Beyond Good And Evil?

Damn it , Dejavu .

 

'Baiting' isn't the word you're looking for. Usually that means some kind of a wind up. If you imagine I'm seeking to wind you up, forget it. I'm simply giving my opinion that Osho was a fraud and a charlatan.Why? because I wouldn't want young people who may be reading this thread and are seeking for some kind of truth to waste their time.

Why did I have a problem with alcohol when I was young? I used alc unconsciously as a way to kill the pain of trauma. Later on, I came to have a deeper insight and self knowledge. But I don't see any relation with my past problems and the topic of the thread or with my attitude towards Rajneesh. If you think that Osho could somehow have 'saved' me from my course, you're very much mistaken.

Seems to me anyway that hunter gatherers aren't the only ones who identify with a particular belief system and want to fight over it.

 

Opinions are not facts.

This is how the conditioning part starts and where the problem lies. 'Read this, don't read that. This is truth, that is falsehood. '

The americans and brits were misled into thinking by their governments through propaganda that Iraq has wmd's, leading to war, deaths and injury of thousands of young american and british soldiers, wasting a billion dollars a day wrecking their economies, and finally finding out that there is no wmd's at all as per the 'intelligence reports'. And worse, ISIS came into being, which is now a much bigger global problem than Saddam Hussein who loved Frank Sinatra and western business suits.

I am not fighting over Osho, just refusing to buy the usual propaganda dished out of him being a fraud and charlatan.

Osho has never created a world war through his philosophies. He had in fact condemned western bombing of libya as a demonstration of power, in those times which killed many innocent civilians.

 

Speaking of propaganda---or actually the typical prejudiced assumptions of civilized man expressed through the projection of his ills onto the indigenous populations--hunter gatherers do not fight over religion; they do not fight for or over their tribal gods; they do not fight over beliefs. They might fight over such things as horses, or women, access to hunting grounds, or other such basic things. Battles are waged simply for a rite of passage or for men to prove their bravery and gain kudos. And of course tribes defend themselves. There is no concept of winner take all, or a sense of genocide when hunter gatherers do battle. Anthropologists and so-called experts may tell you different, but this is the reality based on the perspective of battle from hunter gatherers themselves, and the actual cases of tribal battles.

The only time I know of that belief becomes an issue are cases, where a tribe became more warlike because they had forgotten their sacred ways and teachings. A good example of this is the White Buffalo Calf Woman who came down to teach the Sioux the 7 Sacred Rites. She pointed out to them that they had become more war-like because they had forgotten their sacred ways. Another example is the Iroqouis Federation which was warned that if they forget their sacred teachings and fight among themselves that it would break the federation and mean the end of their lives and people. Over time as they began to forget their sacred ways, and the different tribes began to fight, the white man came, diseases that white man brought spread through the tribes killing people, and soon whole villages were wiped out as manifest destiny played out.

Hunter gatherer beliefs all around the world are multiplistic, not dualistic. This is exactly why Shinto--the Japanese indigenous belief system, could continue alongside Buddhism. This is why it is so easy for missionaries to move into an indigenous community and gain converts left and right. To the indigenous there is no right and wrong way to worship the great mystery. They see no problem with learning a new way to pray, for example, to compliment their own beliefs.

If you don't believe me, I dare you to give me an example of a hunter gatherer tribe fighting over belief. If you try to tell me about the Mayans or the Aztecs, then don't---they were so far from being hunter gatherers that they had already established a civilization.

 

Given the number of quotes and links you post, I think you may need to consider to what extent you yourself are saying 'read this'.

I don't think the fact that the British and USA made a mess in the middle east has much bearing on the falsity or otherwise of Osho. Many people in both countries were and are opposed to war. It's not as though there's any unity in these fragmented cultures. But when I look east, all I see is more of the same thing.

I didnt say you are fighting over Oshso, I said maybe hunter gatheresrs aren't the only ones who will fight over beliefs, although I should have also said 'if indeed they do that', which as Wolf points out above, isn't really the case.

Since you seem to think that the west has a kind of monopoly on war, lets look at the major epics of India, Ramayana and Mahabharta - both tell the stories of wars, fought in the end over beliefs, to establish the rule of dharma.What we could call 'religious wars'. In the Gita, Krishna encourages his disciple Arjuna to engage in warfare and killing, and to do it as an act performed on behalf of God.

But I'm not saying western culture is anything but a mess. Just that in my opinion (and we're all giving opinions here like it or lump it) the teachngs of Osho are not a particularly great alternative.

 

I haven't gone beyond good and evol, but I have moved beyond the dichotomy of this question. For me now there is only love, passion and restraint. Ultimately anger and hate are the two most destructive forces in the World today, along with the bogus system we have to endure for the aggrandizing and pernicious selfishness of the chosen few. Intellectualism has its place, but it doesn't move the heart.

 

I think really you need both in balance. Heart and mind.

 

Yes I agree. In the contradistinction between the Dionysian and Apollonian, as framed by Nietzsche, it bodes well to find a reconciliation that begets a higher third, thus completing the differend and dialectic. Problem solved.

 

Such an attitude could be taken as a model. If only so called civilized people thought that way, we'd avoid a lot of tension and trouble.

 

Civilized people have been civilized . How ?

 

What? Why?

You say Nietzsche had two obsessions, you don't mean good and evil do you?!

And about what you say was behind his "madness and decay", what do you really know of his collapse? Your authority on that point drags your art down upon it! lol

 

Consider it as deprogrammers, as Awareness is a state of pure consciousness where the conditioning influence of belief structures ceases to work . One ceases to be a mere automaton, stop existing and start living instead.

Well, it is easy for armchair critics to discuss the ‘mess’ in the middle east to ease their boredom and despair of living, as long as they were not the ones killed or injured.
Both are highly conditioned nations which have been involved in this stuff for a long time, and it will take a lot of effort or very heavy losses to come out of the grip of this conditioning.

What exactly do you know about the teachings of Osho ! All I have seen of you is to indulge in character assassination of Osho without logically refuting the philosophical points put forward by him. You also seem to be having difficulty in comprehending other philosophical concepts precisely even after much discussion, and lack the research skills or study habits to understand them on your own, so I am not sure whether you are capable of gauging the right alternative even if it is presented or put forward one yourself. Poor health could also be an issue I guess, which is understandable.

[SIZE=medium] These were stories of wars between some princes milleniums back during times of feudalism and aristocracy over issues of sovereignty. Even then, these wars as you put it did not involve killing of unarmed civilians , which is a regular feature of war nowadays. Killing of civilians were considered dishonorable and not part of their warrior code of conduct. Wars avoided by negotiations was considered superior to wars waged and won , even in those times. The civilian casualties in today’s wars are much higher than military casualties. [/SIZE]

Cheap stuff like the Nazis and Serbs killiing women and children in the holocausts would be considered cowardly and shameful.

[SIZE=medium]Krishna tells Arjuna to perform his duties as a soldier in the battlefield. Krishna himself prior to the war performed his duties as a diplomat to prevent that war to the best of his ability. The motives were not colonisation of resource rich lands, opening and capturing of foreign markets to dump products and goods, ruthless commercial exploitation of innocent people, as we see it now.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]Krishna and Arjuna themselves fought in battle, while in America and Britain , you can see the corporate and aristocratic classes goading the conditioned masses to battle and cheering them onwards heartily at a safe distance, citing the cause of democracy and prestige, taking the utmost care not to involve themselves or their own families in battle and the frontlines, as they are not considered expendable assets from their perspective. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]The worst part is that this has been going on for a very long time, without anyone getting the wiser, which shows how deeply entrenched the conditioning mechanism is, creating a lot of programmed automatons as in an assembly line. Some people never learn.[/SIZE]

 

Yes, anger and hate are the two most destructive forces---they are always intimately connected to a sense of judgement---a judgement of... how would you say? Uh, a judgement of what is correct, or, uh... what is right, as opposed to what is, ohhhhh... wrong... A------let me think... A judgement of good and evil. Yes---that's it-----anger and hatred are always intimately connected to a judgement of good or evil; that is, what we subjectively determine to be right or wrong, desired or unwanted, loved or hated, acceptable or unacceptable----good or evil, which we objectively project on others. If only there was a way of moving beyond good or evil...

 

Moral relevatism is all well and fine, but not when it comes to trying to justify the unjustifiable. Some things are better left to fantasy, computer games, music etc. The danger is when psychopathology enters into social praxis. There are powerful ideological state apparatus that are presently attempting to control social reality. There is a performative insidious fascism at work in the World that desperately needs good people to start speaking truth to power. It's not over till it's over.

 

[SIZE=medium]Without affiliation with the tribal identity, or identifying or labelling oneself as a warrior, it is hard to go along the path of unconsciousness and destructive violence, as I see it. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]The true purpose of all religions is really this expansion of consciousness that dilutes duality and fosters increase of nondual perception and resultant harmony. Lowering of consciousness results in greater perception of duality and need to unconsciously identify with the warrior identity or tribal identities to bolster the fragile and insecure sense of self, due to lack of self-knowledge. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If you don’t know who you really are, it is very convenient and easy to hide behind labels like Britisher, American, Muslim, Nazi, Roman,Buddhist, communist, Japanese, Ultimate Warrior, Dragon Warrior and so on to hide the fact of lack of self-knowledge and fool others around with a false show of inherent substance. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]This is also the rationale behind the wisdom of [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]White Buffalo Calf Woman[/SIZE][SIZE=medium] who correctly perceived the issue of increasing dualistic perception, and asked them to remember the teachings of their sages, so that non-dual perception can evolve, leading to lesser reasons to validate one’s fictional sense of self with violence and domination.[/SIZE]

The lower the level of consciousness, the more the dualistic perception leading to inauspiciousness, disharmony, conflict and violence.

[SIZE=medium]As you stated earlier, “ [/SIZE][SIZE=10.5pt]But to label it is to limit it, for as Lao Tsu wrote, The Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This passes for all things as well. To label a human being dualistically as a Christian, European, Black and Red is to limit him or her to just a label or identity, without respecting the innate life within that person.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]If you see a person through a label, it is easier to see the person as a mere object or matter, and kill him or rape her and exploit the person without any issues. Get rid of the label and it becomes much harder as you are forced to see the life and consciousness within that person without any distortions. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=medium]There is a similar saying by Jiddu Krishnamurti in this regard, "'WHEN you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind." [/SIZE]


Duality and truth does not go together.

 

The 'true' purpose of religion the expansion of consciousness!? LOL

I'll believe it when I see it...

You mean do not. But they do. Everything goes together. You've got to work on that non-dual perception thingy master!

 

Hey , you....Long time no see......

but not everything goes together....

 

If you truly see things without the mind habitually labelling them as 'this' or 'that' , you can see it now itself. Nothing is stopping you except your own belief structures , which need not necessarily be religious.

Relative truths go alongside with duality.

Atheism or theism are relative truths, but it does not matter much to the sun or the monkey or the ocean as they do for human beings bound by concepts, who live and die in them.

 

So how do you get your info that a war took place? My guess is from the media, and maybe even from an armchair. Also, you can't possibly know how other people feel on seeing people killed or injured. You need to calm down. All I've done is criticize a guru you like - although probably only from reading - and now you can't contain your emotional reaction, despite all the detachment advised by the elightened ones whose proponent you have decided to attempt to be.

All nations, all cultures are 'conditioned'. Eastern countries just as much as western.

No doubt those mythological wars were all fought in a very gentlemanly manner.

 

Once beyond good and evil , punishment may be abolished . In this last summer's survey of enlightened woodland hippies
a proposal to Abolish Punishment met passionate resistance . One person assuredly stated that 'to punish' is human nature ,
another that such a proposal is itself punishment , several requested my authoritative definition of punishment -

and addressing the definition I could only reply ' I am sure you know punishment ' .

Two children and a few quiet voices whispered , yes , abolish it .