Talk:Kaam-Yog, Dharm Aur Gandhi (काम-योग, धर्म और गांधी)
About the Title
Indented paragraph of this section below is an earlier attempt to sort out differences between two versions which are now believed to be both wrong.
- First, about the title of this book, there are two sources, the earlier version in the wiki [(Kama, Yoga, Dharm aur Gandhi)] and Neeten's Osho Source Book. The differences are final "a"s included or not (not so significant) and punctuation (could actually be significant). The wiki had the commas, as above, and make more sense to me, though Neeten's formulation is not out of the question, and he has made it a point to always respect original orthography. In his formulation, it is "Kam-Yog, Dharm aur Gandhi," making a yoked pair out of passion/lust and Yoga. The jury is still out and his way seems less likely but still interesting and possible.
The above versions of the title seem to have been independent misconceptions based on the resemblance between Kam(a) and Karm(a). They were likely taken as valid because of Osho's early reputation as a "sex guru". Whatever their ultimate origins, when Shailendra's suggested correction to "Karmayoga" came along, it was seen as far more likely and appropriate, so here we are. -- updated doofus-9 17:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
As we have up to now cover and info on second edition, we should change the title of the book. But which title use, on cover - काम-योग, धर्म और गांधी or on title page, on which first two words are joint and last word has small difference.--DhyanAntar 09:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The title certainly should be changed. Karmayoga is just plain wrong, and if it isn't wrong, let Shailendra produce the cover to prove it. I would go with the cover rather than the title page, for a number of reasons:
1. काम-योग hyphenated is more compelling and emphatic than कामयोग joined (it seems to me), emphasizing the two elements of lust and yoga that are joined in this unusual concept.
2. The mark over Gandhi on the cover, गांधी as opposed to गाँधी onl the title page: Both these marks do the same thing, nasalizing the vowel in Ga. (The "n" is not actually pronounced, just sort of whined, like in French. Maybe you have this sound in Russian?) Anyway, both do the same, both are "correct" but there is a question of convention and habit in spelling. I believe the ँ is becoming more obsolete, though you could argue that if it was more fashionable in the early 70s, we should go with that. I would not argue that way though, i would go the way of getting rid of this obsolete thing.
When trying G**gle Transl(iter)ate by typing g-a-n-d-h-i, their first suggestion is गाँधी, the second गांधी, so i choose the first, and then they ask, do you mean गांधी? So they too are a little conflicted. But in 50 years, no one will use the ँ, and we'll be fine. Interestingly, G**gle also hemmed and hawed with काम-योग : When i typed in k-a-a-m, they were okay with it and rendered it properly as काम, but when i attached the hyphenated योग to it, they asked if i meant karma-yoga, a familiar and comfortable concept.
3. The fact that both of these things, काम-योग and गांधी, are on the cover rather than the other way around also makes them more attractive to me, as the cover is the main event to me, with the title page secondary usually, as who looks at the title page? The cover is what gets your attention.
Possibly the transliteration issues will be more unclear. Is it Kam or Kaam? Is it Yoga or Yog? Re the first, i have traditionally not liked double vowels, but here, as in Naam, and because there is more room for ambiguity and mistakes in single-syllable words, i would go with Kaam. It is both correct and a trend of the future which G**gle is fostering. And re the second, i would go with Yog, as this aligns with Indian sannyasin usage in general clipping the trailing inherent vowel off the end of many common short words. We in the west are used to seeing "Yoga", but we have to get used to this Indian usage. It seems to me. -- updated doofus-9 17:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, will change.--DhyanAntar 06:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Osho's Books on Gandhi
Below are Neeten's entries concerning Osho's books on Gandhi, first from his Notes section, then Bibliography:
- "Published booklets by Osho on Gandhi include: Philosophy of Non-violence (1967). This was the first booklet of Osho to be translated and published in English. Original edition in Hindi Ahimsa darshan (1966). Also Gandhivad, Vijnanik dastie (1971), Kam-Yog, Dham aur Gandhi (1972), and Bharat, Gandhi aur maim (1974). See Bibliography" [next below].
- "Asvikrti mem utha hath: Bharat, Gandhi aur men cinta (India, Gandhi and myself). Compiled by Ratnaprakas. Bombay, Jiwan jagriti kendra, 1969. Rs. 5.00. (H-71) DDC 301.1530954. (INB 1971)." (Pub 1969)
- "Gandhivad, Vijnanik dastie. Rajkot, Ambani. 0.50. (G-71) 330.1 [1]. (INB 1971)" (Pub 1971)
- "Kam-Yog, Dharm aur Gandhi (Kam-yoga, religion and Gandhi). 2nd edition. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1972. 240 p. 1st ed. 1971."
- "Bharat, Gandhi aur maim? (India, Gandhi and Myself). New Delhi, Star publications, 1974. 3.00. (H-74) 181.4. (INB 1974)"
A few things to be noted: The second entry for this book makes it clear that "Dharm" has been mis-rendered in the first. Similarly for "Bharat, Gandhi aur maim" (main (मैं)), which appears to be a subtitle above in his Biblio for "Asvikrti mem utha hath." That book, already in the wiki as Aswikriti Mein Utha Haath (अस्वीकृति में उठा हाथ) has not been seen as being particularly about Gandhi, at least according to its heretofore known title and chap titles, but maybe now?
- This is incorrect. Subtitle of the book is a little different. There is meant in above data other book - Bharat, Gandhi Aur Main (भारत, गांधी और मैं).--DhyanAntar 04:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
That's a lot of books on Gandhi above, and that list doesn't include Gandhiwaad: Ek Aur Sameeksha (गांधीवाद : एक और समीक्षा), Where Are the Gandhians? (Hindi title not known, hovewer it is translation of first part of ch.21 of Dekh Kabira Roya (देख कबीरा रोया)) and scads of other politics-and-society books, in which Gandhi's values and such would get more than a mention, perhaps especially Samajvad Se Savdhan (समाजवाद से सावधान) (trans as Beware of Socialism), a thorough trashing of the social-economic system Gandhi and his disciples bequeathed India. Why all this energy for a man whose spiritual teachings were at most secondary to his political legacy? Is Osho running for public office?
Hardly, but he knows how to get attention, and at the time, attacking Gandhi and his values could not be beat as a way to get in the public's face. "Subverting the dominant paradigm," as they say, has multiple rewards. He is here to upset our apple carts, our ideas of who we are, not to make us comfortable, so the attacks on Gandhi served to alienate as well as attract people. Those people in powerful positions whom Osho alienated closed doors and made it more difficult for Osho to find land for a commune, to hold meditation camps and so on, and these difficulties made good grist for the mill for his people. So a win-win situation. Being right about Gandhi was a bonus. -- Sarlo (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2014 (PDT)
