Here is Osho's Book of the Secrets, containing his transcribed talks on the 112 methods of "coming into truth". They are supposed to be all-inclusive: no other mechanisms bring one to enlightenment, i.e. others who achieve enlightenment without even knowing of Tantra have changed their brains via paths whose net effects were equal to one or a combination of these methods. They were not invented by Osho -- the Vigyana Bhairava Tantra is 5000 years old and was developed by the Hindu people. He explains, however, that they do not belong to any religion or group, but to all men of all times.

http://www.livingworksho...ookofthesecrets_comp.pdf

Osho is like mass marketed new age beginner meditation stuff geared toward profit and geared toward those who are wealthy (at least it used to be)

Osho is famous for his at least dozen of Rolls Royces.

No need for other peoples' BS. I mean just the sheer intentions behind books like this is enough for me to facepalm.

Some people just eat stuff up 'cause it sounds so good...Some people need leaders because they have yet to realize that the ultimate guru was actually within the whole time


Oh yes there is quite a $cience behind this stuff...

Thank you for your informed opinion. However, I would still very much like to know what you think of his work.


Of course, don't read it if it doesn't interest you..

yea, that assessment of science was bogus.
science is concerned with both how AND why; it is a method, not a way of thinking.

I'm glad that these ideas are so beneficial to you. That's awesome.

You can't call it a science at all because it relies so heavily on received knowledge.

Osho is neither a scientist nor an etymologist.



It is knowledge passed down through generations, methods which were slowly discovered over time as being ways of entering "the truth".

Call it what you will. As someone utterly devoted to science, I find Tantra fascinating. It is most definitely not a religion, but it IS centered on the idea that we are not excluded in any way from what the universe is, and it also rejects dualism.

the title is a bit misleading.
as someone also utterly devoted to science, I don't see how tantra can show evidence for "becoming one with the universe".
that is a belief, a subjective observation.

Sure my friend, that's an elementary observation you make and it comes across as the same old broken record. We all know that any experience of spiritual union or immersion within higher states of consciousness is fundamentally and completely subjective. This does not make them untrue or not worthy of discussion.

I'll be the first one to admit, I found Swami Rajneesh to be a charlatan. Osho simply was not ready to handle that much attention nor that much reverence, regardless of his desire to be revered. He went mad and in the wake, took advantage of many sincere seekers of spiritual truth. Mores the pity that he borrowed so heavily from the wisdom of others. Hey, his frightening ego parade ended with less than ideal circumstances but much of what he parroted is based in spiritual truth. While I don't care for his biased, pseudo-intellectual ramblings, I do respect his choice of material to plagiarize.

I still recall one of his sentiments, he proclaimed that if you looked into the eyes of any of the famous Yogis who were the top dogs in the 1960's-1970's... that you could see that they were full of hate and avarice. He was pointedly referring to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Sri Swami Satchidananda, Neem Karoli Baba and other Hindu Yogis of the era. Hate and avarice? Give me a break!!! He might have taken a good look at himself? Was there a distinct lack of mirrors in his ashram or what? His actions spoke louder than any of his words. He was, sadly, the quintessential false prophet. Boldly speaking about spiritual topics, while behaving like a deviate under the surface (and behind closed doors).

That being said, even a fool can speak words of wisdom, despite not fully understanding them. "The proof in the pudding is in the tasting", eh?

Still, from the standpoint of the fearless explorers of THAT which is beyond the relative phenomenon of material manifestation... subjective reflection and contemplation are the only viable lenses we have to observe the being who existed before the incarnation of the physical self. Like the old Zen Koan, "What was your original face, before you were born?" Who was the self before the body was created to house it? We are unable to prove it's existence nor can it be disproved either. Right? Sometimes I just don't understand why folks keep hammering this point in.

Transcendental states of mind cannot ever be exercised or reproduced with scientific procedure, aimed towards a verifiable objective equation or quantification. They remain subjective, however profoundly inspiring they are.

Still, as joedirt and I have insisted for some time now, we can approach the exploration of such realms of experience with a scientific attitude and methodical measures. We are unable to prove it's existence nor can it be disproved either. Right? This has been the attitude in Indian metaphysics for millenniums now and it is scientific on many levels.

Now, certainly the immersions are subjective, as any individual's conscious-awareness is (regardless of proclivity or predisposition). We do actually get your point... Reality is wholly subjective. :idea:

This, however, does not strip the "science" away from the philosophies and methodologies of Indian Tantra and Yoga. And furthermore, I don't feel that Osho is a descent enough representative of the Tantric tradition to be quoted as an authority. I much prefer Ananda Marga's discourses on Tantra. Although, I might take Osho's advice about buying a new Rolls Royce. He did have quite a bit of experience with these vehicles, as well as hosting armed guards sporting semi-automatic assault riffles.

So please refrain from dismissive remarks about Tantra and Yoga. Reason alone cannot bring the witness to the play of the cosmic dance, closer to the face of God. Neither should this prejudice be aimed indiscriminately towards indigenous shamanism or any of the no-dualist theologies of the world like: Taoism, Advaita or Zen. Procedural analysis is of pivotal importance to strictly logical avenues of scientific inquiry. I offer no argument here, whatsoever, because I fully agree. No one disputes this and yet, anytime a sincere explorer of the further reaches of awareness/consciousness/self/existentialism... utilizes the word "science", we have this typical and oh-so-predictable backlash.

I staunchly believe it is of utmost importance to understand that we are not at all blind faith types. We admittedly step outside of the trajectory of rationale and in so doing, rely more on intuition than reason. So??? The overtly left-brained approach has it's limitations and can never yield certain results. We have considerable brain volume, as a species and I sincerely implore you to respect that unless we find ways to activate and utilize other regions of the brain than the prefrontal & cerebral cortexes, we will never access the Divine. Every tool has a function.

That being said, there is a remarkable degree of rational thought applied to these "pseudosciences" and without the logic behind them, they are likely to wander out-of-control, towards fantasy and self delusional tangents. This is most assuredly not the case, with many of the threads that have been assaulted by such smug derision. Might we keep an open mind in the Open Discussion subforum?

As for the right-brained approach, we directly move our awareness into realms of being, which are not ordinary states of mind and do not follow the same rules, parameters and laws of physical relativity. Please get over it, dearest benzyme and I mean that in a respectful way, as I do respect your brilliant intelligence and honorable adherence to reason. This however, has it's intended application and it is not useful when moving beyond the shattering of the ego.

But this does not mean that every utterance which evokes the embrace of the Indivisible Spirit of Oneness, is a wacko running wild in the streets. OK? Besides, this is an open discussion and not posted in the Empirical Halls of Science. I can see your point, sure, if this thread was drop-kicked into the Science subforum but as is clear to all... it is a worthwhile topic of discussion.

Tantra, Yoga are arguably sciences in their own right. As are psychotherapy, psychology and astrology. We just need to exercise a little tolerance and forbearance in this regard. Might I remind our academic family members of one irrefutable fact, that the Age of Reason is the new kid on the block? Please have a little respect for your elders, Guys.

believe what you will...but if you're going to claim a belief system is a science, then you'd better be prepared to show some evidence and references to support your claim.
else, it most certainly is pseudoscience and subject to intense scrutiny.

that being said, beliefs are a personal thing, and if a person was secure in his/her beliefs, he/she wouldn't get offended if someone challenged them.

here is an old link of tantric musings

..i think Osho was a great psychologist/thinker, & i'm glad for his contribution to modern thinking.

I have a friend who knew him (as a person), and towards the end of his life Osho declared the age of gurus to be over..i.e. 'don't follow/idolise me,
find your own truth'. He created various techniques for working with consciousness (like 'dynamic meditation'.
It's just a shame many of his 'followers' have coloured his reputation (especially Ms. "tough titties" superbitch), preaching dogma.

If Osho's overall contribution is to be judged 'non-scientific', then i think so should the whole of modern Psychology.
(i have often argued that psychology is a pseudo-science). Osho did great experiments & we should be greatful for his data on subjective consciousness.

I am totally sympathetic to benzyme's frustration at this, in this sense...i suspect few people practicing Tantra would have the discipline & objectivity
that their work could be described as a Science, but as a system of ideas/techniques it certainly could be approached as such.
I'm not an 'Osho-Sanyasin' (infact i can't stand what i call Sanyasin Relativism.."we are one" etc), but am very greatful for his insights..

p.s when i refer to Tantra i use the broad definition (not so-called 'californian tantra' meaning just sex)

thanks for everyone's input....

I am not personally claiming that metaphysics and modern science are the same system of belief, let alone the ancient Tantric and Yogic cosmologies. The Vedic Indians, achieved scientific breakthroughs long before the Europeans were even civilized. The Aryans, who mingled with the Dravidians, had their Sanskrit name for science, "Shaastra". They pragmatically and methodically recorded their observations and revelations in the Vedantic literature which they wrote down. 3000 years later this is not exactly an intelligible scientific text, by exact definition but nothing to sweep away as it if were meaningless dribble or the fantasy of the gullible and unintelligent.

Ayurveda can be translated as “science of life” and it predates the current concept of science by several thousand years. The very name of their linguistic system, Sanskrit, means "language brought to formal perfection". Considerable thought went into it's formulation and the interplay of it's intentional sonic effects upon the human psyche. The recitation of it's wording does indeed alter the consciousness of the speaker and listener, as they act as mantras upon the mind of the user. Only and only if there is a receptivity to it's powerful trans formative effects, but of course.

So in all fairness, a science which involves subjective experience for a central axis, is no less a science. It's certainly a matter of perspective and a series of journeys into the Unified Field of Being. And assuredly, its' a solo journey, at that. You demand sources and references? There is a lot of material but I think we all know this is not what you are referring to? Your challenging tone makes the definitive implication that you suspect there are no verifiable references or any reliable evidence.

The Rig Vedas are composed, yes composed, in prose. They are essentially revelatory and highly ritualized hymns to the Deity/Deities of their era. The Upanishads are far better for Western minds to accept and glean wisdom from, so I could recommend reading one of the many translations but this is hardly proof or evidence.

To insist that an ancient science adapt to a modern science is fruitless, as modern science largely ignores anything but the gross material plane of existence. You are projecting your viewpoint upon this situation, given your demand for "evidence and references". Any novice scientist knows that today's latest scientific breakthroughs in discovery, are tomorrow's superseded and most outmoded theoretical antiquities.

Any paradigm is limited by the mentality which crafted it. Despite the acclaim and contemporary favor, this is a relatively temporary ideological edge, which is gained. It will in time, also be replaced by new ideas, also scientifically derived by logical procedure. And for the sake of an Open Discussion, we might see that not everything can be defined with reason and reason alone? It's almost as if you are covetous of the word SCIENCE. Maybe you're right about Tantra and Yoga being sciences, in the light of contemporary usage... I have to think about it further. But if so, the use of "Shaastra" could be utilized instead, which would lead to translation and semantical analysis. Eventually someone would just say, Shaastra means science, anyway. Flex a little, Buddy. That's all I ask.



You've used that one before, friend. This is hardly the case. In fact, it' a tired argument and not even close to being applicable to my response, in the very least. OK? You imply insecurity because one chooses to resist your dismissive attitude? We all get offended by another's arguments, from time to time. It's only human to do so. You seem genuinely offended by the use of the word science, so what's the big deal? I am certain that this is not born of insecurity, so why must you infer it of me and those who have had their precious, direct immersions into the insubstantial essence of the Godhead? Believe it or not, I do care what you think and I do not feel threatened at all, by your challenges, however predictable.

You err in logic by demanding that the spiritual experience be brought into a provable, objective context. It cannot be done. This does not, nor will it ever, mean that it is not as real or in many cases, more real than anything which can be proven through logical deduction or scientific procedure. "Show me the evidence" is not a winning point in this debate, benzyme, it is the declaration by yourself, that you have not experienced union with the Divine. The Oneness is not subject to being proven by some mathematical equation or newest quantum hypotheses, which may gain the most favor amongst the pseudo geniuses of the 21st century, scientific community.

Either you've seen the light... or you have not. I cannot prove my experience or the existence of God. I cannot give you or sell you or anyone else the experience. Nor would you necessarily want it given or sold to you. Hey, you might not be buying the whole idea and I can respect that. Some things are forevermore subject to interpretation and some things that we collectively speculate as objective fact, are just that, speculations that can be procedurally conducted to yield definitive results.

I sincerely do applaud any method which can be reproduced through routine procedure but this cannot happen within the realm of the transcendental. This does not make it invalid or purely illusory, now does it? That's just fine for rational endeavors but again, The Flight of the Wounded Healer is a solo trip. It's destination is the shattering of the ego and the realization of the inherent Omniself. The witness to the play of duality, the embrace of the universal unity in all things. "Different strokes for different folks."

Really, it's completely understandable to turn your challenges back at you, as I don't need to prove anything to anyone. No insecurities on this side of the looking glass, friend. I have spent more than 1/2 a century questioning everything I have encountered and I am not a groupie, cultist or extremist. We each receive our own unique perception of reality and this is as it should be. I honor yours but I don't enjoy the blatant dishonor directed upon the spiritually-inclined individuals in this forum, myself included.

Look, it's as simple as this, if you choose to play it safe by only respecting that which can be proven through procedural process and quantified by repeated testing... great! This is only applicable to physical objects and the material plane, which are ruled by our intellectual ideas about the fundamental laws of physics. There is so much more happening, here and now, than just our cherished human conceptions about the laws of quantum mechanics. There are an infinity of unknowables to this universe in which we exist and many of the laws we hold dearly are meaningless on alternate planes of being. I can't prove what I do not know, so I'll beat you to it... and admit I don't know how much else is out there or conversely, in here, within.

If you feel that any other entity in this multiverse is merely defensive and insecure, because they return your challenging vibe, you are most incorrect in such an assumption. And I am not being combative, brother. It's just that too much adherence to the activities born within the frontal cerebral cortex, block the immersion into the Clear Light of the Void and that's not good for me or my devotion to Spirit. "To each their own."

nothing is "proven", not even in science..and since I've said it before, I'll say it again..this is because you never exactly reproduce an event at the same time it originally occured; instead, correlations are made. I'm not making this into some treatise of belief vs. science, that was not the point. My point was belief systems are not the same as science, of course it goes without saying. I'm also not claiming science is superior in any way, it's simply a different method for addressing questions. "Faith" and "belief" are terms used outside of science.

and "seeing the light" or claiming enlightenment is also subject to scrutiny. it's also been said that those who claim they are "enlightened", probably aren't.

Thank you, Sir Panther-on-a-Cactus, for your amazing poem. My confused sparks of spite have been quelled from within.

This is all in good fun, and I don't mind if people jump to proclaim these ideas as flawed. After all, I never brought out any arguments, really; I just said, "hey read this, it's good for me."

I am skeptical, but I also strive to take the most pain I can for exploring the unknown, at least I like to think I do. Like religions, Tantra does not have a written base of axioms and laws from which its ideas branch out logically.

But I believe that all religions are "correct," in that they subjectively benefit people by changing their minds. Like any addiction, however, they can be dangerous when they become an escape, or a way to accept hate or division between oneself and others. Thus the spirit of religions are misunderstood as one is becoming an adherent of it. This is ever the FUCKIN FAILURE of religions. FAILURE.

About Osho's book... I certainly didn't get any impression of haughtiness in the first three chapters... Though to be honest, I DID observe a few remarks of his towards Yogis and also about our "diseased minds," which put me on alert.

I always go on alert when I read any perceived negativity by the author. He may be being honest, and exposing all of himself and his weaknesses, OR he may be trying to use our own feelings of "us and them," or "there is something wrong with me and Osho says he can help me."

this is good; it shows critical-thinking, instead of blindly accepting someone's beliefs.
I felt the same way when reading Food of the Gods by Terrence McKenna. I enjoyed his insight on many things, including his idea of an "archaic revival", but he also had some negative ideas regarding some food sources which I didn't think were necessarily damaging to the 'soul'.

I didn't mean to come off so unkind with my judgement of the late Sri Bhagwan Rajneesh. You have to understand, that when one dons robes and assumes the role of "Bhagwan", one must be prepared to survive the temptations of the corruption which social power can allow for. I met Swami Rajneesh in 1979 and got to look at him him eye-to-eye. Our discussion was limited to his quick assessment of me, my hippie attire and my spiritual development. He strongly felt that my spiritual experiences were "delusional", given that they were largely brought on by psychedelics. In fact, he wrote a book entitled LSD: Shortcut to False Samadhi. I was encouraged to buy this booklet and got moved along, in preference for more adoring, would-be disciples. I couldn't afford the price for admission into the ashram, as I had little money in those days, so I happily hit the road back to Boulder, CO.

I was very definitely left with the distinct impression that either I had to accept him as Supreme Guru and adhere to his belief system... or stay away. His attitude towards other teachers was most alarming to me, as well. He seemed to openly despise many of them!!! Now, some of them I know for a fact, are beautiful and loving souls. many of these folks are great human beings and full of wisdom. That and the sexual abuse and monetary greed put me off, big time. He was essentially, selling Darshan for quick cash. So did Swami Muktananda, despite his having written several very inspiring books. I believe it was $250.00 up front, with Sri Muktananda, to be bopped on top of the head with a peacock feather? He refereed to it as, Shaktipad. I saw it slightly differently and still do. he also had armed guards on hand, ready to shoot anyone who tried to get the Master. How very odd!!! May they both rest in peace.

At that time in my life, my third eye had been activated and for nearly a calendar year, continuously, so I saw colored auras around everyone I met (or even saw at a distance). It has come and gone for over 34 years now. It reactivates every time I trip or if I've done considerable sitting meditation for a prolonged stretch. It's no big deal but I like to see into other planes of consciousness, so it can be a learning tool.

This was in many ways a beautiful thing, as the human aura is a wonder to behold. The down side is that other than seeing the colors which are evident and perceivable, one also picks up clear impressions of intention and thought form. this can be a lovely sight or a disturbing one. The Bhagwan's aura was not the brightest nor most radiant one I've seen. He's basically an above average guy, after all but not enlightened nor a true Satguru. Those people are radiant and you can feel the current just being near by. Osho was a very clever and well spoken figure but he had a dark, deviant side, as well. I saw the armed guards holding Uzis myself, with my own eyes, so I am not being unduly critical about this particular issue. I witnessed the looooooong row of Rolls Royces, all lined up in open display of opulence.

He got the loot from his students pockets and this rubs me the wrong way. Many of my friends have been admirers, students and even a couple "Swamis" of his. I can't remember the exact cost for the Swami initiation but I think it was $500.00? And in the seventies that was a lot of money! Some of the ladies were sexually abused by him, on a regular basis (or by his higher-ups). A lot of non-spiritual brainwashing took place under his watch and it was not pretty. Not cool for a rap star or a famous athlete and it is absolutely uncool for a "Spiritual Teacher".

I heard it from a dozen actual ex cult members, so I'm not pointing the finger for unfounded reasons or simply to deflate his reputation. One girl I knew pretty well said that within his cult in Oregon, it was just expected. She felt betrayed and mislead by his Holy Man posturing, only thinly cloaking his rampant desires. She spent years in therapy trying to forgive herself for allowing such abuse to take place to her own body. I cried with her on a few occasions, so forgive me if I seem adamantly critical of his nonsense. I'm sorry but this is not the behavior of a "Holy man". There's an old expression, "If you wanna talk the talk, walk the walk."

So if any soul gains inspiration from his writing or audio lectures... that's fantastic. We can gather truth and insight from many sources. Sometimes you can learn a lot from a devilish character like Osho. Maybe I'm just being a prudish old fool? I just have to draw a line in the sand when individuals make such dramatic motions to be known of as a spiritual master and then behave like a politician, behind the scene. There is good in everyone and everything, so never mind my opinionated ramblings, nen888. I'm sure that much of his teaching is drawn from the Omniself and we can all relate to such wisdom when we hear it. Grumble, grumble, grumble...

..ha,ha,ha..i love your opinionated ramblings Rising Spirit, or any other nexian for that matter.
And i certainly don't agree with everything the old fellow said, just think he did some good prodding (& some highly entertaining raves).

From my own eccentric point of view (at this point in time), the only gurus(teachers) i would commit to would be plants or animals...(the pure minded)

look forward to more rants and mental yoga (or is that gymnastics?) from you all...


[Someone asked, "Bhagwan, who was your Master?". Bhagwan replied: "I had three Masters, a ditch, a small boy, and a dog. One night i had no where
to sleep except a ditch..it was a long and uncomfortable night. I awoke after little sleep at dawn as a small boy pelted stones at my head. As i pondered
this, still lying there, a dog wandered over and urinated on me...these three liberated me.."(etc.)..]

So bestial watersports are the key to liberation?

We can now safely get rid of all gurus, in light of this TRUTH

Joking aside, I find that peoples often unconditional acceptance of 'The Path to Enlightenment/Unity with the Universe' as propogated by various individuals whose hymn-sheets are different is essentially a form of idolatory, where the 'messenger' is adored (or in effect, worshipped) to a level which puts them on the same pedastel as the truth they attempt to propogate.And to take it a step further, this rears the ugly head of worshipping ones own desires, by accepting certain precepts whilst rejecting others which the gurus propogate.

IMO, this makes a mockery of the Truth (however you may conceive of this) as such a truth should be immutable and distinct from varying erroneous interpretations of it.

definitly think the dog, as 'spiritual master', had an important message for the aspiring Rajneesh...

..he was certainly intelligent & humourous, if nothing else. (& believe me i've spent a lot of time laughing at some of his followers, or wanting to tear my hair out!)

The proposition: "Tantra is the SCIENCE of becoming one with the universe." is still a valid one, if defined/expanded on sufficently...