Are Osho’s words anti-religion and social?

Chandra Mohan Jain alias Osho Rajneesh used to call himself God. The world calls him anti- religious and sex guru. Osho Rajneesh, the great thinker and spiritual guru of the 20th century is relevant even today because of his love and his opponents. It is said that Ronald Reagan government of America arrested him and put him in jail and later he was released after poisoning him under international conspiracy.

December 11, 1931 to Kucvadha village in Bareilly Tehsil, district Raisen, Madhya Pradesh state, the country he was born in India. He was the eldest of his 11 siblings. His mother’s name was Saraswati Jain and father’s name was Babulal Jain.
His father was Taranpanthi Digambar Jain. He left Osho in his maternal grandfather. His maternal grandfather and maternal grandmother brought him to Palaposa. Osho died when his maternal grandfather was 7 years old. His later life was spent in Gadarwada and Jabalpur.

 

Osho wrote hundreds of books, gave thousands of discourses. His discourses are available in the form of books, audio cassettes and video cassettes. When a person reads Osho’s books or hears cassettes of sermons, people advise that ‘read, but do not listen to their words. Don’t do as they say. Actually, it happened that you should tell people to ‘eat jaggery but avoid dumpling.’

You will find many such views of Osho in his discourses which are considered to be anti- religion, society and country. He has strongly criticized Hinduism and Gods and Goddesses. However, he has strongly criticized all religions except Buddhism. Does this mean that they were followers of Buddhism? Let’s know that some of those, just a few thoughts of Osho …

#

Some say that Osho’s words are anti-social. They do not believe in family, society, country, religion and morality. Many such examples can be presented from his discourses in which he has mocked all the above subjects. They want the person to live a chaotic and immoral life so that they themselves understand what a systematic and ethical life is… but here it has to be said that if a person does this then what percentage of his chances of returning to the right path will be The

#

If a person starts drinking alcohol and then gets addicted, when will he come on the right path? Come on, then the important time of his life will be over by then. Then life is going to be a compromise. Will she be touched if she becomes addicted to sex? Even after having more sex, the person does not get into the habit of sex. Some people say how anti-Osho is when he exposed the hypocrisy of all religions. They are against the hypocrisy and terror being practiced by religions and not against religion. For the first time, he has correctly defined religion and has put the cream of every religion in his discourses.

#

Osho is only a supporter of Buddhism: –

* If you have heard and read Osho, then you will understand one thing that they code Lord Buddha in all their discourses. They can say anything but they are capable of turning your mind towards Buddha in a very beautiful way. According to him, no one has been nor will there be before Gautam Mercury. He has made it clear in many of his discourses that Osho is a lover of Buddha. They also say that Gautama Buddha is the ultimate truth and philosophy of this world. Their religion is the last religion.

 

* Osho opposed Adi Shankaracharya a lot. According to Osho, Shankaracharya was the only person due to which Buddhism could not spread in this country … Now if you read Shankaracharya’s life, he gave up his body at the age of 32. Left home at the age of 11. Decreasing 11 out of 32, he served religion for 21 years. During this time, he traveled all over India on foot. You can estimate how long it takes to walk. Meaning half the time of life was spent on walking.

Wherever he stayed in Chaturmas during Bhramar, he gave discourses about Vedic Sanatana Dharma only to those who were Hindus. He did not do the work of converting any Buddhist king or followers. At 21, he formed the Denami sect, established his four benches near the four monasteries. Probably Osho would not know the history, so they would have spoken like that. You should read the history of Mughals for how Buddhism got destroyed by this country. The schools of Taxila and Nalanda were not broken by a disciple of any Shankaracharya. In Takshashila, 10 thousand monks were not slaughtered by any of Shankaracharya’s disciples.

#

Osho is opposed to Hinduism: –

* Osho made a lot of fun of the sannyas and sannyas of Hindus. He laid the foundation of his ‘neo-sannyas’ on the basis that one does not need to meditate by sitting somewhere in the Himalayas, forest, ashram or cave. No one needs to leave home and go somewhere for moksha, and salvation can be found here only by staying in the planet. Salvation can be found here by dancing and dancing among the Osho ascetics. But we have seen that Osho ascetics have been dancing and dancing for years, but we did not see any person receiving salvation.

#

In this neo-sanyas, the monk does not need to wear any saffron or ocher clothes. There is no need to follow the rosary and rules. There is no need to pray, pray, etc. Yama, there is no need to follow Nimay either. They also do not emphasize the correctness of conduct. Osho has termed the retirement of Hindus as hypocrisy. He talks of saints like Jorba-to-Buddha. ‘Jorba’ means a person completely immersed in enjoyment and ‘Buddha’ means nirvana. Now think is it possible If the senses get used to enjoyment and luxury, then how will they turn to salvation? Above, we have given the example of a liquor and an alcoholic.

#

Supporters of Dalits and anti-Brahmin Osho: –

Osho is accused that he has done a lot to provoke the Dalits by opposing Hinduism with their arguments. They say that the people of the cobbler society are born Buddhists, while Osho does not even know the history of cobbler society how and when he became cobbler. They were not shoemakers already or since ancient times. When leather slippers and shoes were invented, would they become cobblers? No one considers what they were before. Those who do not know the history of the Mughal and British era, they see their views only after seeing the present.

 

Osho says that Brahminism and Brahmins have persecuted Dalits for 10 thousand years, then surely they should get reservation for 10 thousand years …. If Osho speaks the truth and he does not do politics of religion then surely he It says that there is no suit like Brahman or Manuvad. In ancient times, there have been many such kings, priests or ascetics who according to the prevailing belief in the present era will be considered as a Dalit society. There were many Rishi Kumar, Rajputs who were Dalits.

The two words that the secularists have used or misused most in Indian politics are ‘Manuwad and Brahmanism’. Through these words, by dividing into Hindus, the votes of Dalits can be garbled or they can be converted. Loaves of religion and politics can be baked under the guise of Manuwad.

 

Most people have the illusion that Manu was a person who was a Brahmin. Whereas the fact is that Manu was a king. Apart from this, Manu has turned 14 so far. Among these, only the discussion of Swayambhuva Manu and Vaivasvata Manu is discussed more. Of these two, Manu Smriti is linked to Swayambhuva Manu.

 

The second confusion about Manu is to make Manu Samhita a Manuvad. Actually this word Manuwad is the word propagated in the last 70 years. There is a lot of difference between code and suit. Samhita is based on ideal rules, while debates are a matter of philosophy. Such as Atomism, Samkhism, Marxism, Gandhism etc. It is noteworthy that the word Dalit was also introduced only in the last few years. Earlier, the word Harijan was introduced by Mahatma Gandhi. Earlier, the word Shudra came into being during the British era and before it the word Shudra was in vogue. Similarly, Manuwad and Brahmanism are also the product of leftists.

 

Just as there is no suit like Manuwad, Brahmanism is also not a cause. But some people say that under any rule, law or tradition, when a person is considered eligible or unfit for any work based on his caste, religion, clan, color, race, family, language, birth in a particular province If it is known, it is called Brahmanism. Like being born in a Brahmin clan to become a priest. The general public’s thinking about Brahminism is limited here.

 

Nowadays the same is happening in the name of reservation, reservation is being given on the basis of birth in any caste, religion, clan, color, race, family, language, region. This is the modern form of Brahminism. Each such case is Brahminism. Be it feminism, farmerism, minorityism, dynasty; All of them are Brahminism because they are determined by birth, not by merit.

#

Osho against marriage institution: –

Due to Osho, the practice of ‘live in relationship’ started around the world. This is a deadly trend that is causing scatter and chaos in the society. Osho says that the concept of commune should be established by ending the family tradition. In Osho’s view, marriage is secondary when there is no need for a family.

 

Osho says that each family has a quarrel. What we call grihasthi remains a den of conflict, discord, enmity, jealousy and round-the-clock trouble. According to Osho, we have put the whole family at the center of the marriage. Osho wants people to marry without their will, even with love. There is no need for marriage. If there is a marriage, there will be a society, if there is a society, there will be a country If there is a country, there will be all kinds of disturbances too This marriage practice should end.

 

Osho is anti god or atheist: –

* Osho says that if God is there then all kinds of hypocrisy will be associated with him- all kinds of hypocrisy will be associated with sin-virtue, heaven-hell, avatarism, prophet, worship, religious conversion, scripture, temple, mosque, church etc. Without Profit and Scriptures, it is difficult to imagine God. Osho opposed the theocratic ideologies. God is not an external truth in Osho’s eyes.

* Osho says that readymade truths of religion or science will not work. I am not talking about doubt (dilemma). I am talking about doubt. You can reach the truth only if you have doubts. Faith and faith bind, freeing doubt … According to Osho’s view that ‘the world rests on faith’ can be a wrong sentence.

#

Anti-Religion Osho: –

Osho says that ‘For centuries man has been sold beliefs, principles, opinions, which are absolutely false, false, which are only proof of your ambitions, your laziness. You don’t want to do anything, and you want to reach heaven. ‘

 

But no pundit-priest or so-called religion wants you to reach for yourself, because as soon as you go out on your own quest, you come out of the shackles of all so-called religions – Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian. You come out of all those who are foolish and meaningless, because you have found your own truth.

 

Religion teaches you to believe in fear so that you do not question their scriptures. Do not question the profits. This is what religions have done for centuries. Religions are no longer needed in the world. There is no future for religion. Man has expressed his identity with the identity of religion. Some are Hindus, some Muslims, some Sikhs and some Christians. Mutual discrimination has increased in the name of religion. The result is that today religion is first man and his humanity later. Osho says, Anand is man’s nature and Anand has no caste, he has no religion.

#

Osho against poverty: –

* Osho says that poverty has spread in this country only by calling the poor one as ‘Narayana’. If you respect poverty and poverty, you can never be free from it. My monk should be such that he first focuses on money and then worries about meditation. Osho never took the side of the poor and poverty… even if people die of hunger on the road? Shouldn’t we be sensitive to the poor? Shouldn’t we feed bread to the hungry. If anyone is poor, it is the fault of the entire society and the system of this country and not religion. Religion talks about giving shelter to such people.

 

Osho is accused of being the master of only the rich. He promoted capitalism. He had around 100 Rolls Royce cars. He never took the side of the poor and poverty. Osho says not to be sadistic, be a hedonist. If you find sources of happiness, prosperity will automatically come.

#

Osho against socialism: –

Osho says that if ten thousand poor in a village and two men become rich by working hard among them, then the other nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine people will say that these two men got rich and made us poor. And no one asks that you were rich when these two men were not rich? You had some property, which they sucked. Otherwise, what does exploitation mean? How could we be exploited if we did not have it? Exploitation can be with someone who has it. Was there no poor in Hindustan when there was no rich? Yes, poverty was not known. Because some people get rich to know. Then the realization of poverty begins. It is very surprising that those who work hard, apply wisdom, labor and if they collect some wealth, then it seems that these people have done injustice.

 

Capitalism is not a system of exploitation. Capitalism is a system of converting labor into capital. There is a system of converting labor into capital. But when your labor is transformed, when you or I get two rupees for my labor, then I see that the person who gave me two rupees also has a car, the bungalow also gets erected. Naturally then I think that I am being exploited. And I had nothing that was exploited.

#

Osho strongly opposed Mahatma Gandhi: –

Osho has opposed Gandhi’s ideology in most of his discourses. He believed that this ideology is the ideology that takes man back. This is suicidal ideation. Osho says, ‘Gandhi calls the Gita a mother, but could not assimilate the Gita, because where would Gandhi’s non-violence place the possibilities of war? … So Gandhi finds a solution, he says that this war, it It’s just metaphor, it never happened. ‘

 

How can Krishna talk about Gandhi? Because Krishna explains to him that you fight. And the reasoning for fighting is unique, never given before. Only the non-violent can give that argument. Osho says, in my view, Krishna is non-violent and Gandhi is violent. There are two types of people, those who commit violence with others and those who commit violence with themselves. Gandhi was another type of person.

 

Osho has a book: ‘Hands up in rejection’. This book focuses solely on Gandhi. Osho says that Mahatma Gandhi used to think that if all the science and technology developed by man and his intellect after the spinning wheel is immersed in the sea, then all the problems will be solved. And the funny thing is that this country has believed him! And not only this country, but millions of people in the world believed him that Charkha will solve all the problems.

 

Leave a Comment