Category Archives: CopyRight

From ‘copy right’ to ‘copy fight’!

Dhamma is never unjust…

2004/11/2002 / 01:44 PM

… yes it is a reality and not the TRUTH. Sad, but a ‘reality’!
they have deleted me from their list and my translations will never be published in Iran (with the same regime!) apparently the popular Raaz (Osho on Sufism) has caused Osho’s books to be banned from publication and reprint-permits for the last six months and ‘they’ think i am the cause of it. They even think that i wanted the book cover to have a picture of Osho, while i had NO role in it and i had not seen any drafts before actual publication.
But they see me ‘responsible’ for it!!!!!!!!!

What to do? He gave me very clear direct warning that they may do ‘legal’ things and with ‘one phone call’, i can be ‘deported’ very easily without ANY Human Right Issue! This is India! Yes, this is a sad reality too. But where can you live? On the OCEANS?, as Osho suggested! Is there any place where you can tell the truth and face not the harsh consequences? I guess not? Do you see anywhere on this globe?

So that is why, we need to come up with a ‘new plan’ to go on doing the same thing without involving osho here.(directly).

Human ‘laws’ can be ugly and cruel, yet Dhamma is never unjust. We shall see which ‘law’ prevails. Making money and becoming powerful in establishment is ‘legal’ but spreading the uncensored words of Osho is a ‘sin’, with grave ‘punishments’! But i do not want to be a ‘sinner’ anymore to face the punishment. It is Not the time yet.

So as Raghu said, i make it into a ‘meditation’ and use this ‘passive nature’ of mine more deeply. Now i need to make basic changes in my life style and am grateful to them who made me do it by warning! Of course we just met by pure synchronization and only a ‘divine plan’ for me to get the point, BEFORE it was too late! Like the ‘print job the other day!

Ok. I surrender to the Will of existence, Amrito being one part of it!…

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, BharataIndia, CopyRight, Ego, FactScience, HumanRights, Information, MohsenKhatami, MyServices, MyWritings, PersiaParseIran

کتاب راز اشو و اتحاد اهریمنان

… ضمناٌ خوشحالم که فرصتي شد تا توانستي با اوشو کمي بيشتر و واقعي تر آشنا شوي.
کتاب هاي سانسور شده اش در ايران بسيار محبوب است
: و شايد برايت جالب باشد که بداني کتاب راز (تفسيرداستان هاي صوفيان
: ترجمه ي بنده در ايران بسيار مورد استقبال قرار گرفته ,
: و براي همين هم ممنوع الچاپ شده (براي چاپ 5)!!
و از اين سو نيز نام بنده را نزد سه ناشر منتخب در ايران بعنوان “سياه” معرفي کرده اند
که نبايد هيچ اثري را از بنده به چاپ برسانند. اين يکي از توافق هاي نوشته شده يا نشده است
ولي اگر نوشته هم نشده باشد گفته شده و فهميده شده است!!!!
: جالب است که نشر فراروان هم که کتاب راز را چاپ کرده ديگر حق تجديد چاپ را به نام من ندارد
و يکي ديگر از مترجمين روي آن کار مي کند تا در چاپ بعدي به ترجمه ي ايشان باشد!
: همسويي شرق و غرب براي کنترل افکار عمومي خيلي جالب است


Filed under Attitude, CopyRight, Education, Ego, FactScience, Information, MyWritings, Politicians, نوشته هایم, به زبان پارسی

exoteric vs. esoteric, After Osho

This always happens: when I say something, I create two groups of people around me. One group will be exoteric. They will organise, they will do many things concerned with society, with the world that is without; they will help preserve whatever I am saying.The other group will be more concerned with the inner world. Sooner or later the two groups are bound to come in conflict with one another because their emphasis is different.

The inner group, the esoteric mind, is concerned with something quite different from the exoteric group. And, ultimately, the outer group will win, because they can work as a group.

The esoteric ones cannot work as a group; they go on working as individuals. When one individual is lost,something is lost forever.This happens with every teacher.

Ultimately the outergroup becomes more and more influential; it becomes an establishment. The first thing an establishment has todo is to kill its own esoteric part, because the esoteric group is always a disturbance. Because ofheresy, Christianity has been destroying all that is esoteric…

These are intrinsic problems – they happen, and you cannot do anything about it.

“The Great Challenge, 1972

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, CopyRight, Education, Ego, FactScience, Information, Mediatation, Ontology, Osho, Psychology

My Ex site!

osho4iran… How i had to ‘kill’ it has a story i will tell someday!

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, CommunicationMedia, CopyRight, Education, Ego, HumanRights, Information, IntellectualSkills, MyServices, MyWritings, Osho, PersiaParseIran, Photos, Psychology

PEN and IRI;A chronicle resistance…

The pen and the Islamic Republic:
A chronicle resistance

Perhaps on a historic perspective there was never a moment when the pen could be said to have begun its confrontation with despotic power. It is certainly beyond my abilities to define this moment.

We could perhaps agree that the seed of this conflict was planted the moment the ruling powers stood against freedom to think, to express and to disseminate its fruits; when they tried to bring the pen, a versatile and influential of the expressive means for enlightening, under their control and monopoly.

The pen reacts with greater swiftness and directness than other art forms to rulers who succumbs to corruption and distance themselves from people and independent thought and block the path for society’s bloom. The pen’s revelations echo society’s most secret loathing and protests.

This is a general rule to which Iranian society is no stranger. From the Constitutional Revolution of 1905 onwards Iranian writers and intellectuals have embraced countless dangers by rising against the restrictions imposed from above. Such was the intensity of their desire to secure the instruments of freedom and democracy. The most telling document, as true today as when written nearly a century ago, is the shining article by Jahangir Shirazi. He was a pioneer, as well as one of the victims, of the movement for democracy in the Constitutional Revolution. Writing in Sur-e Esrafil, published contemporaneous with the victory of the revolution, it was directed at widening the meaning of justice-seeking: ”

A pen that god has sworn on, cannot be enslaved to the brandings and chains of a despotic office. God never appointed an angel to scrutinise the acts of man before they took place, let alone delegate it to devils” he remonstrated at the rulers and the champions of moral censorship [1].
From the instance the Islamic regime came to power in Iran, belief in the same freedom caused the independent community of writers to make identical demands, and to confront the very fabric of the regime. They put their finger on the same knot. They criticised, without heed to their own safety, the antiquated features of a regime which denied freedom and sovereignty to the people in their social existence. And they bore its vindictiveness from exile, to uprooting prison and even death.

A simple reading of the contemporary history of Iran, with its ceaseless suppression of freedom, will show that nearly nine decades after a huge coalition for constitutional government and justice had taken shape, the primary aims of that movement remain unfulfilled. This despite the unbroken resistance of men and women of intellect and the pen. In the shadow of uncontrolled despots of the time, the gate to democracy continued to revolve round repression. So, without for one second ceasing to pay homage to the huge multitude of victims of the road to freedom, I will concentrate on the response of the pen. And on the story of the confrontation, over two decades, of the progressive cultural-literary fellowship in Iran with the Islamic government.
Historic moment

Examining the revolt against oppression outside this or that political organisation, and independently of this or that cultural personality, the organised and comprehensive assault on the institutions defending freedom in June 1981, such as the Association of Writers (Kanoon), can be seen as a specific historic moment. That was a year of immense savagery and bloody repression. That was a year when the Islamic government unveiled its terrifying plans to obliterate any opposing idea and to impose an order on society that was one-sided and totally opposed to freedom.

That was a year when the Kanoon was deprived of any right to open activity. Books were confiscated at the printers and fuelled countless bonfires, bookshops were closed, independent publishers banned and other-thinking writers were either arrested or went into hiding. Said Soltanpour, a Kanoon executive committee member and a popular poet and artist, was shot on orders of Lajevardi, prosecutor and the head of the regime’s prisons. A large number of writers, poets and intellectuals chose exile to escape the cutting edge of repression and to continue the struggle.

Yet the barbarous mobilisation of force to obliterate free thought and impose authority on society by liquidating the independent pen and opinion did not succeed as planned.
Millions and millions of marchers had shouted again and again that they had revolted against the Shah for freedom. Even the most arid-thinker in the religious government knew this. The one way to retouch this and to pervert the will of the revolution was to bore into the people’s traditional beliefs in order to invert their demands. They did this by crawling under the deep-rooted flag of tradition. They ridiculed the very concept of new-thinking. Modernism was apparently a tainted present from the West. The innocent minds of the devotees of freedom and justice was cleansed of any tendency towards modern culture and literature.
Purged but alive

In the first instance the bureaucracy, the education and the social system of the country had to be forcibly purged of anyone who thought different. The price, bloody or otherwise, was irrelevant. Immediately afterwards, and without respite, any pen or written word which opposed the out-worn culture should not have a chance of making links with the emotions and thoughts of people, even in the attic. According to this vision, and that of its political and cultural disciples, our society should be protected from the seditious pen and free thought, and live in the closed circles defined entirely by sharia’ laws and Islamic morality. Then will religious rule preserve.

This policy at first satisfied its supporters. It insured the survival of their rule for the next 20 years. Political associations were suppressed and those who thought differently were expelled from influential social positions. But in the realm of letters and arts and the complicated emotional bonds with people, the policy failed.
Writers driven from their homeland, added the words “in exile” to the Association of Writers and proclaimed its existence in the absence of its inside-half inside the country. The “Kanoon in exile” was totally explicit in exposing the hostility of the Islamic government to freedom. In echoing the protest of its inner-half against repression it assumed a heavy and uplifting role. The sincerity and anguish of this effort, was not lost to the outside world. World literary figures and cultural circles joined in and objected to the denial of the human rights and dignity in Iran.
The ricochets of the success of the free-thinking exiled community of the pen within Iran, had unpleasant repercussions for a regime which pretended that its only concern was to impose its religious will, and was unafraid of being challenged by the rest of the world.
Conciliatory moves

At the beginning of 1994 the then president, Hashemi Rafsanjani brought into play a new trick. In order to damp down the confrontation with the writers remaining inside Iran, and to nullify the defiance of those abroad, he sent an invitation to the influential members of the “repressed Kanoon”. He asked them to help the government remove the obstacles that had appeared in the path of literary publications, and to advance the cultural climate of the country. There was not the slightest mention of the crimes committed by the regime, nor any explanation as to why the regime’s policy towards the community of writers had changed. While no member of the Kanoon answered these letters, a broad group of writers were provoked into rejuvenating the Kanoon inside the country.

It is interesting that what prompted the original idea of setting up the Kanoon in 1967 was also the political …. of the government of the day. The Kanoon then was to be a counterweight to the Shah’s plan to impose a congress of Iranian Writers and Artists. This congress was supposed to collect the scattered representatives of Iranian art and literature under one roof and promote the conditions for the growth of the national culture and literature! Writers and intellectuals moved swiftly to counter the political aims of the monarchy, which was itself the main obstacle to the growth of culture and literature.

The Iranian Writers Association was proclaimed in 1968. Writers belonging to the Kanoon still consider this declaration as the basis of their work:
“The people and the functional organisations of the country, especially those who deal with ideas and creativity, must learn to tolerate the expression and thoughts of others, whether or not they approve. They should not limit freedom to themselves. They should not be a nanny or guardian or worse.

Freedom of thought and expression are necessities, not luxuries; the prerequisite for the future of our individual and social growth. It is based on this need that the Association of Iranian writers begins its activities on the basis of two principles: comprehensive and unrestricted defence of the freedom of expression and the specific task of defending the professional rights of the people of the pen”. [from the first declaration of the Kanoon – April 21, 1968] Soon after the letter from the office of president Rafsanjani, 134 of the most well known writers of Iran signed the manifesto “We are Writers”.

This statement on the one hand addresses the difficulties for the publication of literary and cultural works, and on the other reveals tragic truths regarding the insults which Iranian writers are subjected to.


Under the shadow of a regime where the murder of Salman Rushdie for writing an undesirable book is a sacred duty, where dancing and expressing joy even in a wedding is a sin, where women are stoned to death for loving another, where those capable of thinking regularly face death or imprisonment, the coming out of 134 writers in defence of the freedom of thought, expression and dissemination was courageous. As we will see it was not left unpunished.
They had announced:

We are writers. It is our natural, social and civil right for our writings to reach our audience freely and without hindrance.
Writers should be free to create their work, criticise and judge the works of others and in expressing their beliefs.
No person or institution has the authority, under whatever excuse, to place obstacles in the publication of their creations.

We will oppose all hurdles placed on writing and thinking. Since this is beyond our individual ability we have no option but to function as a group in order to realise the freedom of thought, expression and publication, and the struggle against censorship.
Prying into the private life of a writer is an assault on their sanctuary. [2]

In our world, such statements are not particularly remarkable. For a regime which makes accepting anything conditional to its being compatible with the stamp of sharia’ this was an outrage to its authority. Particularly as some of Iran’s most famous names, such as Ahmad Shamlu, went on to declare that freedom of activity for the Kanoon, and a safeguard for its continuity, is dependent on other democratic institutions resuming their operation.

Freedom is an indivisible totality, they were defiantly saying: “As a member of society, I have always emphasised the [importance] for the unhindered and enthusiastic presence of democratic political and trade organisations as a sign of freedom of association … I have the same opinion with regards to the activity of the Association of Iranian Writers, while it maintains its historic, social and cultural position and authority,” [3].

Or Mansur Kushan wrote: “some day the system and its rulers will realise this truth that one must not, and cannot, impose the usual give and take on the culture of a nation – and in particular its literature. It is not possible to silence a voice, especially that of intellectuals, poets and writers of a nation. Undoubtedly the written will be written and [ultimately] published, but only when all prospects have been lost”. [4]

A regime, who at that time had the blood of the eminent writer and researcher, Said Sirjani, who had opposed the despotism of the keepers of sharia’, on its hands and which has began a deceitful policy against writers, suddenly found itself facing 134 writers. Here was a united gathering, who believed that cultural and literary growth required the removal of all the institutions of censorship and the resumption of activity of the Kanoon. The reaction of the regime was predictable.


“A torrent of accusation and insults rained on the head of the courageous men and women, who in that dark and suffocating climate were weighing up the glorious word freedom, from the morrow of affirming this question and publishing the manifesto” warned the critic and poet Dr Reza Barahani [5].

To understand the importance and historical value of this collective move, I will list what Barahani had called “torrent of accusations and insults” that rained on the heads of those who signed the manifesto:

Dr Zaryab Khoi’, a prominent professor of literature could not take the insults for more than a few weeks and had a stroke.
The body of Ahmad Mir-Alai’, writer and translator was found in an Isfahan alley. He was said to have died of a heart attack.

Ghaffar Hosseini, poet and translator, and member of the Consultative Group of writers, was found bloody and dead in his home. His death was said to be through heart attack and stroke.

Ghazaleh Alizadeh, a famous storywriter, was found dead a long way from her home. She was said to have committed suicide.

Shahrnush Parsi Pour had to quit Iran and live abroad in unfavourable material and physical circumstances.
The prominent sociologist Ariyan Pour humiliated himself and retracted his position regarding censorship.

Ebrahim Zalzadeh, publisher and director of Ebtekar publications was kidnapped after publishing and defending the “manifesto” and his mutilated body was found in a wasteland.
The literary monthly Gardoun was closed, accused of supporting the Kanoon and its editor Abbas Ma’rufi fled the country fearing for his life.
The monthly Takapu was closed and its editor Mansur Kushan, who was a member of the

Consultative Group and one of the signatories of We are Writers, was arrested a number of times, threatened with death and finally fled the country fearing his life.
Faraj Sarkuhi, editor of the monthly Adineh, was also a member of the Consultative Group and a signatory. The world knows of the story of his disappearance, torture, and the outrageous story made up by the regime to discredit him [6].

Only after he courageously exposed the lies, and the tortures, and the international outcry was he released and forced to leave the country.
The plot by the Information Ministry to plunge a bus-load of 21prominent writers, all signatories, into a ravine on their way to Armenia to attend a cultural event. [7]

Attempt to taint members of Consultative Group with working for foreign powers and espionage.

A new chapter of crimes began with the murder of two well known personalities in Iranian literature – Mohammad Mokhtari and Mohammad Ja’far Pouyandeh, both members of the Consultative Group.

Alongside these were a stream of preposterous slanders in the official-police television programme of hovviat (identity) against many prominent Iranian writers such as Ahmad Shamlu, Houshang Golshiri, Mahmoud Dowlatabadi, Reza Barahani after they made their collective objections to censorship and repression.

Global echo

We are Writers was first handed over to newspapers within Iran and later passed over to International Pen and other cultural institutions abroad. It was given a wide publicity because it portrayed so accurately the depth of oppression in Iran.

The support of a group of exiled writers, the Kanoon in Exile, for the “manifesto”, irrespective of their ideological hue, gave further depth to the challenge of the “manifesto”. Arthur Miller read it at the International Congress of Pen, and the broader community of writers came to its defence. Its authority was enhanced.

The Islamic rulers in Iran became anxious The mass of scientific, cultural and political personalities had broadly identified with the indisputable rights of Iranian writers. They had stressed the right to freedom of the pen, thought, expression, and publication. And they had unequivocally condemned the repressive climate and censorship in Iran.

The “manifesto” became a historic document. A written document that after 16 years brought news of the collective voice of Iranian writers and intellectuals in opposition to the official repression. The “manifesto” has also joined the tormented and resisting writers within with those outside its borders: with a single voice they have called on the world to defend the rights of Iranian people. It vindicates the resistance of hundreds of Iranian writers and artists in exile. It unmasks the murderers of the likes of Said Soltanpour, Rahman Hatefi, Saidi Sirjani… and countless others. A historic wisdom is hidden in its every line. To compromise or play timid games with a repressive regime has only one end: submission of humans to its humiliating authority.

Charter for new Kanoon

In September 1996 a draft charter, the result of the brave, and bloody, deliberations of the Consultative Group was completed. It announced the rebirth of the Kanoon and a practical step in realising the idea.

Freedom of thought, expression and publication in every sphere of private and public life without any limits and exceptions is a universal right. This right is not in monopoly of one person, group or institution and no one can be deprived of it.
n The Kanoon recognises that the growth and flowering of the various languages of the country is one of the mainstays of the growth of culture, of the bonds and of understanding among the peoples of Iran. It opposes any discrimination, and exclusions in the field of printing, publication, and distribution of works in any of the existing languages [of the country].

n The Kanoon is opposed to a one-voiced policy of the visual and aural and electronic media. It demands the plurality of the media in the cultural arena. [7]

Freedom speaks through ideas and the pen. Any attack on this voice is a broader assault on the foundation of the individual and society. How can one hope for fruitful changes in Iranian society today and tomorrow and yet physically and psychologically remove the guarantors of this development?

We have witnessed 20 years of collective resistance against the aggression of the religious rulers to the intellectual and material resources of culture and literature in Iran. They have shown by their ability to embrace danger that they will not remain silent until the moment freedom is assured. Let time once again attest to the fact that the Islamic government, as all other totalitarian rule, cannot insure its life through hostility to freedom of the pen and its champions.

The proud achievements of this collection of resisters was their courageous defence of the human dignity of the pen through exposing repression and acclaim for freedom. This same resistance has led the domination process of the dark-thinkers ruling our country up such a dead end, that any capitulation to freedom is now understood as equivalent to their death.

Mansur Khaksar

Mansur Khaksar is poet and critic and an influential member of the Iranian literary scene both while he was in Iran, and in exile. He edits Daftarhaye Shanbeh in the USA. He has recentlt translated Farrokh Afrooshteh, Dena PO BOX 3953, Seattle Wa 98124-3953, USA.
1. Sur-e Esrafil May 31, 1907
2. “We are Writers” September 1994, extracts – see also iran bulletin no 8, Winyter 1994.
3. Interview with Ahman Shamlu, Adineh, no 88
4. Mansur Kushan, editor of the monthly Takapu in the last edition before it was banned.
5. Reza Barahani. Shahrvand no 291.
6. See iran bulletin no15-16 1997. For ythe text of his letter see The Guardian (London) January 31, 1997
7. It was only the quick thinking of one of the writers that averted a tragedy.
8. Articles from the draft maifesto by the consultative group September 9 1996, Adineh no 130

Leave a comment

Filed under Arts, Attitude, CopyRight, Education, FactScience, HumanRights, Information, IntellectualSkills, MyServices, PersiaParseIran, Politicians, Psychology, Spirituality

The Decision:Osho International Foundation v. Osho Dhyan Mandir

The Decision
National Arbitration Forum
The ForumP.O. Box 50191Minneapolis, MN 55404DECISION
Osho International Foundation v. Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand Claim Number: FA0006000094990 PARTIES Complainant is Osho International Foundation, New York, NY, USA (“Complainant”). Respondents are Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul Anand, New Delhi, India (“Respondents).REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMEThe domain name at issue is “OSHOWORLD.COM”, registered with Kelly Tillery, EsquirePROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“The Forum”) electronically on 06/07/2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on 06/07/2000.On 06/09/2000, confirmed by e-mail to The Forum that the domain name “OSHOWORLD.COM” is registered with and that Respondent Atul Anand of Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir is the current registrant of the name.On 06/12/2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of 07/05/2000 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondents via email, post and fax, and to all entities and persons listed on Respondents’ registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts by email.On 7/10/00, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a Single Member Panel, The Forum appointed M. Kelly Tillery, Esquire as Panelist.RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.PARTIES’ CONTENTIONSA. ComplainantComplainant contends that Respondents’ registered domain name “” is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered marks for “OSHO” including but not limited to USPTO Registration No. 2,174,607 for “OSHO”, Registration No. 2,180,173 for “OSHO”, Registration No. 1,815,840 for “OSHO” and Pending Application Serial No. 75683097 for “OSHO” and Pending Application Serial No. 75834601 for “OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS.” Complainant also claims that it maintains three (3) registered domain names “”, “” and “” all of which resolve into an active Web Site presumably operated by Complainant.Complainant acknowledges that the Osho name/mark originates with the internationally known spiritual leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, also known as Osho. Complainant claims to operate a worldwide publishing operation in the areas of meditation, body-mind-spirit philosophy and spirituality with respect to the teachings of the mystic Osho. Complainant also claims to operate the Osho Commune International in Poona, India.Complainant claims that Respondent registered “” in bad faith, that Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in respect of its domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks and service marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s Web Site.B. RespondentRespondents, a non-profit, charitable Indian Corporation and its Administrator, claim to have registered the domain name “” for the good faith purpose of discussing the teachings of Osho and promoting the Osho World Galleria in New Delhi, India.Respondent contends that “this is a case of a commercial entity trying to exercise monopoly of the name Osho, a well-known Indian spiritual mystic with hundreds of thousands of followers.” Complainant further contends that there are hundreds of independent mediation centers which study and spread Osho’s teachings around the world and that the term Osho not only refers tothe individual, Osho, but also to the entire spiritual movement that believes and follows his teachings.Respondent contends that Osho was born in India in 1932 as Rajneesh Chandra Mohan. While serving as a Professor of Philosophy, he traveled all over India giving lectures and conducting meditation camps and adopted the name Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh. In 1989, he adopted “Osho” as his “name” explaining that the term derived from William James’ word “Oceania” which means “dissolving into the ocean.”Respondent contends that until Bhagwan Shree Rajaneesh adopted the name Osho in 1989, Osho was never used by any of the parties to this dispute. Respondent further contends that from the time of his adoption of this name Osho in 1989, many institutions were established in India devoted to spreading his teachings and ones that existed incorporated Osho’s new name.Respondent further contends that Osho “left his body” (died) in 1990. Respondent further contends that it is a non-profit, charitable organization registered under the Societies Act in India which has continuously operated Osho Meditation Camps to spread the teachings of Osho and has conducted mediations in Delhi since its creation in 1996.Respondent Atul Anad is Administrator of Respondent Osho Dhyan Mandir and also a Trustee of the Osho World Foundation, an international, charitable organization dedicated to promoting the teachings of Osho, which operates Osho World, a galleria in New Delhi, India. The Galleria is a bookstore, meditation center, performance studio and study area for all things related to Osho. It opened in New Delhi on April 1, 2000.Respondents contend that Osho is not a valid trademark for materials by or regarding Osho, that Complainant has committed fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has unclean hands, that the domain name is not confusingly similar to any mark in which Complainant has an interest, that Respondents have legitimate rights and interests in the domain name and that the Respondents registered and are using “” in good faith.FINDINGSComplainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents’ domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name.Complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of the relevant, admissible, evidence that Respondents’ domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.DISCUSSIONParagraph 4(a) of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (“Policy”) directs that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to support a claim that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical and/or Confusingly SimilarRespondent’s domain name, “” is obviously not identical to either “OSHO” or “OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS”, the registered and/or applied for trademarks or service marks of Complainant. However, under Rule 4(a)(i), Complainant may prove that a Respondent’s domain name is “confusingly similar” to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. In order to determine whether the domain name is “confusingly similar” to a trademark or service mark, this Arbitrator must examine and compare the marks in their entirety.However, Complainant must first prove that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and then that Respondents’ domain name is confusingly similar thereto.This Arbitrator is troubled by Complainant’s identification of itself in the Complaint as “Osho International Foundation” (hereinafter “OIF”), the Swiss Corporation which owns three Federally- registered trademarks. Only after Respondent claimed that Complainant was not OIF, did Complainant submit an Affidavit stating that Complainant is in fact not the Swiss Corporation listed as the owner of said marks, but rather a New York corporation, “America Multi Media Corporation d/b/a ‘Osho International Foundation'”, purportedly “a wholly-owned subsidiary, agent, and agreement manager” for OIF. Complainant appears to be a New York for profit entity.The evidence of Complainant’s authority to act on behalf of OIF is insubstantial at best and not sufficient to prove that Complainant has rights in any marks at issue here.This record is also insufficient to establish that OSHO is generic as claimed by Respondent, but it is more than sufficient to establish that OSHO does not and cannot serve as a source indicator and/or distinguishing moniker for Complainant and/or Complainant’s goods and services. Under these circumstances, there is serious doubt at to whether Complainant “has rights” in such a trademark or service mark because the purported mark does not and cannot serve a trademark purpose.Complainant has thus not proven that the marks in question are ones “in which the Complainant has rights.”There is no evidence that Bhagman Shree Rajneesh (Osho) ever commercially exploited the name or mark OSHO during his natural life (while still “in his body”) or that he or his estate, if one was ever established, ever authorized either Party or any one else to utilize his name or mark. The first use at all of “Osho” appears to have been by this spiritual leader himself in 1989 and he died (or “left his body”) in 1990. Though he has said, “It is not my name, it is a healing sound”, it appears that the parties, several national trademark offices and many others have and continue to use same as a name and a mark. The record also reflects that Osho himself had little regard for or concern with intellectual property rights, including any related to the use of his chosen name.As this Arbitrator imagines Osho himself might observe, one cannot possess trademark rights in a name/mark of such universal significance which cannot and clearly does not serve as a source indicator or distinguishing moniker for Complainant or Complaint’s goods or services.The overwhelming evidence indicates that it refers to Osho, his teachings and his spiritual movement. Respondent has produced credible evidence, not disputed by Complainant, that almost 500 meditation centers around the world, not affiliated with Complainant, operate utilizing the “Osho” name.There is also no credible, admissible evidence of any actual confusion between Complainant’s registered marks and/or applied for marks and/or registered domain names and Respondent’s domain name registered on 9/29/99 and/or Respondent’s use of the name/mark “Osho Mediation Camps” in India since 1996 and/or Respondent’s use of “OshoWorld” in connection with its galleria in New Delhi, India.This Arbitrator does not and cannot invalidate the U.S. and foreign mark registrations of OIF, a Swiss Corporation. This Arbitrator holds only that for all of the above-stated reasons, Complainant has no rights in any marks which are identical or confusingly similar to the domain name in question.B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe evidence establishes that Respondents have real and substantial “legitimate interests” in respect of the domain name in question. Respondents have used the name since the date of incorporation on August 6, 1996 and has used OshoWorld at least since April 1, 2000.Respondent has operated the OSHO MEDITATION CENTER (the English translation of Respondent’s registered corporate name) since approximately 1996, long prior to its receipt on 6/12/00 of the Commencement Notification. Such clearly satisfies the requirements of Rule 4(c)(i) and establishes in Respondent’s “rights to and legitimate interests in” its domain name.A. Registration and Use in Bad FaithRespondents’ domain name has not been registered and is not being used in bad faith. Not one of the provisions of Rule 4(b) are implicated by the evidence of record.Respondent, ODM, a non-profit, charitable education and spiritual entity, clearly registered and is using its domain name in good faith. The only provision of the Rules that could possibly be implicated here is Rule 4(b)(iv). However, as set forth hereinabove, there is no credible evidence of record to establish that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its Web Site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of its Web Site or location of a product or service on its Web Site or location. Rule 4(b)(iv). Respondents’ use appears to be not for commercial gain and is not, as explained hereinabove, creating a likelihood of confusion. On the contrary, Respondents’ use seems to be primarily, if not solely, an authentic, legitimate exercise of freedom of expression and/or religion protected by the United States Constitution, Amendment 1, the Constitution of India, Article 25, Clause 1 and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18. This Arbitrator can conceive of few uses that would more deserve to be called “in good faith.”To grant Complainant’s request for relief would be to permit virtual monopolization on the Internet by Complainant of any domain name which includes the name of a great spiritual teacher and leader. While making no judgment on the relative merits or validity of the world’s religions or spiritual movements or any leader thereof, this Arbitrator finds that permitting this would be as improper as doing the same with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism or any of the several hundred other of the world’s religions and/or spiritual movements. Neither The Lanham Act nor the ICANN Policy and Rules contemplate or intend such a result.UNTIMELY SUBMISSIONSAfter the deadline for submissions, the National Arbitration Forum received four (4) additional submissions from the parties, two each from Complainant and Respondent: Reply to Respondent’s Answer, including six (6) new Exhibits [received 7/13/00], (2) Petition to Strike Complainant’s Untimely Reply [received 7/18/00], (3) Petition to Deny Respondent’s Petition to Strike Complainant’s Reply [received 7/20/00] and (4) Respondent’s Sur-Response toComplainant’s Untimely Reply [received 7/21/00].This proceeding is governed by the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“Policy”) the ICANN Rule for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution (“Rules”) and The National Arbitration Forum’s Supplemental Rules to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Rules (“Supplemental Rules”).Rule 2 entitled “Communications” provides in Subsection (c) that “any communication to the Provider or the Panel shall be made by the means and in the manner (including number of copies) stated in the Provider’s Supplemental Rules.” “Supplemental Rules” are defined in Rule 1 as “. . . the rules adopted by the Provider administering a proceeding to supplement these Rules . . . which” . . . shall not be inconsistent with the policy or these Rules and shall cover topics as fees, word and page limits and guidelines, the means for communicating with the Provider and the Panel, and the form of cover sheets.”Pursuant to the Policy and the Rules, The National Arbitration Forum promulgated Supplemental Rules, Number 7 of which provides as follows:7. Submission of other Written Statements and Documents; No Amendment to the Complaint. A party may submit additional written statements and documents to The Forum and the opposing party(s) not later than five (5) calendar days after the date the Response is submitted or the last date the Response was due to be submitted to the Forum, whichever occurs first. A fee of $150 and proof of the service of these submissions upon the opposing party(s) shall accompany each such submission. No such submission shall be considered by the Panel if not timely submitted, or if the required fee is not paid and the proof or service does not accompany the submission. The parties may not amend the Complaint or the Response.There is no question here that all four (4) of the aforementioned submissions were “not timely submitted” Supplemental Rule 7. However, Rule 10 entitled “General Powers of the Panel” provides in Subsection (c) that, “The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition and it may, at the request of a party or on its own motion, extend, in exceptional cases, a period of time fixed by these Rules or by the Panel.” Thus, this Arbitrator may, “in exceptional cases” exercise discretion to consider one or more of these untimely submissions.In order to determine whether this is in fact “an exceptional case” and whether such discretion should be exercised in favor of considering any of such submissions, it is, of course, necessary to review all four untimely submissions. Having done so, this Arbitrator finds that this is “an exceptional case”, at least in regard to the circumstances and the substance of all of the untimely submissions. Thus, this Arbitrator will exercise discretion and will consider all untimely submissions. Respondent’s Petition to Strike is denied and Complainant’s Petition to Deny Respondent’s Petition is denied.DECISIONComplainant’s request that the domain name be transferred is denied._____________________________________________M. Kelly Tillery, EsquirePhiladelphia, PennsylvaniaJuly 28, 2000

Leave a comment

Filed under CopyRight, Education, Ego, HumanRights, Information, MyServices, Osho, Psychology

Osho World Case…

Osho World Case – SummaryIn May 2001 Osho Dhyan Mandir, an Osho Meditation centre based in New Delhi, India won the right to use the name of Osho for its portal Osho at the National Arbitration Forum in the United States of America. The case is considered as a landmark event in the ongoing efforts to bring Osho in the free domain. The summary of the case is as follows: Complainant – Osho International FoundationRespondent – Osho Dhyan Mandir and Atul AnandArbitrator – M. Kelly Tillery Esquire (NAF)In mid June 2000, National Arbitration

Forum (NAF) received a complaint from Osho International Foundation (OIF) pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Policy of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), stating that:
1. OSHO and OSHO ACTIVE MEDITATIONS are trademarks of OIF and are registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 2. The Complainants rights for the above mentioned trademarks broadly cover the following goods and services: educational books and printed material in the field of religion and philosophy; pre-recorded audio and videotapes in the same fields and spiritual counseling and meditations. 3. The domain name is confusingly similar/identical to the complainants, and 4. The respondents, by using the domain name that is in confusion with complainant’s trademarks, have intentionally and in bad faith attempted to acquire financial gain by attracting Internet users to its web site and other on-line locations. 5. The Complainants also operate the OSHO Commune in Pune, India, that is the largest meditation centre in the world.

In response to the above complaint, the respondents contented that:
1. The term OSHO refers to the widely known Indian spiritual mystic Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh 2. He was born in India, and served as a Professor of Philosophy at an Indian University. OSHO travelled all over India giving lectures and conducting meditation camps. 3. He moved to Pune in 1974 and started a commune with people around the world. 4. He lived in USA from 1982 to 1985. 5. He adopted the name OSHO in 1989 and “left his body”* in 1990. 6. It was in 1989 that he first used the word OSHO and before that the word was never used by any of the parties to the dispute. 7. The complainant filed the earliest trademark application on January 7, 1992. 8. Respondent OSHO Dhyan Mandir is a non-profit, charitable organization registered under the Societies Act in India. 9. OSHO is not a Valid Trademark for materials by or regarding OSHO, as there are more than 500 meditation centres around the world with OSHO in their names i.e. to say that OSHO is the term used by anyone who operates a meditation centre devoted to the teachings of OSHO. 10. OSHO is the common name of the goods and services which Complainant provides by and regarding OSHO. 11. Complainant committed fraud on the patent and Trademark Office and has unclean hands because the Swiss based OIF is a different entity than the New York based Complainant or the Osho Commune in Pune, India. 12. In the pending application for OSHO Active Meditations, complainant stated that it used the mark OSHO as early as 1978. Noticeable fact is that Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh used the name in 1989 only. 13. Regarding the Domain name, the respondent said the complainant’s claim is preposterous and is tantamount to someone registering SAINT PETER for books by Saint Peter and then complaining when someone else registers to express their love for St. Peter. 14. The Complainants’ attempt to deprive the respondents from using the domain name is in violation to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art.18), The United States Constitution and The Constitution Of India. 15. Other facts to show that the respondents are using OSHOWORLD.COM in good faith. This contention was supported by a number of affidavits of
OSHO Lovers across the globe, apart from the many newspaper reports and other sources that prove the veracity of Respondents contentions. Also supplied were the names and addresses of several hundred Osho Meditation centres worldwide.

In its reply to the above submission, OIF reiterated almost the same facts it had put in its original complaint and argued that:

1. The domain name is confusingly similar to that of Complainants’ viz., and 2. The complainants also said that the NAF is not a competent body to ascertain the legality of registered trademarks. 3. Respondents have no legitimate interest 4. The complainants also raised the issue of a link to the website from the respondents’ website 5. And, that the Complainants possess an oral trademark license and have been exercising the same.

In its response to the above, OSHO Dhyan Mandir i.e. the respondents contested the claims of Complainant and argued that:
a. Marks can be cancelled when they become generic as in this case. b. The term OSHO did not serve as a source indicator, it is generic and is widely understood to refer to OSHO and his teachings and spiritual movement. c. The respondents are known as OSHO World and have other rights to the word OSHO like the Oral Trademark License. d. Prima facie the complainant does not have any such license and assuming arguendo, that this trademark license did exist, the complainant has an affirmative duty to control the quality of the trademarked goods and services and that failure to fulfil this duty results in the forfeiture of the mark. e. Indian Law does not permit Complainants alleged Oral Trademark License f. WIPO Case Precedents as in Weber – Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware (WIPO Case No. D2000-0187, May 11, 2000) support the Respondents stand.
Findings and Decision of NAF The complainant has not met its burden to prove by a preponderance of relevant, admissible evidence that:1. Respondents’ domain name is confusingly similar or identical to a trademark or a service mark in which Complainant has a right. 2. The respondents have no right or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name. 3. The respondents’ domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. On these grounds, Complainants request that the domain name be transferred is denied. The Arbitrator M. Kellery Tillery Esquire in his decision observed that:

“As this Arbitrator imagines Osho himself might observe, one cannot possess trademark rights in a name/mark of such universal significance which cannot and clearly does not serve as a source indicator or distinguishing moniker for Complainant or Complaint’s goods or services.” He added, “As Osho himself might observe, one cannot possess trademark rights in a name/mark of such universal significance” and also said that, “To grant Complainant’s request for relief would be to permit virtual monopolization on the Internet by Complainant of any domain name which includes the name of a great spiritual teacher and leader.

While making no judgment on the relative merits or validity of the world’s religions or spiritual movements or any leader thereof, this Arbitrator finds that permitting this would be as improper as doing the same with Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shintoism or any of the several hundred other of the world’s religions and/or spiritual movements.”
Read the complete proceedings of this case

Leave a comment

Filed under CopyRight, Ego, FactScience, HumanRights, Information, MyServices, Osho



I have not stopped the sannyas movement; I have stopped it becoming a religion. A movement is a flux; that’s the meaning of movement — it is moving, it is growing. But a religion is dead — it has stopped moving, it has stopped growing. It is dead. The only place for it is in the crematorium. That’s where we had to take it. And we have celebrated the death of the religion — a religion which was not my idea.
I trust in sannyasins remaining individuals, I trust in their growth and movement; but I don’t like the idea of them becoming like Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists. That’s what was done while I was in isolation. In my absence, Sheela gathered around herself a fascist group and managed to cripple the sannyas movement, to make it dead, to make it a religion.

Osho: From Bondage to Freedom

I am going to revive Neo-Sannyas International. That is a movement; anybody can join it, and I have made it wider, I have given it a wide base. There are millions of people who love me, who love my insights, but cannot become sannyasins because they have to change their clothes — that creates trouble in their family, in their job, with their friends, in the society. I have withdrawn it.

Osho From Bondage to Freedom

And you are going to a society which is continuously preparing to commit suicide, where AIDS is spreading like wildfire. My communes will be the only refuge where we can prevent AIDS, where we can promote a great world movement of meditation, silence and peace — and destroy the mad dreams of politicians to kill all life on this earth.

Osho From Death to Deathlessness

My movement is not egoistic. I am not here to make your ego more and more strong — it is already too strong. My movement is towards egolessness. That’s where I depart from the growth movement. And no one can grow by strengthening the ego. He will remain just an imaginary being; he will not come to know his authentic reality.

Osho From the False to the Truth

You have to become the savior of yourself. I teach selfishness, because to me to be selfish is not wrong, it is natural. Everybody should be selfish, self-centered, not waiting for anybody’s help. Declare your freedom individually. And that’s my movement. You are here, not as a society, not as a community, you are here as an individual. There is nothing higher than an individual and his freedom.

Osho From the False to the Truth

He says: the moment Osho dies, his whole movement will disappear like a soap bubble.
I loved it! That’s how it should be! Why should it continue? For what? There is no reason. I live now, I am not interested in the future at all. How does it matter whether my movement disappears like a soap bubble or not? I love soap bubbles! They look beautiful in the sun. And they should disappear so that a few other people can make other soap bubbles. I have no monopoly over them. In fact, the world would have been better if the soap bubble that was created by Jesus had disappeared with him. Then these Polack Popes would not be here. Now they are making much fuss about a bubble which is not there. The soap bubble that Buddha created, had it disappeared, would have been a great blessing to humanity, because all these Buddhist monks and theologians, and all kinds of stupid people…. We would have been saved from them!

Osho The Goose is Out

Before I leave the world, one thing I am certainly going to do — it is private, so please don’t tell anybody else — before I leave the world, I am going to declare all of my sannyasins blessed ones. Thousands of Bhagwans all over the world! There will be no need to make any special nook and corner for me, I will be dissolved in my people. Just as you can taste the sea from any place and it is salty, you will be able to taste any of my sannyasins and you will find the same taste: the taste of Bhagwan, the taste of the Blessed One.
I am waiting for the right moment.
Once the new commune is established, all my sannyasins will be called Bhagwans. Then it really will be a Bhagwan movement.

Osho The Goose is Out

All missionaries are against freedom.
But as far as I am concerned, I am happy that a lot of the load has been taken off my shoulders because I feel responsible for you, I want you to grow. I don’t want your life to be wasted. If you cannot grow, even while I am here, then when are you going to grow up?
So whatsoever is happening is perfectly good. Only those will remain who are worthy to remain. Those who leave were unnecessarily wasting their time and my time; they should have left long before. Now sannyas will be a totally different movement: it will be for more authentic seekers. It will not be just for anybody who wants to change the society because he is fed up with the society. He wants an alternative society so he joins a sannyas commune as an alternative society — but he has no desire and no longing for truth.

Osho The Path of the Mystic

My movement around the world will give you a feeling of a world commune. Up to now you were small communes here and there, and because I was staying in one place you felt that you missed me, that a certain commune was fortunate to have me. Now that will not be the case. I belong to you all and I will be moving everywhere, wherever there is need.
I want sannyas to become a worldwide phenomenon. It is already ready to explode, and it has the greatest potential right now. There is no other alternative, so you are in a great position of power. We can make this whole world thrilled with a new vision, with a new dream, with a new hope. The old man has lost all hope, has lost all dreams, has lost all possibilities of growth, evolution.
Sannyas can bring the hope back. You are the hope of the world.

Osho Socrates Poisoned Again After 25 Centuries

This is not a movement like other movements. Nobody is planning it, nobody has ever planned it. I started living out of my silence and peace, and people started coming to me and joining me. In the beginning I was alone, a wanderer; slowly, slowly more and more people came. I had not called them; something in them fell in love with me, and what had begun only with one man has become now a vast caravan covering the whole earth — even countries where I have never been, like the Soviet Union, China, other communist countries.
My feeling is that when you have something truthful it has its own fragrance. It spreads by itself. And whoever is receptive to it, whoever is in search of it immediately gets hold of it. Just like subtle threads… people start moving towards the source of it.

Osho Socrates Poisoned Again After 25 Centuries

I never think in terms of a movement, in terms of making a church, a religion; I simply go on sharing my heart with whosoever knocks on my door. And the grass goes on growing….
There are one million sannyasins around the world, and at least three million people who have tremendous sympathy towards me and towards my people. If you want to know something about miracles, this is the miracle — not walking on water, that is simply stupid; not turning water into wine, that is criminal.
The only miracle I know of is the miracle that starts happening like a wildfire spreading from heart to heart, changing and transforming people’s consciousness and bringing them to a higher level of being — creating a new man in them.

Osho Socrates Poisoned Again After 25 Centuries

Leave a comment

Filed under CopyRight, Education, Ego, FactScience, Information, MyServices, Osho



“Things can be copyrighted, thoughts cannot be copyrighted, and certainly meditations cannot be copyrighted. They are not things of the marketplace. Nobody can monopolize anything. But perhaps the West cannot understand the difference between an objective commodity and an inner experience. For ten thousand years the East has been meditating and nobody has put trademarks upon meditations.”
OshoOm Shanti Shanti Shanti “I am not going to leave any successor because we have seen what happens to successors. Two thousand years of popes coming and going…. If you want to find idiots in history, it is so easy — take the names of all the popes, because other names have disappeared. These popes are representing Jesus Christ, and because they are representing Jesus Christ they are infallible. I am not going to leave any successor behind me, because in the first place I, myself, am fallible. How can my representative be infallible?”
OshoFrom Death to Deathlesssnes

“But nobody is my follower. Nobody is going to be my successor. Each sannyasin is my representative. When I am dead, you all — individually — will have to represent me to the world. There is not going to be any pope. There is not going to be any shankaracharya. Each sannyasin, in his own capacity, has to represent me. This has never happened — but it is going to happen! You are all my successors. When I am dead, that simply means I have left this body and entered all the bodies of my people. I will be within you. I will be part of you.”
OshoFrom Death to Deathlesssnes “But as far as I am concerned, it is not needed at all for any buddhas to have preceded me or to precede you. I don’t accept any followers and I don’t accept any predecessors. Successors or predecessors are not needed, you are enough unto yourself. It is just a question of awakening. So everybody will wake up — how long can you sleep? We will go on harassing you.”

OshoThe Miracle

“I want my sannyasins to inherit my freedom, my awareness, my consciousness. And each sannyasin has to be my successor, has to be me. There is no need for anybody to dominate. There is nobody for anybody to dictate to. They are on their own. If they want to be together they can be together. Out of their own freedom, it is their choice and their decision. If they want to move free they have all the rights to move free.” It is quite clear then that he was neither interested nor intended that his discourses and meditations be copyrighted or trademarked.”

OshoThe Last Testament

“The very idea of succession is not the right idea in the world of consciousness. That’s why I have said, I will not have successors. But you are right in saying that you will carry in your bones and in your blood my love, my insight. But don’t use the word `successor’, rather use the words `you will be me’. Why be so far away, a successor, when you can be me? Be so empty that I can make a home in you, that your emptiness can absorb my emptiness, that your heart can have the same dance as my heart. It is not succession; it is transmission.
The very idea of succession is political. Only one person can be a successor, so there is bound to be competition, ambition. There is bound to be a subtle struggle to be closer to the master, to force others away. It may not be on the surface but, underneath, the problem will remain in the disciples: “Who is going to be the successor?”
I destroy the whole conception. Every disciple who has loved has become one with the master. There is no need of any competition, nor one successor. It is for everybody who has offered himself in deep gratitude, who has become one in a certain sense with the master’s presence. There is no need of any competition. Thousands can have the same experience, millions can have the same experience.
To avoid politics in religion, I have said that I will not have successors. I want religion to be absolutely devoid of ambition, competition, being higher than another, putting everybody lower than oneself. With me you are all equal. And I trust and love you, that you will prove this equality. In equals there is no competition; there is a combined effort. You will all carry my message, but nobody will be higher or lower, nobody will be a successor. All will be my lovers and they will carry me.”

Osho Nansen: The Point of Departure

“Once I am gone, the serious people are dangerous. They can take possession, because they are always in search of taking possession of things. They can become my successors, and then they will destroy. So remember this: even an ignorant person can become my successor, but he must be able to laugh and celebrate. Even if somebody claims that he is enlightened, just see his face: if he is serious, he is not going to be successor to me! Let this be the criterion: even a fool will do, but he should be able to laugh and enjoy and celebrate life. But serious people are always in search of power. People who can laugh are not worried about power — that is the problem. Life is so good, who bothers to become a pope? Simple people, happy in their simple ways, don’t bother about politics.”

OshoYoga: The Alpha and the Omega

So when I say, “Spread the word,” I mean whatever I have been telling you, go on spreading in as many ways as possible. Use all the news media, use everything that technology has provided, so that the word reaches to every nook and corner of the earth. And remember, it is far more powerful than any nuclear weapons because nuclear weapons can only bring death — that is not power. But the word which has come from an enlightened consciousness can bring new life to you; it can give you rebirth, resurrection — that is power.

OshoThe Path of the Mystic

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, CopyRight, Education, Ego, Information, IntellectualSkills, MyServices, Osho, Psychology



Lao Tzu is innocent, Buddha is innocent, Krishna is innocent, Jesus is innocent. These are not knowledgeable people. Of course what they have said out of their knowing we have changed it into knowledge; what they have said out of their wonder, we have reduced it into philosophy, theology. That is our work; we have destroyed all that was beautiful in it. We have given it a certain shape, a certain pattern and structure. We have interpreted it, commented upon it, dropped many things out of it. And this happens always. Just the other day I received a note from Arup, that Sarjano is translating your book into Italian; but he changes many things. He drops few things, he adds few things from his own knowledge.” Of course he is trying to do some good work, his intention is good! He wants to make it more logical, more intellectual, more sophisticated. And I am a little wild type of man! He wants to trim me here and there. You look at my beard! If Sarjano is allowed he will trim it like Nikolai Lenin, but then it will not be MY beard. He is trying to make it more appealing. There is no doubt about his intentions, but these are the intentions which have always destroyed. When he was told my message that he has to do exactly as it is: “Don’t try to improve upon it. Leave it as it is. Raw, wild, illogical, paradoxical, contradictory, repetitive, whatsoever it is, leave it as it is!” It is so difficult for him. He said, “Then I will not translate. I would rather like cleaning work.” You see how the mind works? He is not ready to listen to me, he would rather like to do cleaning work. Otherwise he has to be allowed to interpolate, to change, to color things according to HIS idea. Now, whatsoever you will do you will do wrong, because what I am saying is from a totally different plane and what you will be doing will be a totally different effort — it won’t belong to MY plane, it won’t belong to MY dimension. It may be scholarly, but I am not a scholar. It may be knowledgeable, but I am not a knowledgeable person.
Knowledgeable people have their own ways. Just small things they will do…
For example, I had said that Saraha is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. Now, no scholar will say so decisively. Only a madman can say so decisively because you have to give proofs, you have to give footnotes and you have to make a big appendix in which you have to give proofs. I never give any proofs, I never give any footnotes, I never give you any sources from where… I know only one source — the Akashic records!
So just to make it more appealing, more digestible, he had changed it just a little, not much: that “Saraha can be said to be the founder of Tibetan Tantra, Tibetan Buddhism, CAN BE SAID. Now this is a scholarly way, a legal way, but it destroys the whole beauty of it. It destroys its whole certainty, its decisiveness, its hammer-like quality. And hammers are not supposed to be digestible! Sarjano, it is not a spaghetti! He is a good cook and makes beautiful spaghetti. I don’t know anything about spaghetti, but I know Saraha is the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. And I will not give any proof about it — I don’t believe in proofs, I simply KNOW. I know Saraha; it is a personal friendship with Saraha. Even if the historians prove something else, I won’t listen. I won’t pay any attention to them, because I know Saraha.

Osho Tao: The Golden Gate Vol. 2 Chapter Title: Just Joking Around

Leave a comment

Filed under Attitude, CopyRight, Education, Ego, FactScience, Humor, Information, IntellectualSkills, Mediatation, MyServices, Ontology, Osho, Psychology