Baghwan bashing, Why I love it

Okey dokey.Time for some more guru expose'.

To start the ball rolling,the self-proclaimed Baghwan,in my opinion,was a masterful manipulator,a remarkable (if somwhat inaccurate) orator,a bit of a sorcerer ,and an impotent drug feind obsesed with power,status & money,perfectly happy to sacrifice the wellbeing of his students to his desire for self-glorification.
For a man who made a career out of attacking & insulting Indias traditional religious institutions as obnoxiously as possible,he ended up being one of the more exceptionally corrupt professional religionists around.The type of guy who talks a good fight,but is happy to let his disposeable disciples take all the flack.

Whos up a chat

Regards,Cloud.

PS.I forgot to mention,some excellent reading on this is THE GOLDEN GURU by James.S.Gordon & BAGHWAN:THE GOD THAT FAILED by Hugh Milne.These 2 books,PARTICULARLY Gordons,point out that B "had something",but it was outweighed by his hypocrisy & deception.

Another 2 books about the Guru syndrome in general are FEET OF CLAY by Anthony Storr and DESTROYING THE WORLD IN ORDER TO SAVE IT by Robert Jay Lifton.Storr looks ata few gurus in his workin trying to elucidate the guru posture as a defence against inner fear,B among them.Liftons concentrates on Shoko Asahara of the Tokyo subway gas attack fame,but really goes into detail on the function of guru as substitute ego in the discilpes psyche,as well as the gurus dependence on the disciple.Its interesting how Asahara started to break down in custody after being seperated from his folloewrs.

This post has been edited by cloud recluse: Jul 11 2006, 06:09 AM

I think to make a thread like this very usefull we have to examine 'how it all went wrong'... rather than 'why it went wrong'. Because if we ask why we get a stream of interesting and entertaining oppinions but not much use out of it.

I also think that if we have strong feelings about the manipulativeness of others we should find in us the polarity that exists and creates this strong feeling against such spiritual manipulators - because whether we're conscious of this or not, it is very likely that on the other end of the polarity there is a supressed part of us that enjoys controlling others... and our dislike for for this part causes us to seek it outside of our selves and then denounce it 'out there' (so that we dont have to deal with the one inside of our selves!)

I use the collective 'we' because I've been reading the other thread denouncing osho and I found myself firstly angry at the man for using people's trust for his egoic means and secondly I found it fun reading cloud's expose of just how terrible this guy is! And I wondered - why do I automatically feel angry about this? and why do I automatically feel good about denouncing this cause of anger. And the answer was that there is a little dark part in my own ego that wants to control others, this part - I don't accept in any way, which in turn supresses it, and my automatic feeling of gratification that came with denouncing this was because I really want to hide this part away as far as I can...

Ofcourse now I've done something about it - the little dark part has been brought into the light, loved and embraced and using a technique I brought it to complete Emptiness, which is where it was trying to get to by behaving like that... Then I did the same with the part of me that feels manipulation is a 'bad thing'. Now when I try to get the feeling (of disgust, or anger against manipulativeness, and pleasure for 'letting things be') I just get emptiness... there is nothing there... SWEET!

... I frame everything as a chance for me to learn about myself, and to bring to Emptiness another part of my ego... and I'm suggesting that this could be a usefull frame for others, especially if you get strong feelings about something that seems outside of you.

so yeah - let the guru bashing commence!

I study with two of Osho's former students. One of them was with Osho when he died. Both students are full of integrity and have accomplished something.

Osho's methods are fantastic. What Osho did was he took the work of Wilhelm Reich and supercharged it. I have used his methods with great success in terms of my cultivation. If I were to describe Osho's spiritual practices, he basically uses Reichian methods to create a window of opportunity in which to practice traditionial Vipassana. The method is solid and I have seen many of his students with real, tangible benefits from the practice.

Those who criticize Osho's methods have never completed them. My teacher loses 90% of her students after one lesson, because the methods are so powerful they scare people. Imagine what it feels like when all the chi and emotions you've been repressing come up to be discharged? Most people run away. Then they criticize the method instead of themselves for being cowards.

Now as far as Osho the man goes, clearly there were a lot of problems. Naturally my teacher tells very different stories about her experiences with him. She would say that he was poisoned by the US government and everyone else would say he poisoned himself with drugs. She would say he gave away his Rolls-Royces and everyone else would say that he accumulated them out of greed.

What I can say is that Osho attracted so many followers because he had something to offer. Something few other teachers could offer. Even UG Krishnamurti, whom I adore, had no method to teach his students. So what good was his cultivation to the world? Osho, who probably was a drug-addicted fraud, gave thousands of people methods that changed their lives in a very real way.

You are free to focus on the bad about Osho, but that won't change your life.

I still don't know how to navigate here for comments and for some reason when I wanted to comment on Freeform's imput all I got was the previous comment......................After all that, I wanted to say. Ditto...... Freeform!

Very similar things can be said about Castaneda, Mantak Chia, etc. etc...
Which leads to another question..are there any 'teachers' who aren't tragically flawed..i.e. human
T

In the Taoist religion I understand that one must become a demon before one becomes a God. And even the Gods are unstable at best. Like freeform says, the hardest thing to face is what's under the surface of our own hard feelings for what we consider so "other". I imagine this is another one of those endlessly difficult features of being human. Various methods of self-inquiry help enormously. Byron Katie's work, the 3-2-1 Shadow Process, any good parts work (ie: Internal Family Systems).

Re: Osho, I've gotten some good gems out of his stuff. Same with Chogyam Trungpa. Same with Muktananda. Same with Adi Da even. I'm fairly glad I was never in a situation where they were crashing at my place regularly, but I enjoy checking out their insights from time to time. It's a shame these people and their organizations have also caused suffering. I am not against a call to accountability but I'm also not into victimization movements ("poor us"). Often I even think there should be more said about abuse and decline of teachers at the hands of deranged students than vice versa.

Sean

I totally agree with Plato.

I think it's a nice vibe in taoism not to godify the teachers in the first place.

-Yoda

What's wrong with Muktananda and Siddha Yoga? Did I miss something?

As has been pointed out,everyones fallible,everybody makes mistakes.Also,students may villify teachers instead of confronting their own limitations.
I couldnt agree more.
BUT teachers do have a EXCEPTIONAL obligation compared to students.They are in an undeniable position of power over the student,they "have" the teaching,the instruction the students seeks.
If they are going to be an effective teacher,the role they are explicitly assenting to,THEY MUST exemplify that teaching,and acknowledge their responsibilities.

So students can be arseholes,but you look to the teacher to exemplify the teaching.The teachers responsibilty is far greater,and its incredibly naieve to think otherwise.This still applies to schools that de-emphasise the teachers status.EVEN MORE SO really,as the dynamic largely remains intact,just less visible.

Definetely teachers WILL be flawed,but it does NOT have to be a tragic flaw if the teacher can acknowledge their own humanity!! THE AVERAGE PERSON IN THE STREET CAN ACKNOWLEDGE THIS,AND OFTEN DOES SO !!! Any cso-called "Guru" should be able to do far better!!

Personally I have had a number of teachers,all flawed,all mature enough to admit it,& all effective in their teaching.Despite comong from cultural backgrounds that generate the guru-cult,they themselves never succumbed to this.

So no,not all teachers are tragic in their flaws,just the money-grubbing power hungry ones that try to put themselves above criticism( usually by disabling their students thinking capacities).





It seems true enough that there were many good therapists in Baghwans cult,but B didnt necessarily come up with the methods himself.These people were 'alternative' therapist before they got there!And a lot of them found his transpersonal references inspiring,pointing them in a new direction.All good stuff in itself.BUT THEY ARE NOT OSHOS METHODS.Tinkering about with bodywork & encounter groups is something that has been going on for ages.Baghwan provided a forum totake it futher,sometimes resulting in radical breakthroughs,sometimes in broken limbs & pack-rapes!He himself didnt particularly care,as long as he got rich!

Never mind.... http://www.leavingsiddhayoga.net

We are also free to deny the destructive aspect of things we are egoically attached to,but that wont stop them doing damage to the innocent & vulnerable.

The point of this thread is that Baghwan was a particularly high-profile influential figure (on the spiritual scene that is,he largely ignored the wellbeing of the world.As "the Rich mans Guru",he didnt feel poor people had spiritual opportunities).This makes him particularly relevant to discussing the unfortunate legacy of the guru cult & its internal mechanics,which is what I really want to get into here.

This is Baghwans usefulness.NOT his popularising of a lot of 60s style therapy-yoga combo's,hes neither the first to do this nor probably the last.Rather he is an excellent cautionary example & case study of how spirituality becomes sick.
Here is a guy whos started off paying lip service to freedom from political oppression & corrupt spiritual establishments,and wound up running an armed concentration camp-style enclave while obsessing with money & self-image.WHY? To what extent was it a problem inherent in the forms of spirituality,& to what extent was it Baghwans own ego? This is what I really want to get into here.Lets unfold the guru-disciple thing!

Regards Cloud.

This post has been edited by cloud recluse: Jul 11 2006, 06:19 AM

Sex with many students, which might not be so bad except some of them were minors and if I remember correctly one was very young. Like the child of a student young.

[edit]Just noticed you found your own info.

I've had limited experience with Tao/religion. I've only been in touch with Tao/bodybuilding, Tao/philosophy, Tao/morality and of course Tao/ForumSpeak. I've never heard or read about the transformation to Tao/demon as a gateway to Tao/Godliness. I've had experience with two different Zen temples where rarely the notion of demon/God reference is made.

Am I missing some rudimentary basic understanding of Tao? Is there some Pagan splinter group you are more referring to? I feel confused over this.

Bruce the lizard

I don't doubt that teachers like Rajneesh, Adi Da, and Muktananda opened their students up to amazing new levels of consciousness and bliss, but consciousness is only ONE element of overall spiritual development; indeed, high levels of consciousness combined with dodgy ethics (often justified in terms of following a "crazy wisdom" that is "beyond good and evil") are a recipe for disaster when someone assumes an authority positon. I don't expect (or even believe it's possible) that a teacher will be perfect, but when considering the prime capacities of consciousness, wisdom, ethics, and compassion (amongst others), just having ONE of these gifts in abundance is not enough for me to give any substantial support (in time or money) to a teacher. I really think the Bagwhan ONLY had a highly developed consciousness, but was hardly alone in that. As regards "crazy wisdom," I can respect that if it really does come from wisdom--and my criteria for judging that is the final results of the unconventional means taken. The fruits of his wisdom have not, in my opinion, involved the flourishing of his students across a full spectrum of spiritual capacities, and, in many, many cases, his methods of "teaching" have done far more harm than good--and I'm talking about students who followed him in good faith, and not just any malcontents who might suffer from "victimitis."

Yeah, yeah, consciousness and bliss are great, but they're NOT ENOUGH TO REACH SPIRITUAL MATURITY! I think the Bodhisattva tradition brilliantly addresses this point . . . Or, to resort to a favorite example from Western traditions, as Meister Eckhart put it, "If you are in the greatest of mystical ecstasies, even greater than that of Saint Paul on the Road to Damascus, it is better to leave your solitary transports and help a hungry brother in need of bread when you see the opportunity for such service arising." While perhaps "the poor will always be with us," so will the temptations to narcissism and solipsism, and any teacher who does not adequately address these aspects of development should not be promoted as some sort of be-all and end-all. It seems that the Osho defenders here aren't as dogmatic as some of his students, but I think that I'll look elsewhere for instruction in any particular beneficial practices (e.g. dynamic meditation) that can be separated from the mess of a man that was the BSR.

i suppose its Baghwans life & his development into a pseudoguru that I find most instructive.Then theres also the question of why so many followed him into the cults darker phases.I mean its understandable enough when you see a charming,compelling,eloquent orator siting western existentialists as much as eastern sources,& advocating sex & celebration as a path open to all.But what about when hes set up an "ashram" in Oregon more like a concentration camp,patrolled by heavily armed guards,in which constant gruelling manual labour with inadequate nutrition & sleep has replaced yoga,and the theme of spiritual surrender to Baghwan has now become economic surrender and outright worship! What kept these peoplle hooked ??!!