I thought about titling this, “Osho not half bad,” but this would imply he was half good, which is not the case. Osho is someone given more time than I’ve been given to express his mind freely. But then, it is more important to have something to say with your time, than having more time to say something. And I couldn’t give Osho even 1% of goodness. The smallest discrimination turns his teaching to rubble. It is curious Craig or other theologians posting here are not dealing with Osho or his cohort, such as Da Free John. These are quasi-religious leaders drawing big followings, but also discoursing at a level that is arguably above the preachers. I think that they are most interesting; no one agrees.
In any case I stumbled on some interesting quotations from Osho, or Oafo as I like to call him, regarding theologians. He and I are seeing something of the same story, though he does this from a perspective of denying the external God, which I cannot do, by nature. In general the “New Age” as they call themselves, are seeking God within, and the theists suppose the Bible has given them an upper track to the external God, refusing to meditate or turn inward to investigate their own minds, from laziness, fear, incapacity, or similar reasons. Yet I find the theists and atheists to be almost exactly equal in a wrong concept of what God would be, and there are no shortcuts to the external God that are allowed.
Visualize a child playing in the garden of his house, playing with imaginary lions, and then suddenly he has to face a real lion who has escaped from the zoo. Now he does not know what to do. He is scared out of his wits. He is paralyzed; he cannot even run. He was perfectly at ease with the imaginary, but with the real he does not know what to do.
That is the situation of all those people who go on playing with beliefs, concepts, philosophies, theologies. They ask questions just to ask questions. The answer is the last thing they are interested in. They don’t want the answer. They go on playing with questions, and each answer helps them to create more questions.
The truth is not a question. It is a quest! It is not intellectual; it is existential. The inquiry is a gamble. It needs tremendous courage. Belief needs no courage. Belief is the way of the coward. You are avoiding the real lion; you are escaping from the real lion.
All begin with the self-conception, to form an idea about the other. The trouble in trying to think about God is that this is invalid from the perspective of a creature. The Bible is of almost no help in this regard, besides a few suggestive verses such as, “My ways are not your ways, neither are your thoughts my thoughts, says the Lord.” To think about God you must think of someone who is not like a human; but you are a human, so it is not possible. A more advanced theology would try to deal with the incapacity of a created mind to conceive of its Creator; but the theology existing on Earth so far has no such elements, for men have been unable to look at their minds to see the nature of knowledge.
It can be seen rather plainly from the divisiveness in the religions that all conceive of God differently, and all conceive that God will stand behind their particular viewpoint against all others. The groups or factions that are forming are from people wanting to feel more powerful by seeing themselves allied with others; but upon close examination no two religious adherents are really understanding the doctrine of the religion in the same way.
To think about God one must be able to conceptualize a selfless entity, and this is why the angels are able to think far more authentically about God, than the human race. Selflessness properly defined means a genuine concern and attention to the core realities, including both the soul and the planet. Angels therefore know themselves in the depths, and had they been allowed to raise a civilization on Earth, as Jesus threatened He could send legions of angels, it would have none of its current problems. The religions have not explained what selflessness is, therefore humanity has not been told what pleases God.
Jesus spoke about the persecution of the saints, and it is a process that is still ongoing, which is why the Christians have not received any prophets in properly recorded history. Human beings, including Osho, hotly revile the Word of God, for what is selfish denies what is selfless. The Christians cannot be approached about God’s Truth, or it would have been done long ago. The Bible does not contain this Truth, or even a rough approximation. Jesus never finished His sentences. He said only those with ears to hear could understand the Gospel, but did not specify the Christians wouldn’t be in this crowd.
Here’s a set of logical propositions. One might ask why I decided to post this in the section on Jesus:Incarnation. The reason is that, very logically, one who cannot see that Osho is distinguished from the usual class of preachers, will be incapable of seeing that Jesus is Lord. Yet the plain fact is, even when it is explained, the Christians won’t see it.
You may respond, “But Jesus is the most different from a man, we might see Him but not these gurus.” But the counterargument is that anyone claiming to have come to “know” the Lord to any significant degree, would be able to see in Osho tiny alterations in the Lord’s direction, which is towards divinity. In general anyone not noticing that Osho is different, must be incapable of perceiving alterations in personality and lacks a solid idea about the limitations of the human realm. If I have lamented a lack of mental function in the posters on this forum, it is regarding vital mental functions like this, in metaphysical zones, without which the Lord and God’s Truth can only be hated, never received, though the Christians boast readiness. I know the mental function exists to dislike and to push away, and so have these gurus been ignored, though they hold the keys to human destiny.
