Talk:Put' belyh oblakov (Путь белых облаков) (2)
I'm sorry, Rudra, you didn't understand me. No-no, the introductory DOESN'T indicate. I did not mean the introductory, it is the trial fragment of book for buying! See here: [1]
When I did read it I understood that the book contains quotes about Osho's life. I don't sure that the original english book is Osho's Life. An Anthology of Osho's Life From His Own Books. Probably a little from it, and some text from others sources? Look at the notes of the book, please.
I put google translate some text fragments from the book, which will help us to learn an english original. Please, look at the middle of first fragment and secont fragment at all.
...
Collecting materials for this book, I once again realized that after death, without the burden of a worn out body, Osho is hardly more influential than in life, that his story has not ended, that Osho's pilgrimage is infinite and that even after death he is perfectly capable of speaking with us. There is no clear answer to the question: "Who is this Osho?" Everything I write about him is only part of our path to ourselves. In the end, Osho said that we will understand who he is, only realizing who we really are ... This book is about the life of Mystic and about the powerful response that things have responded to his presence. About us - seekers and sufferers because of a lack of integrity that has not yet reached its peak and often has no idea what to do with one's own life. At the top of the mountain stands Gogi with a boomerang in his hands. Kaco approaches him: "Gogi, what is this at tebe?" "I do not know." - Gogi, and what is it tebe - that you "do not know"? "I do not know!" - Gogi, yes, you throw it out - what you "do not know". - On, throw it out! .. Approximately so ... And "throw out" can not be, and what to do is not entirely clear ... By the way, not a single conversation between Master and students was complete without anecdotes. If you look at Osho's book The Zen Manifesto (Moscow, 1997), then the abundance of frankly ridiculous stories and anecdotes accompanying very meditative teaching can be surprised if desired. Osho did not like the heavy truths. He was very simple and absolutely total. In everything that concerned life and its manifestations, for Osho there were no differences in the paths leading to awakening, "beyond our own prison." He promised that he would terrorize our ignorance and wake us up in every possible way, and did it masterfully simply. At the same time, ignorance should not be understood as the absence of a gentlemanly set of intellectual messages, but our absolute indifference to ourselves. We for the most part do not have the slightest idea about ourselves and our true nature. Osho argued that in every person there is the nature of the Buddha, that truth can not be understood, but one can only experience that it is always with us, in the very center of our being. To come there, you need to want to wake up. And to want to wake up, you need to agree that you're sleeping. Hence the incessant Oshov "wake-up" in attempts to throw us beyond the love we so fond of. This is very Oshovsky: what happens when "nothing happens"? In theory, we should "happen" ourselves. But which of us has the courage to live like this? .. Of course, his life and teaching differed in paradox, rebellion and protest. Of course, he resolutely and tangibly terrorizes our ignorance, embracing in almost six hundred books almost all aspects of the development of human consciousness: from Chuang Tzu to Sigmund Freud, from Gautama Buddha to George Gurdjieff, from Jesus Christ to Rabindranath Tagore ... He terrorizes our ignorance, commenting on the Upanishads, Bible, Koran, Sufism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, yoga, tantra. He awakens us in every possible way, highlighting the most important thing, based on the experience of his own experience of truth. Budit, and we do not like to wake up like this ... As the Master liked to joke while we sleep, dreams are very real. And although Osho was very clear and simple, we can not always understand what he was saying. He knew exactly what was happening and whence, but while we are asleep, there is no way to hear ... Collecting materials for the book, I looked in the Internet sites about Osho. I did not find Osho in them, however, "the persecutions on Osho" are presented there in full ... The most innocuous thing that happened was "spiritually incorrect mystic", "buddha hooligan", "spiritual terrorist" and "sex guru". Obviously, people who live by the principle of "whatever happens", the degree of freedom of Osho and his ideas discourages, frightens and forces "to entrust" his fate to the "letter of the law." It's understandable: not everyone in the teeth oshovskaya freedom. As social creatures, we by definition are afraid of it and we avoid it in every way. But I did not expect such a turn in the march, as in the following documents, I confess. In the recently published "Guide to Cults", the "cult of Osho (Rajneesh)" is classified as a destructive religious organization (totalitarian sect, destructive cult) in the following documents: • in the Verbal Note of the Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany of 22 November 1995; • in the analytical bulletin of the State Duma of the Russian Federation "On the national threat of Russia from destructive religious organizations"; • in the initiative letter - the deputy request of the Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, NV Krivelsky, to the Minister of the Interior of the Russian Federation, to General of the Army A. S. Kulikov (January 1997); • in the information material of the Ministry of Health and Medical Industry of the Russian Federation "Towards a report on the socio-medical consequences of the impact of certain religious organizations on the health of the individual, family, society and measures to provide assistance to the victims" (1996); • in the book AI Hvyli Olinter "Dangerous totalitarian forms of religious sects" (1996). It sounds solid and menacing. Immediately feel the hand of ideological "professionals": all in the best traditions of medieval obscurantism ... What can I say? Hunting witches even in our day is a matter for politicians and is very popular. With all the attendant phenomena: from outright stupidity and vulgarity to boundless ignorance in matters of spiritual practices. I read and think: is it serious? It turns out, seriously. Judge for yourself. According to the aforementioned "Handbook", "the Osho cult" is one of the most "destructive for the consciousness of adepts." The technique of internal growth in the cult lies in the fact that the spiritual growth of the adept is directly dependent on the approach and attachment to the personality of the guru. " Oh, these are our "cults of personality" and "career growth, depending on the approach to the authorities"! Obviously, Osho's activities are imposed on the only known model that these "researchers" have served with faith and truth all their lives and which is known to any schoolboy. All this is very familiar and extremely boring. In support of their accusations, they cite an excerpt from a letter from the mother of the adept Osho: "The appeal to you is the only hope of saving your son ... in the guise of meditation people apply methods of psychic influence to the will of man ... I am deeply convinced that my son, now under the influence of psychoenergetic means, is capable of Contrary to his desire to perform an action beyond reason and common sense. " What is really "beyond reason and common sense" is the woman's confidence that the authorities she is seeking protection are functioning in accordance with the aforementioned reason and common sense ... It is interesting to remember that Osho himself never called himself a teacher (Guru), nor a preacher. He did not invent any new dogma - he created a new attitude to the world and to himself. I read and remembered: "I leave everything to the will of existence. My words are alive. This is not teaching, accept my gift. " Someone accepts Osho's gift into his heart, someone refuses him. Absolute freedom of choice.
...
If we asked Osho himself: "So who are you, Mystic?" Then he would answer us that he is just him, not a prophet and not a messiah, not a Christ, and the most ordinary person is the same as us . The only difference is that we are still sleeping. However, this difference is not so great, because he, too, once slept ... And since soon we will wake up, the difference between us is almost none at all. The mystic learns from the Mystics. In existence. At himself. In his silence and loneliness. That is why Osho was never spiritual in the traditional conventional sense: he did not go to churches and churches, did not read the scriptures, did not observe rituals, did not worship God and did not pray. He believed that the submissive fulfillment of formal, conditioned actions has nothing to do with spirituality and the search for truth. Osho chose his own way. Spirituality meant for him decidedly different. She meant seeking an answer to the question "Who am I?", Which means, absolute honesty before myself. His spirituality did not allow any dependence. It was expressed in defending freedom - freedom within its being. Freedom from other people's views and teachings, freedom from ideological and religious doctrines, from public opinion, from generally accepted rules, norms and restrictions - from the crowd. He did not have a place in the crowd, because in the crowd it is impossible to freely find oneself and one's own truth. Truth can be found only in solitude, "in the vastness of its emptiness" (BG).
While working with this part of the book, excerpts from Osho's conversation with Roberta Green, Santa Ana Register, Orange County, California are used.
Osho offered us the simplest understanding of spirituality - as a natural search for oneself. He admitted that he never allowed anyone to do this search for him: he seriously believed that we can find ourselves only ourselves.
...
Next there are quotes from the life of Osho. I can not look at the full book.--DhyanAntar 18:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
