Osho's words

[Guest guest]

Dear All, Just pasting some words of Osho below.Regards,Sreenadh===================================To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that

it has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be

humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be

categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that

every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is

written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the

stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should be

burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find

Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male chauvinistic.

To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no prejudice.

Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no politics in it.

That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And opposing him, another

Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the same. Politics is such a

game. It makes people like footballs. Their interests are different;

Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am against both, because they

are two polarities of the same politics. The Shankaracharya does not

want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a temple in Rajasthan.

And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of harijans and enter

forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of history has any

harijan been allowed. It is not because of great compassion that

Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the Shankaracharya is

determined that they cannot enter, and he will do everything to prevent

the entry because that will spoil the purity of the temple. The

harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries Hindus have been

entering that temple â€" what have they gained except poverty, slavery,

starvation? What are harijans going to gain by entering in Nath Dwara

uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an unprejudiced approach, they

should spit on this temple which has never in centuries allowed their

ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even if the Shankaracharya

touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath Dwara, they should

not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent … But the poor

harijans will not understand a simple fact: you have been tortured for

ten thousand years and still you go on thinking of yourselves as Hindu.

You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected you; you are not allowed

to enter their temples, you are not allowed to read their scriptures.

On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They burn your villages,

hundreds of people burned alive â€" strangely, young children, old men.

They just save young girls, to rape, and this has been going on and on

for centuries. It is for the harijans to reject Agnivesh and tell him,

“Go and jump into the ocean. Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.†And

tell the Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who

wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!†Harijans should declare

themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force that they

will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are one fourth

of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them. Even Mahatma

Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was saying that the

first president should be a harijan girl. He was proposing two things:

raising the respect towards women and the respect towards the harijan.

And when the country became independent, he forgot it completely. Again

the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made themselves a dynasty.

They call it democracy. As an individual, I don’t belong to any party

or to any religion. I am not a politician and I am not a religious man

in the ordinary sense because I am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor

Christian. I don’t feel that I have to belong to any organization; I am

enough unto myself. And that is my whole teaching, that you should not

belong to any organization; you are enough. Your splendor has to be

independent. The women also have to come to a conclusive decision that

they will not vote for men. Half of the country belongs to women â€" half

of the parliament should also belong to them. They should ask for a

separate vote; no woman is going to vote for any man of any party. It

is not a question of party, it is a question of a long slavery that man

has imposed on women. All women should fight against this slavery. In

India, the harijans and the women are the two most oppressed, insulted,

humiliated beings. If they get together, this country will belong to

them. Let these Shankaracharyas and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a

simple fact that freedom has not come to the country. Britain has gone

but slavery is still here. What kind of spirituality is it, that does

not allow human beings to enter temples? (Source: http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-of-the-forest/ )===================================

[Guest guest]

Dear all, Some more words from Osho on Tulsidas. Love and regards,Sreenadh==========================If

you read Tulsidas, a western historian will say that this is not

history; this is imagination. It is. But I still say that Tulsidas does

more justice to Ram than Luke can ever do to Christ because he knows

the secret. By going deeply into what Tulsidas has written, you will

again relive the whole phenomenon. Time will be transcended; you will

again be in the time of Ram. Now there are no space/time relationships.

Deep within yourself, you are in Ram's milieu--as if Ram was present,

as if he was somewhere nearby....

This

is a mythological approach to the nontemporal. Re-enacting it. Reviving

it. Resurrecting it. History cannot do this; only myth can do this.

Myth is helpful but not substantial: A creative imagination is needed

to fill in the substance....(Source: http://www.iosho.com/oBook/The%20Life%20Of%20Osho/11-03-vision.htm)==========================--- In , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear All,> Just pasting some words of Osho below.> Regards,> Sreenadh> ===================================> To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that it> has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be> humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be> categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that> every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is> written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the> stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should be> burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find> Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male> chauvinistic. To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no> prejudice. Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no> politics in it. That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And> opposing him, another Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the> same. Politics is such a game. It makes people like footballs. Their> interests are different; Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am> against both, because they are two polarities of the same politics. The> Shankaracharya does not want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a> temple in Rajasthan. And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of> harijans and enter forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of> history has any harijan been allowed. It is not because of great> compassion that Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the> Shankaracharya is determined that they cannot enter, and he will do> everything to prevent the entry because that will spoil the purity of> the temple. The harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries> Hindus have been entering that temple �" what have they gained> except poverty, slavery, starvation? What are harijans going to gain by> entering in Nath Dwara uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an> unprejudiced approach, they should spit on this temple which has never> in centuries allowed their ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even> if the Shankaracharya touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath> Dwara, they should not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent> … But the poor harijans will not understand a simple fact: you> have been tortured for ten thousand years and still you go on thinking> of yourselves as Hindu. You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected> you; you are not allowed to enter their temples, you are not allowed to> read their scriptures. On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They> burn your villages, hundreds of people burned alive �" strangely,> young children, old men. They just save young girls, to rape, and this> has been going on and on for centuries. It is for the harijans to> reject Agnivesh and tell him, “Go and jump into the ocean.> Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.†And tell the> Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who> wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!†Harijans should> declare themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force> that they will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are> one fourth of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them. > Even Mahatma Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was> saying that the first president should be a harijan girl. He was> proposing two things: raising the respect towards women and the respect> towards the harijan. And when the country became independent, he forgot> it completely. Again the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made> themselves a dynasty. They call it democracy. As an individual, I> don’t belong to any party or to any religion. I am not a> politician and I am not a religious man in the ordinary sense because I> am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. I don’t feel that I> have to belong to any organization; I am enough unto myself. And that is> my whole teaching, that you should not belong to any organization; you> are enough. Your splendor has to be independent. The women also have to> come to a conclusive decision that they will not vote for men. Half of> the country belongs to women �" half of the parliament should also> belong to them. They should ask for a separate vote; no woman is going> to vote for any man of any party. It is not a question of party, it is> a question of a long slavery that man has imposed on women. All women> should fight against this slavery. In India, the harijans and the women> are the two most oppressed, insulted, humiliated beings. If they get> together, this country will belong to them. Let these Shankaracharyas> and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a simple fact that freedom has not> come to the country. Britain has gone but slavery is still here. What> kind of spirituality is it, that does not allow human beings to enter> temples?> (Source:> http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-o\> f-the-forest/> <../../../../../../../../../../../../Oi/8vc3V/y/ZXNsaXZlLndv/cmRwcmVzcy5\> jb20v/MjAwOC8wMy8wMS/96/ZW4tdGhlL/XNvb/Gl/0YXJ5LWJpc/mQtY3Vja29vLW9mLXRo\> ZS1/mb3J/lc3Qv//b0/> )> ===================================>

[Guest guest]

dear Sir,We read Tulsidas Ramcaritmansa almost daily.We never come across any couplet which may mean: "The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that

every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. "Tulsi Das was always full of respect for woman.English translation of Tulsidass Ramcharitamanas is published by Gitapresand is very cheap. Kindly do read it .It has great teaching.Regards,G. K. Goel

 

address: L-409 Sarita Vihar, New Delhi - 110076

tel: 011-26943689, 011-41403352,

mobile: 09350311433 From: sreesogDate: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 10:34:15 +0000 Osho's words

 

 

 

 

Dear All, Just pasting some words of Osho below.Regards,Sreenadh===================================To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that

it has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be

humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be

categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that

every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is

written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the

stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should be

burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find

Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male chauvinistic.

To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no prejudice.

Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no politics in it.

That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And opposing him, another

Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the same. Politics is such a

game. It makes people like footballs. Their interests are different;

Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am against both, because they

are two polarities of the same politics. The Shankaracharya does not

want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a temple in Rajasthan.

And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of harijans and enter

forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of history has any

harijan been allowed. It is not because of great compassion that

Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the Shankaracharya is

determined that they cannot enter, and he will do everything to prevent

the entry because that will spoil the purity of the temple. The

harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries Hindus have been

entering that temple â€" what have they gained except poverty, slavery,

starvation? What are harijans going to gain by entering in Nath Dwara

uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an unprejudiced approach, they

should spit on this temple which has never in centuries allowed their

ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even if the Shankaracharya

touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath Dwara, they should

not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent … But the poor

harijans will not understand a simple fact: you have been tortured for

ten thousand years and still you go on thinking of yourselves as Hindu.

You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected you; you are not allowed

to enter their temples, you are not allowed to read their scriptures.

On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They burn your villages,

hundreds of people burned alive â€" strangely, young children, old men.

They just save young girls, to rape, and this has been going on and on

for centuries. It is for the harijans to reject Agnivesh and tell him,

“Go and jump into the ocean. Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.� And

tell the Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who

wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!� Harijans should declare

themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force that they

will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are one fourth

of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them. Even Mahatma

Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was saying that the

first president should be a harijan girl. He was proposing two things:

raising the respect towards women and the respect towards the harijan.

And when the country became independent, he forgot it completely. Again

the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made themselves a dynasty.

They call it democracy. As an individual, I don’t belong to any party

or to any religion. I am not a politician and I am not a religious man

in the ordinary sense because I am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor

Christian. I don’t feel that I have to belong to any organization; I am

enough unto myself. And that is my whole teaching, that you should not

belong to any organization; you are enough. Your splendor has to be

independent. The women also have to come to a conclusive decision that

they will not vote for men. Half of the country belongs to women â€" half

of the parliament should also belong to them. They should ask for a

separate vote; no woman is going to vote for any man of any party. It

is not a question of party, it is a question of a long slavery that man

has imposed on women. All women should fight against this slavery. In

India, the harijans and the women are the two most oppressed, insulted,

humiliated beings. If they get together, this country will belong to

them. Let these Shankaracharyas and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a

simple fact that freedom has not come to the country. Britain has gone

but slavery is still here. What kind of spirituality is it, that does

not allow human beings to enter temples? (Source: http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-of-the-forest/ )===================================

 

 

From the events that change the world, to the ones that just shouldn’t be missed. Catch it all on MSN India. Drag n’ drop

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,

 

In oshos own words,i would say that every book he writes, he may not mean it at

all times, and neither would every book written by him be right. Additionally,

views, preferences keep on changing with the same person with his passing years.

What he may hav emeant at age of 30 , may not necessarily be his views at age

52. In same vein some people talk right when young and talk rubbish when older

after having seen affluence fall prey to sex, good money and enjoyments thereof

and loose their sense or discrimination of right or wrong. So again not

necessary that a man may be more wiser at age 60, than what he was at age 30.

This may also be the opposite. I am not talking of Osho but in general. Again a

certain sermon may be given to a Group of people at a certain time for attaining

certain gains, and another section may be shown in bad light just ti ipmress

upon the section from whom gains are desired.

This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I likle the man

Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this article without knowing

the exact cause,context, section of people to whom narrated, and for what

purpose criticism was made. As far as I know he loved the Hindu religion, and

was proud to be a Hindu.

 

And we all know that what a man preaches, he seldom practises.

 

regards/Bhaskar.

 

 

, " sreesog " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear All,

> Just pasting some words of Osho below.

> Regards,

> Sreenadh

> ===================================

> To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that it

> has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be

> humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be

> categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that

> every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is

> written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the

> stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should be

> burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find

> Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male

> chauvinistic. To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no

> prejudice. Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no

> politics in it. That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And

> opposing him, another Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the

> same. Politics is such a game. It makes people like footballs. Their

> interests are different; Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am

> against both, because they are two polarities of the same politics. The

> Shankaracharya does not want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a

> temple in Rajasthan. And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of

> harijans and enter forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of

> history has any harijan been allowed. It is not because of great

> compassion that Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the

> Shankaracharya is determined that they cannot enter, and he will do

> everything to prevent the entry because that will spoil the purity of

> the temple. The harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries

> Hindus have been entering that temple †" what have they gained

> except poverty, slavery, starvation? What are harijans going to gain by

> entering in Nath Dwara uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an

> unprejudiced approach, they should spit on this temple which has never

> in centuries allowed their ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even

> if the Shankaracharya touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath

> Dwara, they should not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent

> … But the poor harijans will not understand a simple fact: you

> have been tortured for ten thousand years and still you go on thinking

> of yourselves as Hindu. You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected

> you; you are not allowed to enter their temples, you are not allowed to

> read their scriptures. On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They

> burn your villages, hundreds of people burned alive †" strangely,

> young children, old men. They just save young girls, to rape, and this

> has been going on and on for centuries. It is for the harijans to

> reject Agnivesh and tell him, “Go and jump into the ocean.

> Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.†And tell the

> Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who

> wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!†Harijans should

> declare themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force

> that they will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are

> one fourth of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them.

> Even Mahatma Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was

> saying that the first president should be a harijan girl. He was

> proposing two things: raising the respect towards women and the respect

> towards the harijan. And when the country became independent, he forgot

> it completely. Again the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made

> themselves a dynasty. They call it democracy. As an individual, I

> don’t belong to any party or to any religion. I am not a

> politician and I am not a religious man in the ordinary sense because I

> am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. I don’t feel that I

> have to belong to any organization; I am enough unto myself. And that is

> my whole teaching, that you should not belong to any organization; you

> are enough. Your splendor has to be independent. The women also have to

> come to a conclusive decision that they will not vote for men. Half of

> the country belongs to women †" half of the parliament should also

> belong to them. They should ask for a separate vote; no woman is going

> to vote for any man of any party. It is not a question of party, it is

> a question of a long slavery that man has imposed on women. All women

> should fight against this slavery. In India, the harijans and the women

> are the two most oppressed, insulted, humiliated beings. If they get

> together, this country will belong to them. Let these Shankaracharyas

> and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a simple fact that freedom has not

> come to the country. Britain has gone but slavery is still here. What

> kind of spirituality is it, that does not allow human beings to enter

> temples?

> (Source:

> http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-o\

> f-the-forest/

> <../../../../../../../../../../../../Oi/8vc3V/y/ZXNsaXZlLndv/cmRwcmVzcy5\

> jb20v/MjAwOC8wMy8wMS/96/ZW4tdGhlL/XNvb/Gl/0YXJ5LWJpc/mQtY3Vja29vLW9mLXRo\

> ZS1/mb3J/lc3Qv//b0/> )

> ===================================

>

[Guest guest]

Dear All, Again from OshoLove and regards,Sreenadh============================

A very famous hindu saint, Tulsidas, was taken into a

Krishna temple. Now, he was a follower of Rama: When he was taken inside the

Krishna temple he would not bow down. And the friend who had taken him there

said, “You are not bowing down to Krishna?†He said, “How can I? I bow down

only to Rama. My god is Rama, not Krishna. I can bow down only if the statue of

Krishna changes its form and becomes the statue of Rama.â€

The story goes on: it says the

statue of Krishna changed its form and became the statue of Rama. Then Tusidas

bowed down.

The first part seems to be

historical, the second part seems to be fictitious â€" and not only fictitious

but stupid too. Because God cannot concede, agree, to such bartering. But it

shows the mind of the so-called mahatmas. Even a man like Tulsidas, who has

written some of the greatest poetry in the world.... He was certainly a great

poet, but not a mystic â€" a great man of knowledge, but not enlightened.

Otherwise how could he have said such a thing? â€" “God should take the form of

my deityâ€

What is he asking? He is

saying “I can bow down only to my concept of God. God is irrelevant, my concept

is important.†This is ego trip. He is not bowing to God, he is bowing to his

own egoâ€(Source: http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JfV7iKavOP8C & pg=PA102 & dq=Osho+about+Tulsidas+Rama & ei=V9rJSqqZHJqIlQSd-8GzAw#v=onepage & q= & f=false )============================ , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear All,> Just pasting some words of Osho below.> Regards,> Sreenadh> ===================================> To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that it> has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be> humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be> categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that> every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is> written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the> stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should be> burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find> Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male> chauvinistic. To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no> prejudice. Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no> politics in it. That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And> opposing him, another Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the> same. Politics is such a game. It makes people like footballs. Their> interests are different; Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am> against both, because they are two polarities of the same politics. The> Shankaracharya does not want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a> temple in Rajasthan. And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of> harijans and enter forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of> history has any harijan been allowed. It is not because of great> compassion that Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the> Shankaracharya is determined that they cannot enter, and he will do> everything to prevent the entry because that will spoil the purity of> the temple. The harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries> Hindus have been entering that temple �" what have they gained> except poverty, slavery, starvation? What are harijans going to gain by> entering in Nath Dwara uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an> unprejudiced approach, they should spit on this temple which has never> in centuries allowed their ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even> if the Shankaracharya touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath> Dwara, they should not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent> … But the poor harijans will not understand a simple fact: you> have been tortured for ten thousand years and still you go on thinking> of yourselves as Hindu. You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected> you; you are not allowed to enter their temples, you are not allowed to> read their scriptures. On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They> burn your villages, hundreds of people burned alive �" strangely,> young children, old men. They just save young girls, to rape, and this> has been going on and on for centuries. It is for the harijans to> reject Agnivesh and tell him, “Go and jump into the ocean.> Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.†And tell the> Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who> wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!†Harijans should> declare themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force> that they will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are> one fourth of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them. > Even Mahatma Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was> saying that the first president should be a harijan girl. He was> proposing two things: raising the respect towards women and the respect> towards the harijan. And when the country became independent, he forgot> it completely. Again the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made> themselves a dynasty. They call it democracy. As an individual, I> don’t belong to any party or to any religion. I am not a> politician and I am not a religious man in the ordinary sense because I> am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. I don’t feel that I> have to belong to any organization; I am enough unto myself. And that is> my whole teaching, that you should not belong to any organization; you> are enough. Your splendor has to be independent. The women also have to> come to a conclusive decision that they will not vote for men. Half of> the country belongs to women �" half of the parliament should also> belong to them. They should ask for a separate vote; no woman is going> to vote for any man of any party. It is not a question of party, it is> a question of a long slavery that man has imposed on women. All women> should fight against this slavery. In India, the harijans and the women> are the two most oppressed, insulted, humiliated beings. If they get> together, this country will belong to them. Let these Shankaracharyas> and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a simple fact that freedom has not> come to the country. Britain has gone but slavery is still here. What> kind of spirituality is it, that does not allow human beings to enter> temples?> (Source:> http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-o\> f-the-forest/> <../../../../../../../../../../../../Oi/8vc3V/y/ZXNsaXZlLndv/cmRwcmVzcy5\> jb20v/MjAwOC8wMy8wMS/96/ZW4tdGhlL/XNvb/Gl/0YXJ5LWJpc/mQtY3Vja29vLW9mLXRo\> ZS1/mb3J/lc3Qv//b0/> )> ===================================>

[Guest guest]

The earlier words of Osho , may be right to some extent. But the truth is that anyone can enter the temple .... there is no checking of religion, caste etc.

Also some of the greatest devotees of Lord Krishna and Rama were born in what is termed as OBC, SC etc in government language.

The categorisation of a person by his birth is wrong, it should be by his actions. He may born without some privileges ( that should take care of the accumulated Karma ) but can and has every right to progress ( that is the flexibility that nature and God provides us ).

As for Sant Tulsidasji and women - I was told by someone a few weeks ago .

The Saint was married to very good woman and smitten by her. One day she visited her parents house. Unable to bear seperation from her , Sant Tulsidasji went all the way to her village just to meet her. In his anxiety to see her, he climbed up to her window holding what he thought was a rope but actually a snake !

While he was hanging by the rope, his beloved wife told him something that would change his life. She asked him what would happen if he had as much love for God ? That was major turning point in his life.

I doubt if he asked a woman to be hit without any reference.

Chiranjiv Mehta--- On Mon, 5/10/09, sreesog <sreesog wrote:

sreesog <sreesog Re: Osho's words Date: Monday, 5 October, 2009, 7:05 PM

Dear All, Again from OshoLove and regards,Sreenadh============ ========= =======

A very famous hindu saint, Tulsidas, was taken into a Krishna temple. Now, he was a follower of Rama: When he was taken inside the Krishna temple he would not bow down. And the friend who had taken him there said, “You are not bowing down to Krishna?†He said, “How can I? I bow down only to Rama. My god is Rama, not Krishna. I can bow down only if the statue of Krishna changes its form and becomes the statue of Rama.â€

The story goes on: it says the statue of Krishna changed its form and became the statue of Rama. Then Tusidas bowed down.

The first part seems to be historical, the second part seems to be fictitious ��" and not only fictitious but stupid too. Because God cannot concede, agree, to such bartering. But it shows the mind of the so-called mahatmas. Even a man like Tulsidas, who has written some of the greatest poetry in the world.... He was certainly a great poet, but not a mystic ��" a great man of knowledge, but not enlightened. Otherwise how could he have said such a thing? ��" “God should take the form of my deity†What is he asking? He is saying “I can bow down only to my concept of God. God is irrelevant, my concept is important.†This is ego trip. He is not bowing to God, he is bowing to his own egoâ€(Source: http://books. google.co. in/books? id=JfV7iKavOP8C & pg=PA102 & dq=Osho+about+ Tulsidas+ Rama & ei=V9rJSqqZHJqIlQSd -8GzAw#v= onepage & q= & f=false )============ ========= =======ancient_indian_ astrology, "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear All,> Just pasting some words of Osho below.> Regards,> Sreenadh> ============ ========= ========= =====> To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that it> has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be> humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be> categorized just

like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that> every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is> written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the> stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should be> burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find> Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male> chauvinistic. To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no> prejudice. Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no> politics in it. That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And> opposing him, another Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the> same. Politics is such a game. It makes people like footballs. Their> interests are different; Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am> against both, because they are two polarities of the same politics.

The> Shankaracharya does not want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a> temple in Rajasthan. And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of> harijans and enter forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of> history has any harijan been allowed. It is not because of great> compassion that Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the> Shankaracharya is determined that they cannot enter, and he will do> everything to prevent the entry because that will spoil the purity of> the temple. The harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries> Hindus have been entering that temple �" what have they gained> except poverty, slavery, starvation? What are harijans going to gain by> entering in Nath Dwara uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an> unprejudiced approach, they should spit on this temple which has never> in centuries allowed their

ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even> if the Shankaracharya touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath> Dwara, they should not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent> … But the poor harijans will not understand a simple fact: you> have been tortured for ten thousand years and still you go on thinking> of yourselves as Hindu. You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected> you; you are not allowed to enter their temples, you are not allowed to> read their scriptures. On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They> burn your villages, hundreds of people burned alive �" strangely,> young children, old men. They just save young girls, to rape, and this> has been going on and on for centuries. It is for the harijans to> reject Agnivesh and tell him, “Go and jump into the ocean.> Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.†And tell the>

Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who> wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!†Harijans should> declare themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force> that they will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are> one fourth of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them. > Even Mahatma Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was> saying that the first president should be a harijan girl. He was> proposing two things: raising the respect towards women and the respect> towards the harijan. And when the country became independent, he forgot> it completely. Again the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made> themselves a dynasty. They call it democracy. As an individual, I> don’t belong to any party or to any religion. I am not a> politician and I am not a religious man in the ordinary

sense because I> am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. I don’t feel that I> have to belong to any organization; I am enough unto myself. And that is> my whole teaching, that you should not belong to any organization; you> are enough. Your splendor has to be independent. The women also have to> come to a conclusive decision that they will not vote for men. Half of> the country belongs to women �" half of the parliament should also> belong to them. They should ask for a separate vote; no woman is going> to vote for any man of any party. It is not a question of party, it is> a question of a long slavery that man has imposed on women. All women> should fight against this slavery. In India, the harijans and the women> are the two most oppressed, insulted, humiliated beings. If they get> together, this country will belong to them. Let these Shankaracharyas> and

these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a simple fact that freedom has not> come to the country. Britain has gone but slavery is still here. What> kind of spirituality is it, that does not allow human beings to enter> temples?> (Source:> http://sureslive. wordpress. com/2008/ 03/01/zen- the-solitary- bird-cuckoo- o\> f-the-forest/> <../../../../ ../../../ ../../../ ../../Oi/ 8vc3V/y/ZXNsaXZl Lndv/cmRwcmVzcy5 \> jb20v/MjAwOC8wMy8wM S/96/ZW4tdGhlL/ XNvb/Gl/0YXJ5LWJ pc/mQtY3Vja29vLW 9mLXRo\> ZS1/mb3J/lc3Qv/ /b0/> )> ============ ========= ========= =====>

From cricket scores to your friends. Try the India Homepage!

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji, Even though I don't agree to many of your statements, even though many of those statements may not be applicable to Osho; I liked your mail since many of those statements are applicable to any average human being. May ideas they convey are valuable and applicable to the society as a whole. So I liked your post and so won't comment upon the same. //> This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I

likle the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this

article without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to

whom narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made.// Well said! Note: By the way, I presented the words of Osho on Tulsidas just to present an alternative perspective only - me too have good regards to Tulsidas. But Osho was a great guru, since he is able to show us the alternative perspectives as well. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:>> Dear Sreenadh ji,> > In oshos own words,i would say that every book he writes, he may not mean it at all times, and neither would every book written by him be right. Additionally, views, preferences keep on changing with the same person with his passing years. What he may hav emeant at age of 30 , may not necessarily be his views at age 52. In same vein some people talk right when young and talk rubbish when older after having seen affluence fall prey to sex, good money and enjoyments thereof and loose their sense or discrimination of right or wrong. So again not necessary that a man may be more wiser at age 60, than what he was at age 30. This may also be the opposite. I am not talking of Osho but in general. Again a certain sermon may be given to a Group of people at a certain time for attaining certain gains, and another section may be shown in bad light just ti ipmress upon the section from whom gains are desired.> This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I likle the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this article without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to whom narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made. As far as I know he loved the Hindu religion, and was proud to be a Hindu. > > And we all know that what a man preaches, he seldom practises.> > regards/Bhaskar.

[Guest guest]

Dear Chiranjiv ji Good words. Love and regards,Sreenadh , chiranjiv mehta <vchiranjiv wrote:>> The earlier words of Osho , may be right to some extent. But the truth is that anyone can enter the temple .... there is no checking of religion, caste etc.> Also some of the greatest devotees of Lord Krishna and Rama were born in what is termed as OBC, SC etc in government language.> The categorisation of a person by his birth is wrong, it should be by his actions. He may born without some privileges ( that should take care of the accumulated Karma ) but can and has every right to progress ( that is the flexibility that nature and God provides us ).> As for Sant Tulsidasji and women - I was told by someone a few weeks ago .> The Saint was married to very good woman and smitten by her. One day she visited her parents house. Unable to bear seperation from her , Sant Tulsidasji went all the way to her village just to meet her. In his anxiety to see her, he climbed up to her window holding what he thought was a rope but actually a snake !> While he was hanging by the rope, his beloved wife told him something that would change his life. She asked him what would happen if he had as much love for God ? That was major turning point in his life.> I doubt if he asked a woman to be hit without any reference. > > > Chiranjiv Mehta

[Guest guest]

Dear sreenadh ji,good post indeed.There are more alternatives some we know some we dont.That's why india is said to be the most tolerent state in the world!!...Love and regards,gopi. , "sreesog" <sreesog wrote:>> Dear Bhaskar ji,> Even though I don't agree to many of your statements, even though> many of those statements may not be applicable to Osho; I liked your> mail since many of those statements are applicable to any average human> being. May ideas they convey are valuable and applicable to the society> as a whole. So I liked your post and so won't comment upon the same. > []> //> This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I> likle the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this> article without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to> whom narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made.//> Well said! []> Note: By the way, I presented the words of Osho on Tulsidas just to> present an alternative perspective only - me too have good regards to> Tulsidas. [] But Osho was a great guru, since he is able to show us> the alternative perspectives as well. []> Love and regards,> Sreenadh> > , "Bhaskar"> bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadh ji,> >> > In oshos own words,i would say that every book he writes, he may not> mean it at all times, and neither would every book written by him be> right. Additionally, views, preferences keep on changing with the same> person with his passing years. What he may hav emeant at age of 30 , may> not necessarily be his views at age 52. In same vein some people talk> right when young and talk rubbish when older after having seen affluence> fall prey to sex, good money and enjoyments thereof and loose their> sense or discrimination of right or wrong. So again not necessary that a> man may be more wiser at age 60, than what he was at age 30. This may> also be the opposite. I am not talking of Osho but in general. Again a> certain sermon may be given to a Group of people at a certain time for> attaining certain gains, and another section may be shown in bad light> just ti ipmress upon the section from whom gains are desired.> > This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I likle> the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this article> without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to whom> narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made. As far as I know he> loved the Hindu religion, and was proud to be a Hindu.> >> > And we all know that what a man preaches, he seldom practises.> >> > regards/Bhaskar.>

[Guest guest]

Dear Goel ji, It is good to believe that Tulsidas ji will not say so. But it is true that Osho will not say any such thing without a proper reference. Actually whenever Osho states something we can be sure that there is a clear reference and pointer - even if at that moment we did not know what that reference is. He is a man of truth. //Tulsidass Ramcharitamanas .......... has great teaching.// Me too know that and agree with it. I don't have anything against the great poem with full of devotion named "Ramacharitamanas". It is a pleasure to read such texts, and the good lessons they give us also are many. Love and regards,Sreenadh , gopal krishna goel <g.k.goel wrote:>> dear Sir,> We read Tulsidas Ramcaritmansa almost daily.> We never come across any couplet which may mean:> "The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that> every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. "> Tulsi Das was always full of respect for woman.> English translation of Tulsidass Ramcharitamanas is published by Gitapres> and is very cheap. Kindly do read it .It has great teaching.> Regards,> > G. K. Goel

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,

 

About women Tulsidas Ji have written

 

" Dhor,Gawar,Shudra,Pashu or Naaree,

Sakal Tadan ke adhikari "

 

May be in " Uttar-Kand " of Ramayan.It has deep meaning,if we use only word than

we will feel that Tulsidas ji have written some thing wrong about all these.As i

understand in general these all not have deep understanding of any subject we

can direct them in right direction by some strictness or some " Ankush " on

them.Because by nature these all are very " Chanchal " (Not stable in nature).

 

Thanks,

 

M.S.Bohra

 

 

 

, " sreesog " <sreesog wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

> Even though I don't agree to many of your statements, even though

> many of those statements may not be applicable to Osho; I liked your

> mail since many of those statements are applicable to any average human

> being. May ideas they convey are valuable and applicable to the society

> as a whole. So I liked your post and so won't comment upon the same.

> []

> //> This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I

> likle the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this

> article without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to

> whom narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made.//

> Well said! []

> Note: By the way, I presented the words of Osho on Tulsidas just to

> present an alternative perspective only - me too have good regards to

> Tulsidas. [] But Osho was a great guru, since he is able to show us

> the alternative perspectives as well. []

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Bhaskar "

> <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> >

> > In oshos own words,i would say that every book he writes, he may not

> mean it at all times, and neither would every book written by him be

> right. Additionally, views, preferences keep on changing with the same

> person with his passing years. What he may hav emeant at age of 30 , may

> not necessarily be his views at age 52. In same vein some people talk

> right when young and talk rubbish when older after having seen affluence

> fall prey to sex, good money and enjoyments thereof and loose their

> sense or discrimination of right or wrong. So again not necessary that a

> man may be more wiser at age 60, than what he was at age 30. This may

> also be the opposite. I am not talking of Osho but in general. Again a

> certain sermon may be given to a Group of people at a certain time for

> attaining certain gains, and another section may be shown in bad light

> just ti ipmress upon the section from whom gains are desired.

> > This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I likle

> the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this article

> without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to whom

> narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made. As far as I know he

> loved the Hindu religion, and was proud to be a Hindu.

> >

> > And we all know that what a man preaches, he seldom practises.

> >

> > regards/Bhaskar.

>

[Guest guest]

Dear all,

 

I always advise everyone to read the ancient texts and interpretations

from the Masters rather than read interpretations of those who have not

realised.

 

Here " Tadna " does not mean " to hit " . Here " tadna " means to " check

constantly " , to keep " under check " . All of these, Dhol,

Shudra,Ganwar,Pashu Naari.

 

For instance-

 

A Dhol if the drummer does not check, the sound will not be good when

playing the instrument.

 

Shudra - Servant if not kept under check will drink wine from your

bottle and also rob yoiu of your wealth when not around.

 

Ganwar- If You ask a ganwar to cut the apple in few pieces, he may hurt

himself.

 

Pashu - If You dont keep your dog in check he will start dirtying your

house or bite you.

 

Naari - If not kept under check, may turn wayward.

 

Dear freinds, let us not act like idiots unless we understand the

" Marma " we have no right to comment on Tulsidasa.

 

Rajneesh was a good man in many ways, so I am not commenting on this

article of his, bcoz no sense in continuing unimportant chapters.

 

regards/Bhaskar.

 

 

, " Sudan " <msbohra62

wrote:

>

> Dear Sreenadh ji,

>

> About women Tulsidas Ji have written

>

> " Dhor,Gawar,Shudra,Pashu or Naaree,

> Sakal Tadan ke adhikari "

>

> May be in " Uttar-Kand " of Ramayan.It has deep meaning,if we use only

word than we will feel that Tulsidas ji have written some thing wrong

about all these.As i understand in general these all not have deep

understanding of any subject we can direct them in right direction by

some strictness or some " Ankush " on them.Because by nature these all are

very " Chanchal " (Not stable in nature).

>

> Thanks,

>

> M.S.Bohra

>

>

>

> , " sreesog " sreesog@

wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > Even though I don't agree to many of your statements, even though

> > many of those statements may not be applicable to Osho; I liked your

> > mail since many of those statements are applicable to any average

human

> > being. May ideas they convey are valuable and applicable to the

society

> > as a whole. So I liked your post and so won't comment upon the same.

> > []

> > //> This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I

> > likle the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this

> > article without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people

to

> > whom narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made.//

> > Well said! []

> > Note: By the way, I presented the words of Osho on Tulsidas just to

> > present an alternative perspective only - me too have good regards

to

> > Tulsidas. [] But Osho was a great guru, since he is able to show

us

> > the alternative perspectives as well. []

> > Love and regards,

> > Sreenadh

> >

> > , " Bhaskar "

> > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> > >

> > > In oshos own words,i would say that every book he writes, he may

not

> > mean it at all times, and neither would every book written by him be

> > right. Additionally, views, preferences keep on changing with the

same

> > person with his passing years. What he may hav emeant at age of 30 ,

may

> > not necessarily be his views at age 52. In same vein some people

talk

> > right when young and talk rubbish when older after having seen

affluence

> > fall prey to sex, good money and enjoyments thereof and loose their

> > sense or discrimination of right or wrong. So again not necessary

that a

> > man may be more wiser at age 60, than what he was at age 30. This

may

> > also be the opposite. I am not talking of Osho but in general. Again

a

> > certain sermon may be given to a Group of people at a certain time

for

> > attaining certain gains, and another section may be shown in bad

light

> > just ti ipmress upon the section from whom gains are desired.

> > > This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I

likle

> > the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this

article

> > without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to whom

> > narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made. As far as I know

he

> > loved the Hindu religion, and was proud to be a Hindu.

> > >

> > > And we all know that what a man preaches, he seldom practises.

> > >

> > > regards/Bhaskar.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Goelji,

 

Now let me talk clearly from my heart as members expect me to. Rajneesh

was a sexually perverted person and a great oppurtunist. But so are most

of us. When we see a beautiful women most of us would water in our knees

and try to come near that women. rajneesh used the technique of bashing

Hindus. It is very easy to bash Hindus in this secular country.

Anyways I call him good because he also mentioned good about the Hindu

culture and about vedas and proved that a Indian could be a genius. But

the fact is that he played upon spirituality to gain popularity.

 

This article must have been written in an inebriated state by him, but I

know personally that he is not like this. This was just written to

impress upon the Westerners (Who form the major portion of his fold)

that he is very secular.

 

I challenge any one to write in such manner about Muslims and get away

without a fatwa on his head.

 

regards/Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, gopal krishna goel

<g.k.goel wrote:

>

> dear Sir,

> We read Tulsidas Ramcaritmansa almost daily.

> We never come across any couplet which may mean:

> " The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says that

> every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. "

> Tulsi Das was always full of respect for woman.

> English translation of Tulsidass Ramcharitamanas is published by

Gitapres

> and is very cheap. Kindly do read it .It has great teaching.

> Regards,

>

> G. K. Goel

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Dear All,

> Just pasting some words of Osho below.

> Regards,

> Sreenadh

> ===================================

> To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean that

> it has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be

> humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be

> categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says

that

> every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it is

> written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the

> stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should

be

> burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they find

> Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male

chauvinistic.

> To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no prejudice.

> Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no politics in it.

> That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And opposing him,

another

> Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the same. Politics is such a

> game. It makes people like footballs. Their interests are different;

> Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I am against both, because

they

> are two polarities of the same politics. The Shankaracharya does not

> want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath Dwara, a temple in Rajasthan.

> And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd of harijans and enter

> forcibly into the temple, where never in the whole of history has any

> harijan been allowed. It is not because of great compassion that

> Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the Shankaracharya is

> determined that they cannot enter, and he will do everything to

prevent

> the entry because that will spoil the purity of the temple. The

> harijans should see a simple point, that for centuries Hindus have

been

> entering that temple †" what have they gained except poverty,

slavery,

> starvation? What are harijans going to gain by entering in Nath Dwara

> uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an unprejudiced approach, they

> should spit on this temple which has never in centuries allowed their

> ancestors to enter. They should refuse. Even if the Shankaracharya

> touches their feet and asks them to come into Nath Dwara, they should

> not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so violent … But the

poor

> harijans will not understand a simple fact: you have been tortured for

> ten thousand years and still you go on thinking of yourselves as

Hindu.

> You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected you; you are not allowed

> to enter their temples, you are not allowed to read their scriptures.

> On what grounds do they say you are Hindus? They burn your villages,

> hundreds of people burned alive †" strangely, young children,

old men.

> They just save young girls, to rape, and this has been going on and on

> for centuries. It is for the harijans to reject Agnivesh and tell him,

>  " Go and jump into the ocean. Don’t bother us,

we are not Hindus.� And

> tell the Shankaracharya,  " Why are you unnecessarily making

a fuss? Who

> wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!� Harijans

should declare

> themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big force that

they

> will change the whole character of Indian politics. They are one

fourth

> of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them. Even Mahatma

> Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he was

saying that the

> first president should be a harijan girl. He was proposing two things:

> raising the respect towards women and the respect towards the harijan.

> And when the country became independent, he forgot it completely.

Again

> the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have made themselves a

dynasty.

> They call it democracy. As an individual, I don’t belong

to any party

> or to any religion. I am not a politician and I am not a religious man

> in the ordinary sense because I am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor

> Christian. I don’t feel that I have to belong to any

organization; I am

> enough unto myself. And that is my whole teaching, that you should not

> belong to any organization; you are enough. Your splendor has to be

> independent. The women also have to come to a conclusive decision that

> they will not vote for men. Half of the country belongs to women

†" half

> of the parliament should also belong to them. They should ask for a

> separate vote; no woman is going to vote for any man of any party. It

> is not a question of party, it is a question of a long slavery that

man

> has imposed on women. All women should fight against this slavery. In

> India, the harijans and the women are the two most oppressed,

insulted,

> humiliated beings. If they get together, this country will belong to

> them. Let these Shankaracharyas and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a

> simple fact that freedom has not come to the country. Britain has gone

> but slavery is still here. What kind of spirituality is it, that does

> not allow human beings to enter temples?

> (Source:

http://sureslive.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/zen-the-solitary-bird-cuckoo-o\

f-the-forest/ )

> ===================================

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

_______________

> News, views and inimitable perspectives †" On MSN India, you get

an all-round view of things that matter.

> http://in.msn.com

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sreenadh ji,

 

It does not matter if you do not agree with me, or i do not, with You,

on many points, as long as we still love each another and remain

friends. This is maturity that even with disagreements we can still stay

together on the same platform . Is it not ? This is what is Love about.

 

I normally find my neighbours wife more prettier and feminine than my

own wife. What does it matter to my wife, as long as I give her , her

dues. And vice versa for my wife.

 

The whole trick of living in this world, is to live in an unaffected

state , Alongwith the shortcomings of the persons whom you love, or

revere, or relate to.

 

I must always try to see your positive points if I have to stay with

your shortcomings, and so have you to. And I know for sure that we have

more of good points in each of us overlapping our shortcomings and

disagreements.

 

best wishes,

 

Love and regards,

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

 

 

, " sreesog " <sreesog

wrote:

>

> Dear Bhaskar ji,

> Even though I don't agree to many of your statements, even though

> many of those statements may not be applicable to Osho; I liked your

> mail since many of those statements are applicable to any average

human

> being. May ideas they convey are valuable and applicable to the

society

> as a whole. So I liked your post and so won't comment upon the same.

> []

> //> This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I

> likle the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this

> article without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to

> whom narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made.//

> Well said! []

> Note: By the way, I presented the words of Osho on Tulsidas just to

> present an alternative perspective only - me too have good regards to

> Tulsidas. [] But Osho was a great guru, since he is able to show us

> the alternative perspectives as well. []

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> , " Bhaskar "

> bhaskar_jyotish@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> >

> > In oshos own words,i would say that every book he writes, he may not

> mean it at all times, and neither would every book written by him be

> right. Additionally, views, preferences keep on changing with the same

> person with his passing years. What he may hav emeant at age of 30 ,

may

> not necessarily be his views at age 52. In same vein some people talk

> right when young and talk rubbish when older after having seen

affluence

> fall prey to sex, good money and enjoyments thereof and loose their

> sense or discrimination of right or wrong. So again not necessary that

a

> man may be more wiser at age 60, than what he was at age 30. This may

> also be the opposite. I am not talking of Osho but in general. Again a

> certain sermon may be given to a Group of people at a certain time for

> attaining certain gains, and another section may be shown in bad light

> just ti ipmress upon the section from whom gains are desired.

> > This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I

likle

> the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this article

> without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to whom

> narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made. As far as I know he

> loved the Hindu religion, and was proud to be a Hindu.

> >

> > And we all know that what a man preaches, he seldom practises.

> >

> > regards/Bhaskar.

>

[Guest guest]

Yes , you have said wonderfully the truth. Who checks in temples who is

coming or going out ? All this rotten talk about harijans etc, not being

allowed is pre-historic and only limited to probably villages, where

also I dont think anyone has the time to check all this.

 

And why blame Manu or the Hindus ? Why not fight with the present

Government in India who does not remove the 4 Varnas and on the contrary

is contributing to strengthening it with Quotas. Who is creating all

these factions ? certainly not the Hindus ? It is only the Govt.

 

You are also right again on another point. Tulsidasji would be the last

person to advice about hitting women. Those who dont understand shlokas,

only talk with such twisted meanings, or those with less buddhi, or

those with twisted personal agendas.

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

, chiranjiv mehta

<vchiranjiv wrote:

>

> The earlier words of Osho , may be right to some extent. But the truth

is that anyone can enter the temple .... there is no checking of

religion, caste etc.

> Also some of the greatest devotees of Lord Krishna and Rama were born

in what is termed as OBC, SC etc in government language.

> The categorisation of a person by his birth is wrong, it should be by

his actions. He may born without some privileges ( that should take care

of the accumulated Karma )Â but can and has every right to progress (

that is the flexibility that nature and God provides us ).

> As for Sant Tulsidasji and women - I was told by someone a few weeks

ago .

> The Saint was married to very good woman and smitten by her. One day

she visited her parents house. Unable to bear seperation from her , Sant

Tulsidasji went all the way to her village just to meet her. In his

anxiety to see her, he climbed up to her window holding what he thought

was a rope but actually a snake !

> While he was hanging by the rope, his beloved wife told him something

that would change his life. She asked him what would happen if he had as

much love for God ? That was major turning point in his

life.

> I doubt if he asked a woman to be hit without any

reference.Â

>

>

> Chiranjiv Mehta

>

>

> --- On Mon, 5/10/09, sreesog sreesog wrote:

>

>

> sreesog sreesog

> Re: Osho's words

>

> Monday, 5 October, 2009, 7:05 PM

>

>

> Â

>

>

>

> Dear All,

> Â Again from Osho

> Love and regards,

> Sreenadh

>

> ============ ========= =======

>

> A very famous hindu saint, Tulsidas, was taken into a Krishna temple.

Now, he was a follower of Rama: When he was taken inside the Krishna

temple he would not bow down. And the friend who had taken him there

said, “You are not bowing down to Krishna?†He said,

“How can I? I bow down only to Rama. My god is Rama, not Krishna.

I can bow down only if the statue of Krishna changes its form and

becomes the statue of Rama.â€

> The story goes on: it says the statue of Krishna changed its form and

became the statue of Rama. Then Tusidas bowed down.

> The first part seems to be historical, the second part seems to be

fictitious �� " and not only fictitious but stupid too. Because

God cannot concede, agree, to such bartering. But it shows the mind of

the so-called mahatmas. Even a man like Tulsidas, who has written some

of the greatest poetry in the world.... He was certainly a great poet,

but not a mystic �� " a great man of knowledge, but not

enlightened. Otherwise how could he have said such a thing? �� "

“God should take the form of my deity†What is he asking?

He is saying “I can bow down only to my concept of God. God is

irrelevant, my concept is important.†This is ego trip. He is not

bowing to God, he is bowing to his own egoâ€

> (Source: http://books. google.co. in/books?

id=JfV7iKavOP8C & pg=PA102 & dq=Osho+about+ Tulsidas+

Rama & ei=V9rJSqqZHJqIlQSd -8GzAw#v= onepage & q= & f=false )

> ============ ========= =======

>

> ancient_indian_ astrology, " sreesog " sreesog@

wrote:

> >

> > Dear All,

> > Just pasting some words of Osho below.

> > Regards,

> > Sreenadh

> > ============ ========= ========= =====

> > To me, just because something is written in a book does not mean

that it

> > has to be right. The criterion for its being right has to be

> > humanitarian. The Hindu scriptures say that the women have to be

> > categorized just like animals. The great Hindu saint Tulsidas says

that

> > every woman has to be beaten at least once a week. Just because it

is

> > written by Tulsidas, it does not become a truth. It simply shows the

> > stupidity of the man, the inhumanity of the man, and his book should

be

> > burned. At least all the women around the country, wherever they

find

> > Tulsidas’ book, should immediately burn it. It is male

> > chauvinistic. To me, who is not part of any religion, there is no

> > prejudice. Everything has to be clear-cut and straightforward, no

> > politics in it. That’s what the Shankaracharya is doing. And

> > opposing him, another Hindu sannyasin, Swami Agnivesh, is doing the

> > same. Politics is such a game. It makes people like footballs. Their

> > interests are different; Agnivesh is against the Shankaracharya. I

am

> > against both, because they are two polarities of the same politics.

The

> > Shankaracharya does not want Hindu harijans to enter into Nath

Dwara, a

> > temple in Rajasthan. And Agnivesh is determined to take a big crowd

of

> > harijans and enter forcibly into the temple, where never in the

whole of

> > history has any harijan been allowed. It is not because of great

> > compassion that Agnivesh is trying to bring harijans. And the

> > Shankaracharya is determined that they cannot enter, and he will do

> > everything to prevent the entry because that will spoil the purity

of

> > the temple. The harijans should see a simple point, that for

centuries

> > Hindus have been entering that temple � " what have they gained

> > except poverty, slavery, starvation? What are harijans going to gain

by

> > entering in Nath Dwara uninvited, rejected? If they listen to an

> > unprejudiced approach, they should spit on this temple which has

never

> > in centuries allowed their ancestors to enter. They should refuse.

Even

> > if the Shankaracharya touches their feet and asks them to come into

Nath

> > Dwara, they should not enter such ugly places, so inhuman, so

violent

> > … But the poor harijans will not understand a simple fact: you

> > have been tortured for ten thousand years and still you go on

thinking

> > of yourselves as Hindu. You are not! Hindus themselves have rejected

> > you; you are not allowed to enter their temples, you are not allowed

to

> > read their scriptures. On what grounds do they say you are Hindus?

They

> > burn your villages, hundreds of people burned alive � "

strangely,

> > young children, old men. They just save young girls, to rape, and

this

> > has been going on and on for centuries. It is for the harijans to

> > reject Agnivesh and tell him, “Go and jump into the ocean.

> > Don’t bother us, we are not Hindus.†And tell the

> > Shankaracharya, “Why are you unnecessarily making a fuss? Who

> > wants to enter your temple? Keep your temple!†Harijans

should

> > declare themselves independent from Hindus. They are such a big

force

> > that they will change the whole character of Indian politics. They

are

> > one fourth of all Hindus; one fourth of the power should go to them.

> > Even Mahatma Gandhi deceived. Before India’s independence, he

was

> > saying that the first president should be a harijan girl. He was

> > proposing two things: raising the respect towards women and the

respect

> > towards the harijan. And when the country became independent, he

forgot

> > it completely. Again the brahmins, the Nehrus … and they have

made

> > themselves a dynasty. They call it democracy. As an individual, I

> > don’t belong to any party or to any religion. I am not a

> > politician and I am not a religious man in the ordinary sense

because I

> > am not Hindu nor Mohammedan nor Christian. I don’t feel that

I

> > have to belong to any organization; I am enough unto myself. And

that is

> > my whole teaching, that you should not belong to any organization;

you

> > are enough. Your splendor has to be independent. The women also have

to

> > come to a conclusive decision that they will not vote for men. Half

of

> > the country belongs to women � " half of the parliament should

also

> > belong to them. They should ask for a separate vote; no woman is

going

> > to vote for any man of any party. It is not a question of party, it

is

> > a question of a long slavery that man has imposed on women. All

women

> > should fight against this slavery. In India, the harijans and the

women

> > are the two most oppressed, insulted, humiliated beings. If they get

> > together, this country will belong to them. Let these

Shankaracharyas

> > and these Nehrus be forgotten. It is a simple fact that freedom has

not

> > come to the country. Britain has gone but slavery is still here.

What

> > kind of spirituality is it, that does not allow human beings to

enter

> > temples?

> > (Source:

> > http://sureslive. wordpress. com/2008/ 03/01/zen- the-solitary-

bird-cuckoo- o\

> > f-the-forest/

> > <../../../../ ../../../ ../../../ ../../Oi/ 8vc3V/y/ZXNsaXZl

Lndv/cmRwcmVzcy5 \

> > jb20v/MjAwOC8wMy8wM S/96/ZW4tdGhlL/ XNvb/Gl/0YXJ5LWJ

pc/mQtY3Vja29vLW 9mLXRo\

> > ZS1/mb3J/lc3Qv/ /b0/> )

> > ============ ========= ========= =====

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

From cricket scores to your friends. Try the India Homepage!

http://in./trynew

>

[Guest guest]

It is very heartening to note that members of this august forum who are

expected to be elevated in their thinkings , are true in their

expectations and do not to the views of this twisted thinking

of people who cannot understand what Tulsidasji actually meant.

 

We must never accept all the websites on the Net and their owners as

perfect, but use our own commonsense and listen to the voice of our

conscience before making judgments.

 

It is better to always read the commentaries of elevated souls of yore,

on these great epics and texts, rather than the interpretations of the

Modern day perverted souls. And do not think that th olden guys did not

know about anything o be expected in this modern day generation. For

instance " Oral sex " also known as " Fellatio " was known by the ancients

and they have mentioned about the evils that would befall on those

indulging in this, in the Puranas. The three Puranas which I have

suggested in one of my earlier mails have descriptive reference on same,

and I hope someone who reads all these Puranas would point out to the

rest, where this is mentioned . (I do not want to do this, for I want

all to read these Puranas ).

 

Let us not at the drop of the hat disown the writings of these great

souls, but look into our own shortcmings in not being able to understand

what they actually meant.

 

Best wishes,

 

Bhaskar.

 

 

, " Bhaskar "

<bhaskar_jyotish wrote:

>

>

> Dear all,

>

> I always advise everyone to read the ancient texts and interpretations

> from the Masters rather than read interpretations of those who have

not

> realised.

>

> Here " Tadna " does not mean " to hit " . Here " tadna " means to " check

> constantly " , to keep " under check " . All of these, Dhol,

> Shudra,Ganwar,Pashu Naari.

>

> For instance-

>

> A Dhol if the drummer does not check, the sound will not be good when

> playing the instrument.

>

> Shudra - Servant if not kept under check will drink wine from your

> bottle and also rob yoiu of your wealth when not around.

>

> Ganwar- If You ask a ganwar to cut the apple in few pieces, he may

hurt

> himself.

>

> Pashu - If You dont keep your dog in check he will start dirtying your

> house or bite you.

>

> Naari - If not kept under check, may turn wayward.

>

> Dear freinds, let us not act like idiots unless we understand the

> " Marma " we have no right to comment on Tulsidasa.

>

> Rajneesh was a good man in many ways, so I am not commenting on this

> article of his, bcoz no sense in continuing unimportant chapters.

>

> regards/Bhaskar.

>

>

> , " Sudan " msbohra62@

> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> >

> > About women Tulsidas Ji have written

> >

> > " Dhor,Gawar,Shudra,Pashu or Naaree,

> > Sakal Tadan ke adhikari "

> >

> > May be in " Uttar-Kand " of Ramayan.It has deep meaning,if we use only

> word than we will feel that Tulsidas ji have written some thing wrong

> about all these.As i understand in general these all not have deep

> understanding of any subject we can direct them in right direction by

> some strictness or some " Ankush " on them.Because by nature these all

are

> very " Chanchal " (Not stable in nature).

> >

> > Thanks,

> >

> > M.S.Bohra

> >

> >

> >

> > , " sreesog " sreesog@

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Bhaskar ji,

> > > Even though I don't agree to many of your statements, even though

> > > many of those statements may not be applicable to Osho; I liked

your

> > > mail since many of those statements are applicable to any average

> human

> > > being. May ideas they convey are valuable and applicable to the

> society

> > > as a whole. So I liked your post and so won't comment upon the

same.

> > > []

> > > //> This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since

I

> > > likle the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on

this

> > > article without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people

> to

> > > whom narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made.//

> > > Well said! []

> > > Note: By the way, I presented the words of Osho on Tulsidas just

to

> > > present an alternative perspective only - me too have good regards

> to

> > > Tulsidas. [] But Osho was a great guru, since he is able to show

> us

> > > the alternative perspectives as well. []

> > > Love and regards,

> > > Sreenadh

> > >

> > > , " Bhaskar "

> > > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Dear Sreenadh ji,

> > > >

> > > > In oshos own words,i would say that every book he writes, he may

> not

> > > mean it at all times, and neither would every book written by him

be

> > > right. Additionally, views, preferences keep on changing with the

> same

> > > person with his passing years. What he may hav emeant at age of 30

,

> may

> > > not necessarily be his views at age 52. In same vein some people

> talk

> > > right when young and talk rubbish when older after having seen

> affluence

> > > fall prey to sex, good money and enjoyments thereof and loose

their

> > > sense or discrimination of right or wrong. So again not necessary

> that a

> > > man may be more wiser at age 60, than what he was at age 30. This

> may

> > > also be the opposite. I am not talking of Osho but in general.

Again

> a

> > > certain sermon may be given to a Group of people at a certain time

> for

> > > attaining certain gains, and another section may be shown in bad

> light

> > > just ti ipmress upon the section from whom gains are desired.

> > > > This whole world nothing is same, so even views change. Since I

> likle

> > > the man Osho, and also his brains, I will not comment on this

> article

> > > without knowing the exact cause,context, section of people to whom

> > > narrated, and for what purpose criticism was made. As far as I

know

> he

> > > loved the Hindu religion, and was proud to be a Hindu.

> > > >

> > > > And we all know that what a man preaches, he seldom practises.

> > > >

> > > > regards/Bhaskar.

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji, //Dear freinds, let us not act like idiots unless we understand the

"Marma" we have no right to comment on Tulsidasa.// Do we have the right to comment on Osho? Let us leave them as they are - since they were both great souls; we can't understand neither of them and judge neither of them. But alternate perspectives are always worth reading - not for their benefit - but to keep ourselves unbiased. This is the point I would love to drive home. Love and regards,Sreenadh , "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:>> > Dear all,> > I always advise everyone to read the ancient texts and interpretations> from the Masters rather than read interpretations of those who have not> realised.> > Here " Tadna" does not mean "to hit". Here "tadna" means to "check> constantly", to keep "under check". All of these, Dhol,> Shudra,Ganwar,Pashu Naari.> > For instance-> > A Dhol if the drummer does not check, the sound will not be good when> playing the instrument.> > Shudra - Servant if not kept under check will drink wine from your> bottle and also rob yoiu of your wealth when not around.> > Ganwar- If You ask a ganwar to cut the apple in few pieces, he may hurt> himself.> > Pashu - If You dont keep your dog in check he will start dirtying your> house or bite you.> > Naari - If not kept under check, may turn wayward.> > Dear freinds, let us not act like idiots unless we understand the> "Marma" we have no right to comment on Tulsidasa.> > Rajneesh was a good man in many ways, so I am not commenting on this > article of his, bcoz no sense in continuing unimportant chapters.> > regards/Bhaskar.> > > , "Sudan" msbohra62@> wrote:> >> > Dear Sreenadh ji,> >> > About women Tulsidas Ji have written> >> > "Dhor,Gawar,Shudra,Pashu or Naaree,> > Sakal Tadan ke adhikari"> >> > May be in "Uttar-Kand" of Ramayan.It has deep meaning,if we use only> word than we will feel that Tulsidas ji have written some thing wrong> about all these.As i understand in general these all not have deep> understanding of any subject we can direct them in right direction by> some strictness or some "Ankush" on them.Because by nature these all are> very "Chanchal"(Not stable in nature).> >> > Thanks,> >> > M.S.Bohra

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskar ji

 

I think it is not a right forum to talk about Osho, I would like to know your veiws.

 

Regrds

Dr Mishra

[Guest guest]

Dear Goel ji

 

Mahatama Goswami Tulsi das ji

 

Stated

 

 

Dhole , Gawar , shudra ,pashu ,nari, yes sab tadan ke adhikar

 

It meaning is that id any woman behave like animal, shudra , and she have no human charecter she have to punished, so this case comes for every human being, if a male also have not such charecter he have also punished.

 

So Goswami ji was real thinker and trikal darshi

 

Reagrds

Dr Mishra

[Guest guest]

Dear Bohra ji

 

Basically I belong to same place chitrakut UP and is only 5 km distance from Goswami Tulsidas birth place.

 

Becuase this doha in awadhi and have sense of Bundelkhani, so if a person know hindi , he cant interpretate reall sense of the word.

 

Hindi language is established when local language given some contribution.

 

Lot of peoples talk againt same doha but they dont under stand spirit of the word.

 

Bhaskar ji used lot of efforts to justify what is meaning of the Doha , i am very grweatful to him.

Thanks Bhaskar Ji to interpretate the doha.

 

Regards

 

Dr Mishra

[Guest guest]

Dear Mishra ji,

 

When i seen that some thing wrong have been taken and interpretation was in

wrong way so i have mentioned the real chopai.Dear Utkal ji have rightly

interpreted that this chopai when said and by whom in which reference.We have to

take or understand the real deep meaning before any conclusion specially

contents our Granths.

 

We are not able to take the words of meaning in real sense so it is always

advise to recite again and again to understand deep meanings.

 

Bhaskar ji have elaborated in simple language.Many times Sreenadh ji

intentionally create some controversial statements for further deep discussion,i

assume he have did again this.Other wise he is a good interpreter.

 

Thanks,

 

M.S.Bohra

 

, Akhil Mishra <astro6301

wrote:

>

> Dear Bohra  ji

>  

> Basically I  belong to same place  chitrakut UP and is  only  5 km  distance 

from Goswami Tulsidas  birth place.

>  

> Becuase  this  doha   in awadhi and  have sense of Bundelkhani, so  if a

person  know  hindi  , he  cant interpretate  reall sense of  the word.

>  

> Hindi language  is  established when local language  given some  contribution.

>  

> Lot  of peoples  talk againt same doha  but they  dont  under stand  spirit 

of the  word.

>  

> Bhaskar ji  used  lot of efforts to justify   what  is  meaning  of the  Doha

, i am very  grweatful to him.

> Thanks  Bhaskar  Ji  to interpretate the  doha.

>  

> Regards

>  

> Dr Mishra

>

[Guest guest]

Dear members,I have not perused Tulisidas' works in great detail. But, in all honesty, if this couplet exists, then the meaning of it is clear - we may attempt to hide it and try and make it sound estoteric and great - but the fact is in plain sight, Tulsidas-goswamiji erred on this one. This statement is a reflection of societal conditions and that time and it was perhaps " justifiable " in the eyes of the common public to allow violence against women..

Remember, Tulsidas-ji is not God, so he is not perfect. Why, even arjuna himself - the very incarnation of Indra - speaks arrogantly in front of bhagawan Krishna so many many times - he gets agnyana 100s of times !!! For example, when the war is about to begin, what does this hero say? " ratham sthApaya _me_ achyuta " ('stop " MY " charriot, Krishna') what arrogance!!! he is talking as if the charriot is his and krishna is some menial driver...ha ha. You see, agnyaya is very very strong, and so we should always try to be aware of it, but it can defeat us even if bhagawan is standing directly in front of us.

Yes, I am claiming here that Tuslidasji and his writings are not perfect - but I do not mean that we are better than him in any sense. An elephant may sometimes sneeze, but that doesn't mean that the termites can laugh at it...we are all insignificant before the greatness of Tulsidasji's bhakti.

So, it is not necessary to rationalize and idolize a mere human when we have the perfect paramAtma to concentrate on...why waste time on discussing the small stone when we can be savoring the delicious taste of kheer that is tulsi-ramayan? take the stone out and throw it, do not paint it white and try chewing it just because you love the cook.

hari smaraNs,prANadAsa.On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Akhil Mishra <astro6301 wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Bohra  ji

 

Basically I  belong to same place  chitrakut UP and is  only  5 km  distance  from Goswami Tulsidas  birth place.

 

Becuase  this  doha   in awadhi and  have sense of Bundelkhani, so  if a person  know  hindi  , he  cant interpretate  reall sense of  the word.

 

Hindi language  is  established when local language  given some  contribution.

 

Lot  of peoples  talk againt same doha  but they  dont  under stand  spirit  of the  word.

 

Bhaskar ji  used  lot of efforts to justify   what  is  meaning  of the  Doha , i am very  grweatful to him.

Thanks  Bhaskar  Ji  to interpretate the  doha.

 

Regards

 

Dr Mishra

[Guest guest]

Dear Bohra Ji,

 

Key of controversy is, why a person whether rajneesh or any body takes

up only a heated dialogue between two chacracters to ridicule the authur

and epic both, what was his intention, let's check, in or daily life,

how many times we use the words like " idiot, you need a slap " , so, when

an auhor draws up such a scenario in a book, he will use similar

expression, quite normal and obvious.

 

What was said by Samudra, realizing his arrogance, in a tune of sorry,

is projected by Osho as wisdom of Ram Charit manas.

 

A critic is never equal to an author, when a critic badly projects a

dialogue as wisdom of the epic, his integrity is doubtful. I said, Osho

or any critic as they are not from an institutional background, they

don't acknowledge their responsibility towards readers or towards

society, such critic connects the convenient dots to draw a shape that

they want to project, so that, they can get a ground, mostly, this sort

of controversy is created in the time when such critics are in their

struggle period, this is an effort to draw attention, let's be cautious.

there is no spirituality about it.

 

A reader needs to move on ...... critics w'd come and die.

 

Fellow astrologers should understand, why SundarKand works as a remedy

to Shani Dosha, had there been any thing wrong, destiny and divinity w'd

have not accepted as a medium to overcome Sani Dosha, that's itself is

an evidence for validity of sundar kanda.

 

Utkal.

 

 

, " Sudan " <msbohra62

wrote:

>

>

>

>

> Dear Mishra ji,

>

> When i seen that some thing wrong have been taken and interpretation

was in wrong way so i have mentioned the real chopai.Dear Utkal ji have

rightly interpreted that this chopai when said and by whom in which

reference.We have to take or understand the real deep meaning before any

conclusion specially contents our Granths.

>

> We are not able to take the words of meaning in real sense so it is

always advise to recite again and again to understand deep meanings.

>

> Bhaskar ji have elaborated in simple language.Many times Sreenadh ji

intentionally create some controversial statements for further deep

discussion,i assume he have did again this.Other wise he is a good

interpreter.

>

> Thanks,

>

> M.S.Bohra

>

> , Akhil Mishra

astro6301@ wrote:

> >

> > Dear Bohra ji

> >

> > Basically I belong to same place chitrakut UP and is only 5 km

distance from Goswami Tulsidas birth place.

> >

> > Becuase this doha in awadhi and have sense of Bundelkhani, so

if a person know hindi , he cant interpretate reall sense of the

word.

> >

> > Hindi language is established when local language given some

contribution.

> >

> > Lot of peoples talk againt same doha but they dont under stand

spirit of the word.

> >

> > Bhaskar ji used lot of efforts to justify what is meaning of

the Doha , i am very grweatful to him.

> > Thanks Bhaskar Ji to interpretate the doha.

> >

> > Regards

> >

> > Dr Mishra

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Pradanada ji, //take the stone out and throw it, do not paint it white and try chewing it just because you love the cook.// Well said! I love it! I agree with you completely. Love and regards,Sreenadh , s s <freemorons wrote:>> Dear members,> I have not perused Tulisidas' works in great detail. But, in all honesty, if> this couplet exists, then the meaning of it is clear - we may attempt to> hide it and try and make it sound estoteric and great - but the fact is in> plain sight, Tulsidas-goswamiji erred on this one. This statement is a> reflection of societal conditions and that time and it was perhaps> "justifiable" in the eyes of the common public to allow violence against> women..> > Remember, Tulsidas-ji is not God, so he is not perfect. Why, even arjuna> himself - the very incarnation of Indra - speaks arrogantly in front of> bhagawan Krishna so many many times - he gets agnyana 100s of times !!! For> example, when the war is about to begin, what does this hero say? "ratham> sthApaya _*me*_ achyuta" ('stop "*MY*" charriot, Krishna') what arrogance!!!> he is talking as if the charriot is his and krishna is some menial> driver...ha ha. You see, agnyaya is very very strong, and so we should> always try to be aware of it, but it can defeat us even if bhagawan is> standing directly in front of us.> > Yes, I am claiming here that Tuslidasji and his writings are not perfect -> but I do not mean that we are better than him in any sense. An elephant may> sometimes sneeze, but that doesn't mean that the termites can laugh at> it...we are all insignificant before the greatness of Tulsidasji's bhakti.> > So, it is not necessary to rationalize and idolize a mere human when we have> the perfect paramAtma to concentrate on...why waste time on discussing the> small stone when we can be savoring the delicious taste of kheer that is> tulsi-ramayan? take the stone out and throw it, do not paint it white and> try chewing it just because you love the cook.> > hari smaraNs,> prANadAsa.

[Guest guest]

Dear Utkal ji,

//A critic is never equal to an author, when a critic badly

projects a dialogue as wisdom of the epic, his integrity is doubtful. //

Such statements are

never always true. The beings like Osho

are proof of the same to us. Osho is NOT criticizing Tulisidas or anyone one

else for that matter - but for him they were all mere tools to express his own

expression of truth that comes from within him. To know this, please try answering these questions sincerely (if

you have read Osho) -

* Osho criticized politicians,

priests, autocrats - Does it mean that

any of these politicians, priests deserve better value than Osho? Can't you see

that Osho stood for truth, but they haven't?

* Osho spoke about Jibran

and many other literary scholars - but can't you see that the original literary

contribution of osho and its quality is better than any author in the world?

* Osho spoke about psychology

and its masters - but can't you see that Psychology as a subject is never the

same before and after Osho - even for the psychologists?

* Osho spoke about

great spiritual masters - but can't you

see that approach spirituality for the sincere seeker is never the same before

and after Osho?

* Can't you see

that our knowledge of Tantra,

Geeta, Psychology, Spiritual masters

etc are never the same after Osho? Can't you see that his works an epic in

themselves (due to its volume and quality) and a record that none will break in

near future (till a better master incarnates)?

There were many

drops, but Osho is rain! There were many books, but Osho is the greatest

Library! There were many a piece of sand, but Osho is the seashore!

Osho is not a critic,

there is no need to be; All people he refers to become mere touchstones to

contrast and compare against and thus help us to show the truth - yes, the

truth and master in Osho. I value pure gold than the touchstones he used. But

ofcourse the touchstones has their own value.

Love and regards,

Sreenadh

, "utkal.panigrahi" <utkal.panigrahi wrote:>> > Dear Bohra Ji,> > Key of controversy is, why a person whether rajneesh or any body takes> up only a heated dialogue between two chacracters to ridicule the authur> and epic both, what was his intention, let's check, in or daily life,> how many times we use the words like " idiot, you need a slap", so, when> an auhor draws up such a scenario in a book, he will use similar> expression, quite normal and obvious.> > What was said by Samudra, realizing his arrogance, in a tune of sorry,> is projected by Osho as wisdom of Ram Charit manas.> > A critic is never equal to an author, when a critic badly projects a> dialogue as wisdom of the epic, his integrity is doubtful. I said, Osho> or any critic as they are not from an institutional background, they> don't acknowledge their responsibility towards readers or towards> society, such critic connects the convenient dots to draw a shape that> they want to project, so that, they can get a ground, mostly, this sort> of controversy is created in the time when such critics are in their> struggle period, this is an effort to draw attention, let's be cautious.> there is no spirituality about it.> > A reader needs to move on ...... critics w'd come and die.> > Fellow astrologers should understand, why SundarKand works as a remedy> to Shani Dosha, had there been any thing wrong, destiny and divinity w'd> have not accepted as a medium to overcome Sani Dosha, that's itself is> an evidence for validity of sundar kanda.> > Utkal.