Home | Articles | Features | Modern Teachers

Listings | Community Noticeboard | Chat Board

"Even if the whole ashram is destroyed, "Osho's Buddhafield" and the energy that has been set free in the Samadhi in my enlightenment, will remain intact as long as earth exists, and even afterwards!" - Mahadevi

Question: Hello Mahadevi, would it be possible, please, to comment on the current debate around the presentation of Osho's Samadhi, the former Chuang Tzu auditorium, where he used to give discourses in '74/5 - and where, of course, you yourself had a deep spiritual realisation? What do you think about the removal of his pictures and bed, for example, due to the apparent fear among the Inner Circle of Osho becoming a sort of new 'religion', a sort of 'personality cult', where he becomes worshipped rather than is seen as an inspiration, a "finger pointing to the moon"?

Mahadevi:   I see your concern and I will share some of my understanding about these controversial Osho-related topics. As far as I know, the leaders of Osho's organisation were appointed by Osho himself. He must have had some reason for choosing them, knowing well their states of mind, and their capabilities. Opposing them is like opposing Osho indirectly, so as a disciple and an individual, I have a good reason to accept them and their decisions.

From my view, Osho always took care of his lovers and the meditators around him. He used the energy, skills and will of people, including those, whose interests may have been other than spiritual growth, to create and maintain a place where one can meditate. With the help of such people he provided a beautiful place and offered total freedom to the meditator to discover himself without being worried about the logistical needs an organisation demands.

Now in the physical absence of the master, it is obvious that the leaders will behave according to their own beliefs, ideas and interests. So, after almost two decades, if they don't wish to call Osho's Samadhi a Samadhi any more, a meditator-disciple should be able to accept their decision, because his main intention in life is the inner search.

Anyway, what is the meaning of samadhi? The word samadhi is a combination of the Sanskrit words Sama and Aadi. Sama means equal and Aadi means the original, the source, the God. So the word samadhi is actually attributed to enlightenment, the God-like consciousness. But in earlier times in India wise people must have begun to call those places Samadhi, where the remains of an enlightened person's body were preserved after his death. The reason for it could have been that they wanted to address the place with great love and respect, as the word grave sounds too mundane. Now, if the resort authorities no longer wish to call the place a Samadhi, it should be called a grave in simple English. The further implication of this is that an ashram can have a samadhi, but a resort does not, so that the entire place can now theoretically be called a graveyard, as three or four graves already exist there.

But what difference does it make to a meditator. The place can be called anything, a name is only a formation of some letters, it can never change the energy of a place, which is far more important. There is nothing that a meditator can achieve by making an issue out of these things. A meditator is not a politician or businessman, he does not have vested interests, and I don't see a reason for him having a problem with the change of name.

The same applies to the removal of Osho's pictures or his bed. If somebody thinks he has a higher understanding than the resort authorities, then he should try to meet them and share his vision; that way something may change. But if we want to avoid the insult of being ignored or judged by them, then it is better that we remain with ourselves and focus on meditation. And if we like Osho's pictures we can have plenty of them in our own places or if we like the name Samadhi we can continue to call it Samadhi. As long as a democracy is there, no "religious police" can stop anybody from doing so. And as I see it, a sophisticated disciple will always want to call with love his master's grave a Samadhi, regardless of any repressive policies.

Still, it is worth understanding why Osho must have talked extensively about repression — the more something is repressed, the bigger the issue becomes, and the deeper it goes into the psychology. So by removing Osho's pictures or making other changes to his place for whatever reasons, his people will feel threatened and associate with the issue and react to it. So eventually the actions and reactions of the resort authorities will prove counterproductive for them and many Osho sects will arise. I feel sorry for them, because they are provoking people to found more and more Osho-related cults — something they hate very much!

Not making a religion out of Osho is simply impossible, and Osho must have known this very well. Actually, for many people a religion already existed when Osho was still in the body, because his people were generally called "Rajneeshees or Oshoites," just like others are called Hindus or Buddhists.

Whenever a prophet, a teacher, or a master makes a new beginning and some people follow him, such a successful constellation is generally thought of as a religion. The success of an organisation attracts a variety of people and not only those who are interested in meditation. It is an intelligent decision of a master to engage the minds of the non-meditators in work and invest their energy for the betterment of the organisation and finally the whole of humanity. This has happened with almost every spiritual master!
But, sooner or later, the people with vested interests develop differences and rivalry erupts within their group, because they are in the race for power. In this race the stronger competitor succeeds and the weaker is thrown out, that is a "jungle rule." And mainly due to all these political happenings a religion is formed and obviously the leaders of a religion are always politicians.
Understanding this truth, I am thankful to the resort authorities for being the leaders of the place, helping to make and maintain it until now. I could (in the past) go to visit there, meditate and spend some time with my master. Without such people the place may not have been there anymore. They are like bricks in a structure. An Osho lover or an ordinary meditator would not have been interested in power - in becoming a leader, but it would have been beyond his capacity to deal with the political, social and financial difficulties such a big enterprise with its controversial past has to face in the corrupt system of India, and the place might have disappeared long ago. So howsoever it is called now, it still exists and this is beautiful in itself.

Regarding Osho's legacy, whether it is called by others religion or cult, I don't see that it could distract a meditator with sincere intentions to discover his inner Self. So I have no problem with the futile efforts of the resort authorities to impose their minds on the course of energy, because hardly anybody of them is a meditator. At least as long as I was there I never saw anybody of them meditating, except for a few of them occasionally attending White Robe. They don't put their energy into their meditation, so they are bound to put a lot of it into affairs which are unnecessary for the development and maintenance of the place.
For some time now I have been receiving email messages from friends regarding these issues and describing the contempt of the resort authorities for people who were calling the place an ashram. It is good to understand that the resort authorities are perhaps less knowledgeable in Sanskrit, because the modern name resort is a literal translation of the ancient title ashram.

Like samadhi, the word ashrama is also a combination of the Sanskrit words Aa and Shrama. Aa means without or beyond and Shrama means work, effort. In earlier times in India, there were many ashramas of sages in the forests, where mainly the royalty would go to retreat from their hectic lifestyle, for meditation under the guidance of their gurus and for their spiritual growth and recreation. Their gurus were highly respected and used to be addressed as Rajguru, which means Royal Master. The royal princes and also the male children of the upper classes, like Brahmanas and Kshatriyas had to leave their homes at the early age of seven and go for twelve years to the ashramas where they received spiritual education and warrior's training. There they were trained in the art of effortless efforts, something similar to Osho's guidance.

So whether Osho's place is now called a resort in English or an ashram in Sanskrit, the only difference it makes to me is that the title ashram stands for the place with higher spiritual energies, and the name resort can be used for any ordinary holiday resort. The term ashram has been a core of Eastern education, and spirituality. Even if Osho wanted luxurious resort facilities in his "commune," to rename an ashram as resort is a social degradation of the place; however the bottom line remains that names can never affect the energy and the truth of Osho's existence!

Then a question remains: Will "Osho" disappear one day if the authorities continue this way? Our Master has dedicated long years to make his disciples realize that there is no tomorrow, it is only here-and-now — for me this teaching of my master is my prana, my breath. I have tremendous love and gratitude for him and his place where he lived and created the "Buddhafield."

I understand the concern of my fellow sannyasins, but the existence of a master like Osho and the energy that once shook the whole world are not something like a match-box that can disappear by stunts or magic. Not only the Samadhi. Even if the whole ashram is destroyed, "Osho's Buddhafield" and the energy that has been set free in the Samadhi in my enlightenment, will remain intact as long as earth exists, and even afterwards!
With love
Mahadevi:( Divya Kshama )   

Visit us at: www.mahadevi.info

My book From Fear to Enlightenment is also available there.