‘Dynamic meditation’ (its original name was ‘Chaotic’ Meditation). As a kind of ‘microcosm of Rajneesh’s outlook’, its explicit purpose was to ‘shock habitual patterns of thought and behavior’, and so open the individual to ecstatic freedom and liberating bliss.69 This involved four stages: first, basic concentration on the breath to achieve a deep state of relaxation (!); second, letting the body go, ‘without restrictions’, ‘allowing the body to do whatever it wants’, including dancing, gyrating, laughing, crying, shrieking or rolling around on the ground, allowing the inner Shakti to move spontaneously through the body; third, asking oneself the question, ‘Who am I?’ (????) And fourth, entry into profound meditation, in which practitioners ‘merge with Cosmic Consciousness’ and realize the unity of the Self with Absolute Reality: in such a state, ‘you are no longer confined to anything . . . you have become infinite, liberated’. I don't know if you ever have done Dynamic Meditation, but if you have, you'll realise that this description of it bears only a mosts superficial and partial resemblance to the actual thing. So on second thoughts, I am inclined to agree with your assessment of Urban's scholarship in this field. ;-) There are excerpts of the book by Fox here; it's well worth the few quid it costs. Among other things, I had long planned to rewrite the section on Osho's philosophy drawing on the first chapter of this book, because it does quite a good job of covering the ground, but then got caught up in other things. -- Jayen466 20:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing about Fox, or her book, other than it is a 57 page biography, but academic credentials mean little here because as you well know many academics (writing about Osho) are ex-Osho devotees, or admirers of one description or another, not that there are any judgments to be made about that, it just brings their intentions under scrutiny (of course the converse is also true but most of the disgruntled followers writings appear to be in the popular press domain). Urban seems to have a good understanding of Eastern Mysticism in general, particularly Tantra (and the dangers of Tantric practice when used without a very strict student/disciple relationship), so his analysis of Osho within that context is useful, I also thought his essay Zorba The Buddha: Capitalism, Charisma and the Cult of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, is useful in terms of it's assessment of the comodification of spirituality and how this relates to the Osho(registered trademark) phenomenon.

For instance: Rather than a ‘routinization of charisma’ what we find in the Rajneesh movement is a kind of ‘commodification’ and ‘commercialization’ of charisma. Bhagwan offered (and sold) his followers the promise of the same charismatic authority and divine freedom which he himself enjoyed (though, in practice, this authority could never actually be attained by any of his followers). Moreover, charismatic authority became the basis for a new kind of bureaucratic organization in Rajneesh’s world-wide network of commercial enterprises—an organization characterized by a high degree of fluidity and flexibility, able to adapt itself rapidly to meet the changing demands of its consumer market. I think this is a valid proposition partcularly if you accept that Osho consciously incorporated elements of the Human Potential Movement and later stuff from Esalen or what have you, as a means of baiting a Western following. Why are Westerners unable to see that gurus have been big business for centuries in India and that in the 20th Century the West was ultimately seen by many of them as the market to crack if they expected to make it big. Plus you have all the deeply ingrained Judaeo Christian expectations of the second coming to exploit, how many maitreya's have we got now? Osho was canny, the organisation didn't just appear out of nowhere, he had a hand in building it, this notion that he was somehow floating around on a little cloud while self-organising systems emerged as various corporations is a fallacy from what I can see. There also appears to be a concerted effort to separate the man from the mission (corporation) so that this mystical aloofness can be maintained as a selling point. Then again who knows maybe there is evidence that he was just floating around on a little cloud (other than the nitrous oxide fueled one he came to use) and stuff "just happened". Personally, I'm not buying this interpretation because I credit the man with intelligence, quite a remarkable intelligence at that, and I think he had a very clear vision of what he wanted to achieve materially, and how he would set about doing it, but it really seems like people don't want to deal with this fact, and are offended by the suggestion. I call that denial.Semitransgenic (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I skimmed the Fox examples, but wasn't convinced by the tone, i came across thisthe other day and it seems very informative, at least the background to Osho, and pretty neutral, plus it's from an Indian source. Semitransgenic (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

academic credentials mean little here because as you well know many academics are ex-Osho devotees, or admirers of one description or another, not that there are any judgments to be made about that, it just brings their intentions under scrutiny This is a wonderful circular argument to exclude any positive accounts. Any positive accounts must be biased, because the authors did not dislike the subject. (Even if some of the authors were "ex-devotees", which to my knowledge none of them are, sociologists of religion have long observed that apostates write the most critical accounts.) -- Jayen466 12:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"because as you well know many academics (writing about Osho) are ex-Osho devotees"; which academics are you thinking of here? I can't think of one, let alone "many". jalal (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

here's a few: James S. Gordon, Mary Garden, Elizabeth Puttick, Jack Rains, Margot Anand, Swami Anand Jima. I'm sure we could rustle up a few more with a search or two.Semitransgenic (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe James Gordon (who ran the White House Commission on Alternative Medicine a few years ago, if I am not mistaken) actually ever became a sannyasin; he said he was touched by Osho, but stayed aloof. You're correct in the case of S A Jina (Robert Gussner, Harvard alumnus, Professor at the University of Vermont, wasn't aware of him). Margot Anand I thought made her living running tantra workshops, was not aware she does academic work. The other three names I am not familiar with at the moment. -- Jayen466 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to academics that we are using as sources here. jalal (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be about a positive account, it should be about a factual account. There is a lot of mythologysizing, much of which is steeped in mystical ambiance and therefore ignores the real world facts of the matter. A lot of money was involved, Osho made a lot of money, and that money was used to work towards a material realisation of his "vision", the heavens didn't simply rain good fortune upon him, the social climate of the time, Western counter culture, and the New Age movement, all had role in this, and Osho was well aware of Western spiritual trends, the Western mindset, and how it might be exploited for profit; and how that profit might then be used to influence society, but all of this is currently ignored in the biography. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This view that reduces everything to a simple matter of earning money is present in some commentators, such as Urban, and it may reflect your view of the matter, but I think it is probably a minority view (as such it can still be mentioned here, with attribution), and certainly not the only view. Palmer for example explicitly states, "this study is not meant to imply that Rajneesh is acting out of secular motives rather than responding to an inner religious drive." (my italics). Etc. -- Jayen466 19:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

not simply earning money in the mundane sense, maybe you miss my point, it was goal directed material acquisition, the goal being to reshape society, at least that's what it looks like to me. The whole changing self to change society dictum and what have you. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, thanks for the clarification; I did miss your point. It seems plausible to me that he might have had such a goal -- he talked about it often enough, about wanting to bring about that "quantum leap" that he thought was needed in order to attenuate divisions and conflicts between cultures, nations, religions, "isms" etc. And he tried to bring about a synthesis between East and West, wanting each to appreciate what the other had to offer; attempting a sort of translation of each into the framework of the other; recommending science to the east, a sense of the sacred to the west; etc. And as Heelas points out in his book on The New Age, he did end up having a significant effect, at least on New Age thought. -- Jayen466 01:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the best way to deal with the POV issues might be to divide the article into three major parts:—

1. Biography, this to be written in as neutral and factual a tone as possible

2. Osho's philosophy

3. Reception, reflecting the various POVs that exist in the relevant literature (including Urban's view of a money-making scam, but also the more sympathetic academic views of Fox et al. and the published views of followers) with attribution to the respective authors

Generic issues (such as whether all "Godmen" are frauds etc.) should be covered elsewhere.

Any comment? -- Jayen466 13:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

2. and 3.:  Done. -- Jayen466 14:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Generic issues (such as whether all "Godmen" are frauds etc.) should be covered elsewhere. The question relating to whether or not Osho was a fraud is most certainly valid. I don't think Urban is suggesting it was a "scam" nor am I, Osho supplied spiritual goods and services, and made a lot of money doing so, that's simply business. However, the claims regarding "enlightenment", being a "maitreya", and various other mystical posturings are all dubious in my opinion, I think he was remarkable scholar, a notable philosopher, and a canny marketeer, but I am skeptical of anything that points towards him having saintly status. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest whatsoever in presenting Osho as a saint. Khushwant Singh IIRC said he should be assessed for his intellectual contribution; I personally have no problem with that. If a label is needed, I would prefer mystic. Even thinker or philosopher would be preferable to saint! And as for his claims to have hosted Buddha's spirit and all the rest of it, don't you get the joke? Four days later he said he threw Buddha out because Buddha could not get used to the Jacuzzi and gave him a headache with all his remonstrations about bathing being too much of a luxury! Yes, Osho sometimes played with stuff like Nostradamus, but he also made it quite clear what he thought of Nostradamus -- not much. So while he sometimes made big claims, he was also on hand to pull the carpet out from under those who believed in them -- deconstructing them as fast as they went up. That is why it is a fallacy to look at such things in isolation. -- Jayen466 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at what is left of his teachings after his own deconstruction I cannot help but think that while there is good and new in his teachings "what is new is not good and what is good is not new". He either deconstructed those claims of enlightenment, etc. (which would mean he should not be referred to in this way) or he was serious with at least some of those claims in which case one could perceive him as a simple lunatic. I agree there is some intelligence and wisdom in this type of self parody, which one might perceive as his only true teaching. It is the very basis for both his economic success and for his ability to never be held responsible for his doing. I will refrain from citing Goebbels to illustrate this further. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

The whole issue seems still unresolved. Dividing the article like that is clearly no solution as a song of praise in two parts cannot be undone in the end. As is the entry still lacks objectivity and almost none of the issues raised are resolved. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 19:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Whether or not it is a 'solution', it is an improvement in readability and flow. I also think that we've all lost track of what issues that have been raised need resolving. Maybe 62.47.5.186 could elucidate? jalal (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Necessary edits would be so many I still beleive it would be less work to completely rewrite it. There is literally no paragraph where I would not have multiple objections. As an example one of the picture captions (the one that reads like an advertisement) and the summary section in the second part are completely inappropriate. Alot of objections raised have also never been properly addressed even though reputable sources exist. This concerns among others sexual practices with children, the way children were treated in general in the Osho community and armed guards coercing both children and adults into greeting him (which he cannot have overlooked). Just compare the article about Al Capone with this one. Just like for Oshos crimes, there was no solid proof of Capones crimes at his lifetime. Taking the stand that allegations without proof are void is all that saves the main author from revealing the truth to a casual reader. A neutral way of describing all raised allegations within the article (and not in a separate section) would enable unbiased readers to form an opinion of their own. Currently most raised issues are immediately followed by many carefully raised objections. The style of writing is the one of a preacher or politician trying to force a message. A neutral way of presentation looks different. Some of this could even be remedied with more neutral wording. I am willing to suggest such wording but it would be a lot of work. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Teaching section

I was asked for examples of improvements above and will use this section as an illustration of criticism that has been raised which does not relate to criminal charges and other aforementioned things.

I choose the teaching section as it is in sore need of additional references. It more or less relies on one reference which seems to have considerable bias. One of the things that should be pointed out is the imminent self contradiction and inconsistency - claimed by his followers as a feature - which has been widely critizied and which has been interpreted as signs of megalomania or resulting from drug abuse. (This does not seem far fetched when comparing some of his writings at young age to his later works.)

Some examples:

He has not only "spent a lifetime challenging systems, institutions, and governments that he considered to be atrophied, corrupt, neurotic", he also had followers that could have been described that way.

Saying that "his teachings were not static but changed in emphasis over time" is one interpretation. Another possible interpretation would be to say they were inconsistent and self-contradictory. This is an accusation that has been so prominent that it should be mentioned. (This is also something that would not be found with J. Krishnamurti whom he is compared to in the next paragraph.)

Saying that his work is "impossible to cover in full" should not be necessary as this is true for any busy persons work - especially where an encyclopedia is concerned. The same holds true for the next sentence. The article should not focus on our lack of ability to present things in full detail.

Saying that "it must be remembered that his teachings were not presented in a dry, academic setting" should not be raised as an excuse either. It has nothing to do with an account of his teachings. It merely serves as an excuse for those who want to be blinded.

I could continue this for the whole teaching section. If you strip it down to the factual there is almost nothing left. (62.47.5.186 (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC))

Current references

I start this section to discuss how a larger variety of references could be used to present things more neutral and therefore enable readers to obtain a more realistic and comprehensive picture. I start with a simple question about a specific reference.

1) Why is the book "Bhagwan: The god that failed" by Hugh Milne not cited more often? As I understand this book describes extremely different sides of the authors personal experience within the Osho community. It also seems to contain a lot of (mostly undisputed) facts that have been confirmed over the years by others. As a side remark, I noticed when browsing Amazon how much this wikipedia article about Osho reads like a love letter. Some of the reviews about books focusing on Oshos life give a completely devastating account. A balanced account should be in between the love letter and devestating accounts like the amazon review of Milnes book written by the user "kaioatey". To finish off my simple question: Why is this book not used as a reference more often? (143.50.37.229 (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC))

Falsification of sources

Semi, in the lede you state: "He was an Indian philosopher whose entire person is surrounded by controversy", and source this to a statement by Fox on p. 51 that reads "The answer to whether Osho was a manipulator, addicted to power etc., or radically enlightened spiritual master who continues to offer a joyful, authentic and enriching -- if at times turbulent -- path to those who open their hearts to him, seems to rest with the one asking the question, and with posterity." You state, in justification of your edit, "its not a direct quote but refers directly to Foxs conclusion that the answers "rest with the one asking the question"." What you write bears no resemblance whatsoever to the source you quote.

surely it does. Fox describes widely different views and states that the answers which are correct rest with the one asking the question. This substantiates the many controversies (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

When we quote a source, we quote what the source says, rather than a wild extrapolation from it. Anyone checking the source should find a statement there that matches what we have written. That is not the case here. -- Jayen466 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It is by no means a wild extrapolation. If you want to remove the quote fine but the statement by itself - that his whole person is surrounded by controversy - is undisputable. Fox describes vastly different perceptions and essentially says that the truth is in the eye of the beholder. You abuse citations by pushing a point accross in exactly the way I descibe in another section. This is a well known strategy often used by politicians. People are not as stupid as you might think. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

SJ Palmer states in her paper , "At this state it appears that his knowledge of going on in the commune was exclusively derived from Sheela". This was used to source the following statement in the article: "It appears that due to his self-imposed isolation, his knowledge of events in the commune was from this point derived exclusively from Sheela's reports." You have turned this into "It is claimed that due to his self-imposed isolation, his knowledge of events in the commune was from this point derived exclusively from Sheela's reports." while retaining the same source reference. Again, this does not match the source quoted. Palmer does not state that anyone has claimed this, she describes how it appears. This is not contradicted by such sources as I have consulted. Here you claimed that FitzGerald stated that she did not regard this as possible. Again, that is not true. On the page in question (109), FitzGerald makes no judgment whatsoever about Osho's sources of information on events on the ranch.

Again if you mean a direct quote you should indicate it with quotation marks. I was only referring to your own sources already referenced elsewhere. In the section "Culpability for crimes committed in Oregon" you wrote "A number of commentators have stated that they consider this not even remotely possible" and give the respective references. All I did is use your source. I did not indicate a direct usage which should allways be indicated by quotation marks. I only used the sources to back up the general statement which is perfectly legitimate. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

You are confounding two separate issues.

• The first issue is that he did not speak to anyone but Sheela in the period in question, thus making her his only source of information. That is uncontested. It is not contested by the authors referred to under "Culpability" either. Therefore it is misleading to insert this quote as a rebuttal to Palmer's assessment.
• The second issue is whether he was aware of everything that Sheela was doing. Given that Sheela bugged his apartment, and tried several times to murder his personal physician, I think we can safely assume that there were a number of things that she did not discuss with him, don't you think? -- Jayen466 04:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact he did not speak with anyone but her does not infere that she was his only source of information. Under any circumstance Palmers assessment should be inserted in quotation marks to clearly mark that it is a direct quote. Furthermore there is a whole wealth of possibilities between knowing nothing and knowing all. Therefore your second statement is completely pointless. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

"Acharya" simply means "teacher", a term that according to Carter applied to him by the mere fact that he was a university professor, even though Osho gave it a different emphasis in meaning. Yet you insist on referring to this as a "self-given name". Again: it is simply the Hindi word for teacher.

According to Wikipedias own page it does not simply mean teacher. This has been pointed out before by another use on this discussion page. He should not be called by his self given titles. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages is not a reputable source. Carter's "Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram" (p. 44) is. You could also consult a Hindi dictionary. Or refer to this Times of India article which gives an English translation of the term. -- Jayen466 04:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If Misplaced Pages is not a reputable source (maybe it is so cause of people pushing heir point of view no matter how large the opposition ...), why cross link the term? Misplaced Pages states your translation and alot of additional information. You just refuse to accept that all his titles were essentially self-awarded as this could put him in a bad light. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Excuse me, I have the impression that your WP:Tendentious editing aims to put him in a bad light for having used titles, when the assumption of such titles is commonplace in India, and indeed expected of spiritual teachers there. Since you speak German, the German religious scholar Joachim Süss states the assumption of such honorifics "is customary in Hinduism. It follows from the fact of initiating disciples" ("folgt aber auch einer hinduistischen Gepflogenheit. Sie ergibt sich als Konsequenz aus der Einweihung von Jüngern ... Süss, Bhagwans Erbe, p. 30). Note that I have not contested that he assumed those titles (see below). I only object to the inflammatory way you would like to present this information, making something out of nothing. Jayen466 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

"Bhagwan" likewise is not a name, it is a religious title used by a number of Indian teachers. Such titles are never bestowed by any authority, but are chosen by the teacher and/or his disciples. It is a standard element of Indian religious life, and not anything special about Osho.

As for sex with minors on the Ranch: Osho neither encouraged such behaviour (on the contrary, he spoke out against pedophilia), nor did he engage in it, nor was he aware of it. What then is this doing in his biography? I have twice told you that you can stick it into the controversy section of Osho movement, where it may have some justification. I fail to see its significance here.

The section is titled "Reception and controversies". It is both directly related with the reception of his teachings by his followers and deciples and with many controversies surrounding not directly him but his teachings. It is not in the biography section and the article also contains information about his teachings. I agree that it should also be added to the Osho movement and to other language pages about it. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

As for "followers being forced to work without pay" etc., this is not borne out by reputable sources such as FitzGerald, who spent months in Rajneeshpuram, observing daily life first hand, nor I believe by Carter, who likewise spent considerable time there. Cheers, -- Jayen466 03:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Since when does one person decide what a reputable source is? If so a devotee should be the last one to claim neutrality. As far as children are concerned the forced labour in some Osho communities is more than well documented. A neutral account should present all evidence. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

FitzGerald and Carter have been quoted innumerable times by academics. Your A-Z of Cults, Sects and whatnot has not. That is how you determine what a reputable source is. -- Jayen466 04:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not that Fitzgerald and Carter are not reputable, the problem is that you cherry pick on both the references and on the parts you cite. Furthermore you reference sources that earn money with services and products related to the Osho movement. Those have an inherent bias. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

Abuse of referencing for POV

Instead of using quotations together with the correct citation where passages are quoted directly from the literature, some quotes in the current articles are abused to push the writers point of view. He then takes the stand that a change in wording would be misrepresenting the literature. He constructs a chain of direct quotes to put a message across. This should not be acceptable. A better style would be to clearly mark quotations appropriately and thereby distinguish single opinions represented in the literature from general statements. It is unacceptable to push a message across that it only portrayed by one source while making it seem like a general statement and blatantly omitting other sources or collecting them at the bottom in a section of their own. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

The "changes in wording" that I object to are WP:OR. You are simply trying to pass off your views as those of the source quoted. -- Jayen466 04:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

What a nonsense. It has been claimed by the source I cite. If you prefer one could add the reference after "It has been claimed" as the source exactly claims the rest of the sentence. If you you are unhappy you can still add quotation marks to your original quote as should allways be used when things are quoted word by word. (62.47.23.131 (talk) 04:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC))

1. Latkin C.,"Seeing Red: A Social-Psychological Analysis of the Rajneeshpuram Conflict",Sociological Analysis, Vol. 53, No. 3, Monopolism and Pluralism in American Religion and Society. (Autumn, 1992), pp. 257-271.
2. ^ Lewis F. Carter, Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram (1990: 63–64) ISBN 0-521-38554-7
3. Article in The New Yorker magazine, Sept. 29 1986: Frances FitzGerald: A reporter at large – Rajneeshpuram (part 2)
4. Flaccus, Gillian (October 19 2001). "Ore. Town Never Recovered From Scare". Associated Press. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
5. In his book The Last Testament, Vol. 2, Chapter 29 (transcript of interview with Stern magazine and ZDF TV, Germany)
6. ^ Lewis F. Carter, Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram (1990: 233–238) ISBN 0-521-38554-7
7. Staff (September 25, 2006). "Leadership, Director, Office of Policy and Planning, Joseph R. Greene". U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE. Retrieved 2007-11-22. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
8. Cite error: The named reference PT was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
9. Carl A. Latkin; Norman D. Sundberg; Richard A. Littman; Melissa G. Katsikis; Richard A.,"Feelings after the Fall: Former Rajneeshpuram Commune Members' Perceptions of and Affiliation with the Rajneeshee Movement",Sociology of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 1, Religious Experience. (Spring, 1994), pp. 65-73.
10. ^ Palmer S.J., "Charisma and Abdication: A Study of the Leadership of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh",Sociological Analysis, Vol. 49, No. 2. (Summer, 1988), pp. 119-135.

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Oregon articles
• Mid-importance Oregon articles
• WikiProject Oregon pages
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles