This report is an analysis of the bitter rivalry between the collective of Inner-Circle, Pune resort management, and Osho International Foundation (OIF), and the opposing side that includes groups like OshoWorld, Osho Friends International (OFI), and OshoViha. The conclusion reached is that the OIF-Pune resort collective is going against Osho, his vision, and the law. The opposing groups of people are not.
The idea of focusing on “Osho the vision” rather than “Osho the person” (or indeed Osho the photograph) appears to have some merit. It is argued that this is the key to a successful meeting between Osho and the contemporary mind. This is the key to the ‘success’ of the Pune resort, and Osho the mainstream popular author. I however argue that the collective of Osho International Foundation (OIF), the Inner-Circle, and the Pune resort management, are forcefully and systematically removing “Osho the person” not as the best and only means of supporting Osho’s legacy, but as a means of pursuing their own goals of wealth, power, and domination. They do this to the detriment of other approaches to sharing Osho’s legacy. I also demonstrate a logical proof that shows that the collective (OIF etc) are actually going against Osho and his vision. In other words, it is not the case that there are different Osho factions that need to come to some understanding and middle ground. Rather, it is the case that OIF (etc) are clearly in the wrong.
The situation is (not surprisingly) along parallel lines with the issue of the Buddha Hall pagoda and the Auditorium complex. It has always been repeated that the pagoda was removed (destroyed) because of the new Auditorium complex. I have however argued the reverse: the new Auditorium complex was built because of the need to remove Buddha Hall’s significance.
Along similar lines, it is not that Osho has been systematically removed from books, magazines, websites, and the Pune resort, to make way for Osho’s vision. Rather it is the reverse: the notion of “Osho the vision” has been created in order to remove the significance of “Osho the person”.
You might at first glance consider this absurd. This is because you have been deceived by a clever marketing campaign. I will provide here a clear parallel example to substantiate my point of view. At The Ranch, after Osho spent many years in silence and Sheela and her gang grew to dominate with violence, Osho decided it was time to start speaking again. It is absolutely astounding that the management of The Ranch (Sheela and her gang) discouraged and tried to prevent this from happening. Authentic sannyasins the world over had been waiting for the time when they could again sit at the feet of their Master, be graced by his presence, and listen to his wisdom. Yet those closest to him (presumably his closest disciples) tried to prevent this from happening. This is astounding.
Over the period of Osho’s silence, Sheela and her gang had taken charge, and used Osho paraphernalia as the means of doing so. Books or an audio/video discourse of Osho could draw in and keep Osho sannyasins, however with Osho not physically present, Sheela and her gang emerged at the top of the power hierarchy. The books and taped discourses present no threat to this power, and only stand to increase it by attracting followers. The key is that Osho the person had been removed from the game. Osho himself, though still alive, had stepped aside from the power structure. That Sheela tried to stop Osho re-emerging and retaking power (as number one in charge) is proof of Sheela and her gang’s ill motives.
As a footnote to this, knowing that Sheela set out to murder other disciples, it is not unreasonable to consider it distinctly possible that she had also planned to murder Osho (to prevent him from re-taking power).
After Osho left the body - supposedly from being poisoned by the United States – clearly he was no longer a threat to power. What was the need for such power struggles anyway: everyone was now lovingly trying to realize Osho’s dream. However if I had a mind like Sheela, or anyone else in her gang, I would adopt similar strategies. In this case, I don’t have to prevent Osho from talking (I think this is still the case, though he has said he will continue to go on talking after he leaves the body – just old habit). While I do not need to remove the living being Osho from the scene, what I can do is remove Osho the image, Osho the picture, and Osho the personalized and transcribed spoken word. You see if all that is personal is removed from the name Osho, than just like Osho not being present, it no longer is a potential threat to power. The argument may seem on the surface a little far fetched. However, anything that has a strong association with Osho the person means that whomsoever is attracted to “Osho”, is ultimately attracted to Osho the person – to Osho the real historic figure, not just a mythical figure attached to a vision.
To help explain how this works I will give a topical example. When Osho International Foundation (OIF - the owner of ‘osho.com’) tried to stop OshoWorld from using ‘oshoworld.com’ and have the domain name transferred to OIF, they lost the case for one reason, and for one reason only. They lost the case because Osho is not a made up name like Coke or Pepsi; Osho is the name of an historic and famous person (mystic). What is even more startling is that OIF, in their filing for licences and trademarks, did not explain that Osho was a real historic figure. They presented legal documentation that categorized Osho as simply a name, of which such things as meditations and therapies were attached. That OIF omitted to make it clear that Osho was a real historic figure is very revealing. Obviously OIF, supposedly representing Osho’s closest disciples, was aware that Osho was the name of a real, historic and famous person (mystic). What they did therefore was to remove “Osho the person” from the name Osho in order to advance their interest in monopolizing control of Osho copyright, trademark, and licensing.
If I again return to Sheela and her ways, it is important to note that the proof that she had not Osho’s best interest in mind was revealed when she did not want to let Osho the person return to his usual place. OIF have argued that they have Osho’s best interest in mind when they removed all his pictures, his pagoda, and many of his sannyasins from the ashram (now resort). They argued in the same way in support of their approach to mass marketing of commercially popular abridged Osho literature.
The efforts of other Osho sannyasins to bring Osho’s message to the world through his image, his picture, and un-edited text, has been met by staunch resistance from OIF. The arguments fly back and forwards between different parties: cost-price versus mark-up; edited versus un-edited; with a picture of Osho versus without a picture of Osho; free download versus priced download; budget ashram versus 5-star resort. However, and this is the key, why would OIF resist this in the way that they have? I argue here that it is the same as asking Why would Sheela try and stop Osho from talking? Why are they trying to control domain names with the word osho in it? Why are they trying to prevent people from downloading Osho script, audio, and discourse that is available at cost-price (basically free). Their actions appear difficult to understand.
Osho was for example utterly unchanging on the fact that his books were to be sold at cost price. Admittedly they were a little more expensive then some books because they were in hard cover. However this was to ensure that they lasted long – his message was timeless and not like a quick-read mainstream novel. Why would OIF do this? I conclude in this report that the reason is because to allow actions such as un-edited cost-price content would restrict their domination as sole controlling interest in Osho’s legacy.
Why would there be any arguments, why would there be any opposing sides, if both parties had Osho’s interest solely in mind (at heart). The only logical explanation is that one or both of the competing parties do not.
OIF is trying to remove “Osho the person” and just leave “Osho the vision”. It is argued that this is in tune with Osho the person’s “vision”, and that it is most in tune with the modern world – the modern Westernized mind (which also includes many ‘progressive’ Indians). Whether or not there argument holds water is a moot point. The key to unravelling the riddle is that they do not want to allow people to offer “Osho the person” to the world. They use threats, banning, and law-suits to ensure that this does not happen. They even lied to United States legal entities (by omitting the fact that Osho was a person) in order to obtain trademarks and licenses. This meant that they could enforce their position through legal authority. Though they have done this in many instances, a legal challenge has ensured that this approach is now failing in the United States. It is failing because OIF failed to inform the relevant authorities that Osho was indeed the name of a real historic figure, and the authorities are now aware of this.
If we take a look at the other side of the warring factions - (apparently) like a political divide between capitalism and socialism, or democrats and republicans – it is clear that they are openly critical of OIF’s position, of the current inner-circle, and of the management of the resort in Pune. However groups like OshoWorld, Osho Friends International (OFI), and OshoViha have not to my knowledge made efforts to actually coercively restrict the operation of the opposing side – aside from normal competitive practices. That is to say, they are not trying to monopolize Osho and his legacy. (The raising of issues such as editing of books and above cost pricing are prima facie legitimate concerns, as will be discussed later). However OIF have on the other hand proven that they are trying to actively disallow the operating of any individual or group that does not act in strict accordance with their view of how to carry out Osho’s legacy. OIF is trying to shutdown OshoWorld. OIF tried to have the domain name ‘oshoworld.com’ transferred to themselves. Can you imagine how much that would have affected OshoWorld (in Delhi) in their efforts to offer Osho to the world. OIF have also tried to restrict Osho meditations and therapies by wielding trademarks obtained through false pretence. Through legal threats they have currently forced OshoWorld to stop providing free downloadable audio and video of Osho.
By trying to monopolise Osho’s legacy - by trying to stop other genuine sannyasins from sharing Osho with the world in a different yet credible manner - OIF (and the inner-circle and Pune resort management) have proven that they do not have Osho’s best interest in mind (at heart). It clearly cannot be argued that there is something wrong with quality Osho literature, downloads, meditations, and pictures, especially if they are at cost price. Hence OIF is restricting legitimate means of Osho’s message reaching out to people. How can this not be going against the best interest of Osho?
In the same way that Sheela tried to stop Osho from talking, OIF is trying to stop “Osho the person” from being shared with the world. It is proof that they (like Sheela and her murderous gang) have de-Oshoized Osho not in the interest of Osho, but in the interest of maintaining power as the sole heir to Osho’s legacy. In the same way that Sheela proved that her interest was not with Osho but with her own abhorrent domination, the senior members of OIF (and the inner-circle and resort management) have also proven that they too will de-Oshoize Osho in the interest of control.
Not surprisingly it is likely that the accumulation of wealth is also a contributing factor. No doubt free downloads would have a significant competitive impact on paid for downloads of Osho content.
The argument that I have presented is a logical proof. It is not that it is a conclusion that is something to be judged this way or that. Of course the premises in the argument need also be accepted before the conclusion is granted.
What is a logical proof? It is a situation where if certain conditions arise then the outcome is by definition true. If I am a sannyasin and Osho is my master, then it logically follows that I am an Osho sannyasin. It is a logical proof. Of course the premises would need to be established to be true in order to actually determine whether or not a person was in fact an Osho sannyasin. In other words, it would need to be determined whether a person is a sannyasin, and whether or not Osho is their master. If both these premises or preconditions are met than then it follows that the fact that I am an Osho sannyasin is a logical truth.
The argument that I use in the above report is as follows. If a person or group of people are trying to stop another person or group of persons from engaging in genuine Osho related activity, then they are not acting in the best interest of Osho. A precondition is that the ‘other’ people must be shown to be genuinely engaged in Osho related activity. Also, a basic requirement to be considered as a person or group of persons in this exercise is that they must be abiding by the laws of the land.
Another possible precondition relates to the following. In the event that there are competing interests, the expansion in one area of activity may lead to the reduction in activity of another group (competition). More people are receiving sannyas from one person and less from another person (or group) for example. However, to use this as a third condition in the argument is problematic. Who is to say how much an increase in one area of activity leads to a decreases in another area of activity; who is to say whether there is a net benefit or not. It might be for example argued that an increase in one area may lead to an increase in another area (synergy rather than competition). For the above reasons this condition is not a credible option as a precondition.
How does the collective of Pune resort management, inner-circle, and OIF, fit into the presented argument, preconditions, and requirements?
I will take the legal requirement first. There is significant reason to believe that OIF has broken United States law in lying by omission: as discussed earlier they failed to inform the relevant legal entity that Osho was a real, historic and famous person.
Turning now to the inner-circle and Pune resort, there is significant evidence to indicate that the Pune resort (Osho International Meditation Resort) has been for many years operating in a state of severe neglect, exposing sannyasins and visitors alike to harm and serious risk of harm. The list of ongoing and poorly addressed issues includes exposure to contaminated drinking water (and food), poor hygiene standards, the ingestion of toxic levels of chemicals, (cabled and other) tree hazards, unsafe and poor design of buildings, non-functioning or poorly maintained equipment, and inadequate night lighting.
Significant financial investment has gone into creating the appearing of a beautiful spiritual resort, however the truth is that basic maintenance and infrastructure needs have been ignored, and for many years the centre has operated in a severe state of disrepair. The ongoing drinking water problems (first identified 5 or 6 or more years ago) remind me of Sheela and her poisoning tactics.
Why is it that in all dictatorial regimes the general population subsists in a state of low physical wellbeing - things like a poor health system, frequent illness, and rampant disease? It is in part this way to keep the population weak. Then they shall not be a threat to the regimes domination. There are obviously other reasons: financial restraints and profiteering; inefficiencies; cruelty. There appears to me to be significant parallels between dictatorial regimes and the Pune resort.
Why would the people with financial and managerial responsibility for the resort (presumably resort management and the inner-circle) take the decision not to invest in basic infrastructure (a properly functioning water treatment system that actually does provide clean water for example)? Well for one thing, if the drinking water gets too contaminated visitors can drink the bottled water, and they have to pay for that. Also, it is a significant financial burden offering very little real return, especially when no-one knows what is really going on.
Dr Amrito, the vice-president of the inner-circle and long-term resort resident, is well aware of the serious contamination of drinking water; he was involved with looking at the issue when it (I assume) first arose some 5 or 6 years ago. Yogendra, inner-circle member, former resort administrator, and brother to the inner-circle chairmen (Jayesh), is also similarly aware. E-mail correspondence between Yogendra and Jayesh suggests that Jayesh is also aware (of the problem that is). Of course it would be very surprising if other senior members of the inner-circle were aware of such a significant problem and Jayesh was not. The same goes for Mukhesh. Many people in resort management positions know about what has been happening, as do many others. However it is likely that these other people are too scared to speak out.
From the above it is very difficult to see how the collective of Osho resort management, inner-circle, and OIF, actually meet the basic requirement of legality.
I will now address the precondition that the ‘other’ party or parties need to be shown to be engaging in genuine Osho activity. The other parties are prima facie authentic Osho groups and individuals. Their activities can generally be said to include the concept of “Osho the person”. Hence there is an emphasis on have pictures of Osho. This is hardly going to be considered non-genuine conduct. They present quality literature that is not edited. There can be no argument against the provision of well presented direct Osho text. A general feature is the availability on the internet of Osho content that happens to be available for free. There can be no argument against providing accurate, quality content for free, no matter what the media. Perhaps these ‘other’ parties – groups like OshoWorld, OshoTapovan, OshoViha, and Osho Friends International (OFI) – are engaging in illegal activity. I am not aware of any claims of illegality, and here assume that they are legally operating enterprises.
So we have it that the collective in question (OIF, inner-circle, and resort management) does not meet the requirement of legality. Also it is reasonable to conclude that the ‘other’ groups in question are engaging in genuine Osho related activity. This means I will turn to the central text of the argument: are the collective of Pune resort management, inner-circle, and OIF, trying to stop another person or group of persons from engaging in genuine Osho related activity?
OIF has had books shredded, not on the grounds of quality, but on basis of copyright infringement. OIF has repeatedly shut down Osho websites, not on the basis of quality, but on the basis of copyright and trademark infringement. OIF has repeatedly shut down downloading of Osho audio/video content, not on the basis of quality, but on the basis of copyright infringement. OIF has tried to have OshoWorld’s “oshoworld.com” domain name transferred to OIF on the basis of trademark infringement. OIF has acted in a coercive manner in trying to get centres to sign an agreement of understanding that although these centres are engaging in genuine Osho related activity, the ultimate control and rights rest with OIF. However what right does OIF have to have control over peoples Osho related activities. The situation is the same as with the domain name infringement case. The legal ruling was that because (as previously omitted by OIF) Osho was in fact a real historic and famous person, then the name Osho could not be owned. The same is for centre activities relating to Osho: Osho meditations and therapies for example. If a centre is conducting an Osho meditation or therapy in accordance with Osho’s instructions, then nobody has any rights over them. Why you might ask? The answer is because Osho is a real historic and famous person, and therefore his meditations and therapies cannot be owned by anyone in particular. OIF’s conduct in this regard is highly coercive and very questionable. I have a sense that further investigation in this area will bring to light similar cases of interference and monopolization.
It is clear that the collective including OIF is trying to stop other credible parties from advancing genuine Osho related interests. This collective is trying to disallow “Osho the person” and just present “Osho the vision” (albeit from my point of view a seriously erroneous one). It is also attempting to exert coercive control over groups that appear to fit with their idea of Osho’s legacy.
It is therefore concluded from the above that the collective of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management firstly do not meet the requirement of legality. Also, it is concluded that the ‘other’ parties are engaged in genuine Osho related activity. The collective is also trying to stop other genuine groups from freely engaging in Osho related activity. Hence I conclude that the collective of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management are not acting in the best interest of Osho, and also have dubious legal stature.
Does the argument work in reverse?
Firstly I am not aware of any illegal activity by the ‘other’ groups. If it came to light that this was not the case, then obviously there would be serious implications.
Is the collective including OIF and Pune resort engaging in genuine Osho related activities? Groups like OshoWorld, OFI, and OshoViha, clearly have raised concerns about editing, pricing, trademarks, copyrights, licensing and publishing. However these concerns are legitimate. The coercive manner in which OIF is enforcing its (supposed) copyrights, and the use of abridged texts, invites a response. Whether or not, or to what extent, editing of Osho’s books is accepted is a perfectly reasonable issue to raise. In order for Osho text to have integrity, it must in some way resemble the original. Where the line is drawn on this issue is worthy of investigation. Whether or not any legitimate person or group connected to Osho can use the word Osho as part of an (internet) domain name, or a meditation centre name, is a valid concern. Imagine if you are a legitimate Osho centre and you cannot use the word Osho in your domain name or centre name. The same is for other trademarks. OIF would have it that you would not be able to run Osho meditations (as instructed by Osho), unless you had approval from OIF. Knowing Osho’s clear stance on cost price, the issue of charging more than cost price for Osho media content is also a legitimate concern.
Groups like OshoWorld and OFI question whether or not the Osho related activities by OIF are in fact reasonable. It is legitimate to expect such queries; as is it reasonable that groups like OIF also raise legitimate concerns. I am not aware of any legitimate concerns raised by groups like OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management, against groups like OshoWorld or OFI.
Is the Pune resort involved in genuine Osho related activities? As has previously been described, there are serious legal and negligence concerns pertaining to the running of the resort, and its effects on Osho sannyasins and visitors. Even if the Osho product offered is genuine, if the service is provided in an environment that poses serious health and safety risks, then it simply cannot be considered to be engaging in genuine Osho related activities.
From the above it is concluded that the group including the inner-circle, Pune resort, and OIF do not meet the criteria for engaging in genuine Osho related activity.
Is the collective ‘other’ in question trying to stop the genuine Osho related activity of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management? As previously discussed they have raised legitimate concerns. However I am not aware that they are engaging in any coercive or monopolizing practices that actually seek to stop any genuine Osho related activity of OIF and Pune resort.
From the above analysis it is concluded that groups like OshoWorld, OFI, and OshoViha, are not trying to stop the genuine Osho related activities of the collective including OIF, inner-circle, and Pune resort; that they are raising legitimate concerns about the activities of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management; that OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management do not meet the requirement of legality; and finally that groups including OshoWorld, OshoViha, and OFI are not acting against the best interest of Osho.
Obviously the gathering of further information would help more clearly determine whether or not a person or group is engaging in genuine, legitimate, and legal, Osho related activity that is in the best interest of Osho.
From the information I currently have available, I am of the view that OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort, are acting against the best interest of Osho, and have transgressed the law. Also, they are considered to be a gathering of Osho’s closest disciples (just like Sheela and her gang were at The Ranch). Hence I conclude that Osho’s supposedly closest followers are harming Osho sannyasins and fellow seekers, and are trying to destroy Osho, his name, and his vision, in the pursuit of control, power, and financial gain.
The idea of focusing on “Osho the vision” rather than “Osho the person” (or indeed Osho the photograph) appears to have some merit. It is argued that this is the key to a successful meeting between Osho and the contemporary mind. This is the key to the ‘success’ of the Pune resort, and Osho the mainstream popular author. I however argue that the collective of Osho International Foundation (OIF), the Inner-Circle, and the Pune resort management, are forcefully and systematically removing “Osho the person” not as the best and only means of supporting Osho’s legacy, but as a means of pursuing their own goals of wealth, power, and domination. They do this to the detriment of other approaches to sharing Osho’s legacy. I also demonstrate a logical proof that shows that the collective (OIF etc) are actually going against Osho and his vision. In other words, it is not the case that there are different Osho factions that need to come to some understanding and middle ground. Rather, it is the case that OIF (etc) are clearly in the wrong.
The situation is (not surprisingly) along parallel lines with the issue of the Buddha Hall pagoda and the Auditorium complex. It has always been repeated that the pagoda was removed (destroyed) because of the new Auditorium complex. I have however argued the reverse: the new Auditorium complex was built because of the need to remove Buddha Hall’s significance.
Along similar lines, it is not that Osho has been systematically removed from books, magazines, websites, and the Pune resort, to make way for Osho’s vision. Rather it is the reverse: the notion of “Osho the vision” has been created in order to remove the significance of “Osho the person”.
You might at first glance consider this absurd. This is because you have been deceived by a clever marketing campaign. I will provide here a clear parallel example to substantiate my point of view. At The Ranch, after Osho spent many years in silence and Sheela and her gang grew to dominate with violence, Osho decided it was time to start speaking again. It is absolutely astounding that the management of The Ranch (Sheela and her gang) discouraged and tried to prevent this from happening. Authentic sannyasins the world over had been waiting for the time when they could again sit at the feet of their Master, be graced by his presence, and listen to his wisdom. Yet those closest to him (presumably his closest disciples) tried to prevent this from happening. This is astounding.
Over the period of Osho’s silence, Sheela and her gang had taken charge, and used Osho paraphernalia as the means of doing so. Books or an audio/video discourse of Osho could draw in and keep Osho sannyasins, however with Osho not physically present, Sheela and her gang emerged at the top of the power hierarchy. The books and taped discourses present no threat to this power, and only stand to increase it by attracting followers. The key is that Osho the person had been removed from the game. Osho himself, though still alive, had stepped aside from the power structure. That Sheela tried to stop Osho re-emerging and retaking power (as number one in charge) is proof of Sheela and her gang’s ill motives.
As a footnote to this, knowing that Sheela set out to murder other disciples, it is not unreasonable to consider it distinctly possible that she had also planned to murder Osho (to prevent him from re-taking power).
After Osho left the body - supposedly from being poisoned by the United States – clearly he was no longer a threat to power. What was the need for such power struggles anyway: everyone was now lovingly trying to realize Osho’s dream. However if I had a mind like Sheela, or anyone else in her gang, I would adopt similar strategies. In this case, I don’t have to prevent Osho from talking (I think this is still the case, though he has said he will continue to go on talking after he leaves the body – just old habit). While I do not need to remove the living being Osho from the scene, what I can do is remove Osho the image, Osho the picture, and Osho the personalized and transcribed spoken word. You see if all that is personal is removed from the name Osho, than just like Osho not being present, it no longer is a potential threat to power. The argument may seem on the surface a little far fetched. However, anything that has a strong association with Osho the person means that whomsoever is attracted to “Osho”, is ultimately attracted to Osho the person – to Osho the real historic figure, not just a mythical figure attached to a vision.
To help explain how this works I will give a topical example. When Osho International Foundation (OIF - the owner of ‘osho.com’) tried to stop OshoWorld from using ‘oshoworld.com’ and have the domain name transferred to OIF, they lost the case for one reason, and for one reason only. They lost the case because Osho is not a made up name like Coke or Pepsi; Osho is the name of an historic and famous person (mystic). What is even more startling is that OIF, in their filing for licences and trademarks, did not explain that Osho was a real historic figure. They presented legal documentation that categorized Osho as simply a name, of which such things as meditations and therapies were attached. That OIF omitted to make it clear that Osho was a real historic figure is very revealing. Obviously OIF, supposedly representing Osho’s closest disciples, was aware that Osho was the name of a real, historic and famous person (mystic). What they did therefore was to remove “Osho the person” from the name Osho in order to advance their interest in monopolizing control of Osho copyright, trademark, and licensing.
If I again return to Sheela and her ways, it is important to note that the proof that she had not Osho’s best interest in mind was revealed when she did not want to let Osho the person return to his usual place. OIF have argued that they have Osho’s best interest in mind when they removed all his pictures, his pagoda, and many of his sannyasins from the ashram (now resort). They argued in the same way in support of their approach to mass marketing of commercially popular abridged Osho literature.
The efforts of other Osho sannyasins to bring Osho’s message to the world through his image, his picture, and un-edited text, has been met by staunch resistance from OIF. The arguments fly back and forwards between different parties: cost-price versus mark-up; edited versus un-edited; with a picture of Osho versus without a picture of Osho; free download versus priced download; budget ashram versus 5-star resort. However, and this is the key, why would OIF resist this in the way that they have? I argue here that it is the same as asking Why would Sheela try and stop Osho from talking? Why are they trying to control domain names with the word osho in it? Why are they trying to prevent people from downloading Osho script, audio, and discourse that is available at cost-price (basically free). Their actions appear difficult to understand.
Osho was for example utterly unchanging on the fact that his books were to be sold at cost price. Admittedly they were a little more expensive then some books because they were in hard cover. However this was to ensure that they lasted long – his message was timeless and not like a quick-read mainstream novel. Why would OIF do this? I conclude in this report that the reason is because to allow actions such as un-edited cost-price content would restrict their domination as sole controlling interest in Osho’s legacy.
Why would there be any arguments, why would there be any opposing sides, if both parties had Osho’s interest solely in mind (at heart). The only logical explanation is that one or both of the competing parties do not.
OIF is trying to remove “Osho the person” and just leave “Osho the vision”. It is argued that this is in tune with Osho the person’s “vision”, and that it is most in tune with the modern world – the modern Westernized mind (which also includes many ‘progressive’ Indians). Whether or not there argument holds water is a moot point. The key to unravelling the riddle is that they do not want to allow people to offer “Osho the person” to the world. They use threats, banning, and law-suits to ensure that this does not happen. They even lied to United States legal entities (by omitting the fact that Osho was a person) in order to obtain trademarks and licenses. This meant that they could enforce their position through legal authority. Though they have done this in many instances, a legal challenge has ensured that this approach is now failing in the United States. It is failing because OIF failed to inform the relevant authorities that Osho was indeed the name of a real historic figure, and the authorities are now aware of this.
If we take a look at the other side of the warring factions - (apparently) like a political divide between capitalism and socialism, or democrats and republicans – it is clear that they are openly critical of OIF’s position, of the current inner-circle, and of the management of the resort in Pune. However groups like OshoWorld, Osho Friends International (OFI), and OshoViha have not to my knowledge made efforts to actually coercively restrict the operation of the opposing side – aside from normal competitive practices. That is to say, they are not trying to monopolize Osho and his legacy. (The raising of issues such as editing of books and above cost pricing are prima facie legitimate concerns, as will be discussed later). However OIF have on the other hand proven that they are trying to actively disallow the operating of any individual or group that does not act in strict accordance with their view of how to carry out Osho’s legacy. OIF is trying to shutdown OshoWorld. OIF tried to have the domain name ‘oshoworld.com’ transferred to themselves. Can you imagine how much that would have affected OshoWorld (in Delhi) in their efforts to offer Osho to the world. OIF have also tried to restrict Osho meditations and therapies by wielding trademarks obtained through false pretence. Through legal threats they have currently forced OshoWorld to stop providing free downloadable audio and video of Osho.
By trying to monopolise Osho’s legacy - by trying to stop other genuine sannyasins from sharing Osho with the world in a different yet credible manner - OIF (and the inner-circle and Pune resort management) have proven that they do not have Osho’s best interest in mind (at heart). It clearly cannot be argued that there is something wrong with quality Osho literature, downloads, meditations, and pictures, especially if they are at cost price. Hence OIF is restricting legitimate means of Osho’s message reaching out to people. How can this not be going against the best interest of Osho?
In the same way that Sheela tried to stop Osho from talking, OIF is trying to stop “Osho the person” from being shared with the world. It is proof that they (like Sheela and her murderous gang) have de-Oshoized Osho not in the interest of Osho, but in the interest of maintaining power as the sole heir to Osho’s legacy. In the same way that Sheela proved that her interest was not with Osho but with her own abhorrent domination, the senior members of OIF (and the inner-circle and resort management) have also proven that they too will de-Oshoize Osho in the interest of control.
Not surprisingly it is likely that the accumulation of wealth is also a contributing factor. No doubt free downloads would have a significant competitive impact on paid for downloads of Osho content.
The argument that I have presented is a logical proof. It is not that it is a conclusion that is something to be judged this way or that. Of course the premises in the argument need also be accepted before the conclusion is granted.
What is a logical proof? It is a situation where if certain conditions arise then the outcome is by definition true. If I am a sannyasin and Osho is my master, then it logically follows that I am an Osho sannyasin. It is a logical proof. Of course the premises would need to be established to be true in order to actually determine whether or not a person was in fact an Osho sannyasin. In other words, it would need to be determined whether a person is a sannyasin, and whether or not Osho is their master. If both these premises or preconditions are met than then it follows that the fact that I am an Osho sannyasin is a logical truth.
The argument that I use in the above report is as follows. If a person or group of people are trying to stop another person or group of persons from engaging in genuine Osho related activity, then they are not acting in the best interest of Osho. A precondition is that the ‘other’ people must be shown to be genuinely engaged in Osho related activity. Also, a basic requirement to be considered as a person or group of persons in this exercise is that they must be abiding by the laws of the land.
Another possible precondition relates to the following. In the event that there are competing interests, the expansion in one area of activity may lead to the reduction in activity of another group (competition). More people are receiving sannyas from one person and less from another person (or group) for example. However, to use this as a third condition in the argument is problematic. Who is to say how much an increase in one area of activity leads to a decreases in another area of activity; who is to say whether there is a net benefit or not. It might be for example argued that an increase in one area may lead to an increase in another area (synergy rather than competition). For the above reasons this condition is not a credible option as a precondition.
How does the collective of Pune resort management, inner-circle, and OIF, fit into the presented argument, preconditions, and requirements?
I will take the legal requirement first. There is significant reason to believe that OIF has broken United States law in lying by omission: as discussed earlier they failed to inform the relevant legal entity that Osho was a real, historic and famous person.
Turning now to the inner-circle and Pune resort, there is significant evidence to indicate that the Pune resort (Osho International Meditation Resort) has been for many years operating in a state of severe neglect, exposing sannyasins and visitors alike to harm and serious risk of harm. The list of ongoing and poorly addressed issues includes exposure to contaminated drinking water (and food), poor hygiene standards, the ingestion of toxic levels of chemicals, (cabled and other) tree hazards, unsafe and poor design of buildings, non-functioning or poorly maintained equipment, and inadequate night lighting.
Significant financial investment has gone into creating the appearing of a beautiful spiritual resort, however the truth is that basic maintenance and infrastructure needs have been ignored, and for many years the centre has operated in a severe state of disrepair. The ongoing drinking water problems (first identified 5 or 6 or more years ago) remind me of Sheela and her poisoning tactics.
Why is it that in all dictatorial regimes the general population subsists in a state of low physical wellbeing - things like a poor health system, frequent illness, and rampant disease? It is in part this way to keep the population weak. Then they shall not be a threat to the regimes domination. There are obviously other reasons: financial restraints and profiteering; inefficiencies; cruelty. There appears to me to be significant parallels between dictatorial regimes and the Pune resort.
Why would the people with financial and managerial responsibility for the resort (presumably resort management and the inner-circle) take the decision not to invest in basic infrastructure (a properly functioning water treatment system that actually does provide clean water for example)? Well for one thing, if the drinking water gets too contaminated visitors can drink the bottled water, and they have to pay for that. Also, it is a significant financial burden offering very little real return, especially when no-one knows what is really going on.
Dr Amrito, the vice-president of the inner-circle and long-term resort resident, is well aware of the serious contamination of drinking water; he was involved with looking at the issue when it (I assume) first arose some 5 or 6 years ago. Yogendra, inner-circle member, former resort administrator, and brother to the inner-circle chairmen (Jayesh), is also similarly aware. E-mail correspondence between Yogendra and Jayesh suggests that Jayesh is also aware (of the problem that is). Of course it would be very surprising if other senior members of the inner-circle were aware of such a significant problem and Jayesh was not. The same goes for Mukhesh. Many people in resort management positions know about what has been happening, as do many others. However it is likely that these other people are too scared to speak out.
From the above it is very difficult to see how the collective of Osho resort management, inner-circle, and OIF, actually meet the basic requirement of legality.
I will now address the precondition that the ‘other’ party or parties need to be shown to be engaging in genuine Osho activity. The other parties are prima facie authentic Osho groups and individuals. Their activities can generally be said to include the concept of “Osho the person”. Hence there is an emphasis on have pictures of Osho. This is hardly going to be considered non-genuine conduct. They present quality literature that is not edited. There can be no argument against the provision of well presented direct Osho text. A general feature is the availability on the internet of Osho content that happens to be available for free. There can be no argument against providing accurate, quality content for free, no matter what the media. Perhaps these ‘other’ parties – groups like OshoWorld, OshoTapovan, OshoViha, and Osho Friends International (OFI) – are engaging in illegal activity. I am not aware of any claims of illegality, and here assume that they are legally operating enterprises.
So we have it that the collective in question (OIF, inner-circle, and resort management) does not meet the requirement of legality. Also it is reasonable to conclude that the ‘other’ groups in question are engaging in genuine Osho related activity. This means I will turn to the central text of the argument: are the collective of Pune resort management, inner-circle, and OIF, trying to stop another person or group of persons from engaging in genuine Osho related activity?
OIF has had books shredded, not on the grounds of quality, but on basis of copyright infringement. OIF has repeatedly shut down Osho websites, not on the basis of quality, but on the basis of copyright and trademark infringement. OIF has repeatedly shut down downloading of Osho audio/video content, not on the basis of quality, but on the basis of copyright infringement. OIF has tried to have OshoWorld’s “oshoworld.com” domain name transferred to OIF on the basis of trademark infringement. OIF has acted in a coercive manner in trying to get centres to sign an agreement of understanding that although these centres are engaging in genuine Osho related activity, the ultimate control and rights rest with OIF. However what right does OIF have to have control over peoples Osho related activities. The situation is the same as with the domain name infringement case. The legal ruling was that because (as previously omitted by OIF) Osho was in fact a real historic and famous person, then the name Osho could not be owned. The same is for centre activities relating to Osho: Osho meditations and therapies for example. If a centre is conducting an Osho meditation or therapy in accordance with Osho’s instructions, then nobody has any rights over them. Why you might ask? The answer is because Osho is a real historic and famous person, and therefore his meditations and therapies cannot be owned by anyone in particular. OIF’s conduct in this regard is highly coercive and very questionable. I have a sense that further investigation in this area will bring to light similar cases of interference and monopolization.
It is clear that the collective including OIF is trying to stop other credible parties from advancing genuine Osho related interests. This collective is trying to disallow “Osho the person” and just present “Osho the vision” (albeit from my point of view a seriously erroneous one). It is also attempting to exert coercive control over groups that appear to fit with their idea of Osho’s legacy.
It is therefore concluded from the above that the collective of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management firstly do not meet the requirement of legality. Also, it is concluded that the ‘other’ parties are engaged in genuine Osho related activity. The collective is also trying to stop other genuine groups from freely engaging in Osho related activity. Hence I conclude that the collective of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management are not acting in the best interest of Osho, and also have dubious legal stature.
Does the argument work in reverse?
Firstly I am not aware of any illegal activity by the ‘other’ groups. If it came to light that this was not the case, then obviously there would be serious implications.
Is the collective including OIF and Pune resort engaging in genuine Osho related activities? Groups like OshoWorld, OFI, and OshoViha, clearly have raised concerns about editing, pricing, trademarks, copyrights, licensing and publishing. However these concerns are legitimate. The coercive manner in which OIF is enforcing its (supposed) copyrights, and the use of abridged texts, invites a response. Whether or not, or to what extent, editing of Osho’s books is accepted is a perfectly reasonable issue to raise. In order for Osho text to have integrity, it must in some way resemble the original. Where the line is drawn on this issue is worthy of investigation. Whether or not any legitimate person or group connected to Osho can use the word Osho as part of an (internet) domain name, or a meditation centre name, is a valid concern. Imagine if you are a legitimate Osho centre and you cannot use the word Osho in your domain name or centre name. The same is for other trademarks. OIF would have it that you would not be able to run Osho meditations (as instructed by Osho), unless you had approval from OIF. Knowing Osho’s clear stance on cost price, the issue of charging more than cost price for Osho media content is also a legitimate concern.
Groups like OshoWorld and OFI question whether or not the Osho related activities by OIF are in fact reasonable. It is legitimate to expect such queries; as is it reasonable that groups like OIF also raise legitimate concerns. I am not aware of any legitimate concerns raised by groups like OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management, against groups like OshoWorld or OFI.
Is the Pune resort involved in genuine Osho related activities? As has previously been described, there are serious legal and negligence concerns pertaining to the running of the resort, and its effects on Osho sannyasins and visitors. Even if the Osho product offered is genuine, if the service is provided in an environment that poses serious health and safety risks, then it simply cannot be considered to be engaging in genuine Osho related activities.
From the above it is concluded that the group including the inner-circle, Pune resort, and OIF do not meet the criteria for engaging in genuine Osho related activity.
Is the collective ‘other’ in question trying to stop the genuine Osho related activity of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management? As previously discussed they have raised legitimate concerns. However I am not aware that they are engaging in any coercive or monopolizing practices that actually seek to stop any genuine Osho related activity of OIF and Pune resort.
From the above analysis it is concluded that groups like OshoWorld, OFI, and OshoViha, are not trying to stop the genuine Osho related activities of the collective including OIF, inner-circle, and Pune resort; that they are raising legitimate concerns about the activities of OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management; that OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort management do not meet the requirement of legality; and finally that groups including OshoWorld, OshoViha, and OFI are not acting against the best interest of Osho.
Obviously the gathering of further information would help more clearly determine whether or not a person or group is engaging in genuine, legitimate, and legal, Osho related activity that is in the best interest of Osho.
From the information I currently have available, I am of the view that OIF, the inner-circle, and Pune resort, are acting against the best interest of Osho, and have transgressed the law. Also, they are considered to be a gathering of Osho’s closest disciples (just like Sheela and her gang were at The Ranch). Hence I conclude that Osho’s supposedly closest followers are harming Osho sannyasins and fellow seekers, and are trying to destroy Osho, his name, and his vision, in the pursuit of control, power, and financial gain.
Namaste! You made well use of your mind as a servant. My heart is also saying that things aren't right in Poona anymore...
ReplyDeleteMa Prem Modita(Holland)