What aren't you doing?

Because Osho is a Nietzschean. He also has some good advice on how to master sex drive.

Is he?

I’ve only read half a text purporting to be a Upanisad supposedly by him, was horribly bored by it. He didn’t stand out as a Nietzsche an too much, but then again I wasn’t bothering to read too deeply into it, was skimming to find the interesting part, couldn’t find it.

Was a PDF from a few years back.

Where the hell is the cool vs shithead thread you started? I wanted to finish my post before going to sleep but haven’t found it, searched the site twice.

To the extent that a mystic can be a Nietzschean, yes. This means minus the power aspect, though his private life might not have been such.

He is too hung up on “joah”.

Do you wear a suit of armour when you go off on your wrong righting quests?

I’m not questioning him being a mystic, and Nietzsche was a mystic at times. What I’m questioning is, how well did he know Nietzsche? A lot of the Indians I’ve known who like Nietzsche only like him because he spoke fondly of their religion, but they seem to understand him as much as he understood them… which is only in passing, without much insight. Exceptions exist, I can point to followers of Aurobindo being both intelligent and generally we read in regards to Nietzsche, and they can qualify as Nietzscheans, but they intentional try to avoid the more assinine and backwards aspects of Nietzsche’s thought.

asianreflection.com/superman.shtml

I first encountered them in San Francisco at a Indian multicultural organization on Geary, once in a great while I will get a email from them. Not everyone is one, but they hold occasional talks on him. One of the few times I’ve encountered generally good hearted and enlightened Nietzscheans. Very rare, the entire philosophy is designed to defeat and destroy it’s users. They made something positive of it.

Osho was well acquainted with Nietzsche; he was a professor of Philosophy.

Osho liked a lot of Nietzsche’s insights, his indomitable individualism and powerful will, but he saw Nietzsche as simply swapping a dead god for a dead mind.

Osho’s favourite western philosopher was Heraclitus though, here too, he said his insights only took him so far. Heraclitus focused on the river never being the same, whereas Osho was more interested in the ever changing man standing in the river.

PS: Do you like my new avatar?

What aren’t you doing?

What aren’t I doing?
This. (It’s the same guy)

I am not exactly an expert on Osho. I’ve read a book he wrote (“From Sex to Superconsciousness”), read bits of what he wrote here and there, and watched a bunch of videos of him speaking on YouTube. That’s it.

Nonetheless, I can say with confidence that he’s a Nietzschean, albeit not a proper one.

He was a mystic after all. You know what a mystic is? Someone who uses intuition in order to understand what is beyond the material.

Schopenhauer was a mystic, not Nietzsche.

Schopenhauer believed there is a metaphysical will underlying all existence. That’s the basis of every mysticism: the idea that there is some kind of force underlying, and uniting, all of the existence. (There are many other names for it, such as Being, Life Force, Mind Force, Elan Vital, Superconsciousness, God, Qi, Prana, Love, Sympathy, Stillness, Neutral Center, Magnetism, Electricity, Spirit, Essence, Energy, Divinity, and so on and so forth.)

Nietzsche rejected mysticism. He endorsed intuition, that is true, but not that of mystics. Indeed, his entire philosophy was based on this opposition to mysticism.

You can say that Osho was a “good hearted” Nietzschean, though he was not as “good hearted” as other New Age Nietzscheans are (e.g. he thought that homosexuality was a perversion, insisted on absolute birth control, and was pro euthanization of disabled and retarded children.)

Nietzsche wasn’t “bad hearted” as many people think, as you seem to think, but he wasn’t “good hearted” either.

Nietzsche was in essense a revival of the warrior spirit. Osho borrowed a lot from him, but he was opposed to this warrior spirit.

New Agers, in general, whether they are Nietzscheans or not, it should be obvious, are opposed to the warrior spirit.

Their understanding of Nietzsche is nothing but a fantasy that suits their expectations.

Osho speaks of “New Man”. This is supposed to be his Overman, but it isn’t really, since his Overman is literally a new man, i.e. a man without a history.

This is a recurring theme among New Agers, the idea that men should evolve into purely spiritual beings.

Osho endorsed the opposition to Christians, he recognized the problem of sexual repression, he evolved and offered various techniques of sexual meditation, he celebrated freedom, he understood that most people are running away from who they are, but he was nonetheless an ahistorical man.

This is evident from his celebration of the present moment, but most importantly, from his opposition to BOUNDARIES of any sort.

Family unit, marriage, nations . . . these should all disappear, apparently because they are too strict.

Boundaries are always set by who we were in the past. And when I say past I mean past beyond our individual past. I mean the collective past of our ancestors.

You do not become free by transcending the boundaries.

Osho simply transcended the boundaries, and of course, what this led him to is FANTASY LAND.

Whereas Nietzsche endorsed POWER, Osho endorsed LOVE.

Whereas Nietzsche endorsed HARSHNESS, Osho endorsed COMPASSION.

Whereas Nietzsche endorsed PAIN, Osho endorsed JOAH. (“Joah” is how Indians pronounce “joy”, apparently.)

They place too much emphasis on meditation.

Meditation is just a means. A means to decentrate. A means to decentrate in order to enhance concentration.

Osho recognized the problem of EXCESSIVE concentration that was plaguing the modern era (in Nietzsche’s terms, the excessive Apollonian tendency.)

The problem with excessive concentration is that, past a certain point, concentration becomes decentered. The original flow of energies becomes divided into multiple flows. The central flow continues, but the peripheral flows do not. This leads to repression – the accumulation of tension within the body.

What Osho and many other people figured out (among them the school of body psychotherapists that sprung out from the work of Wilhelm Reich) is that, by dissolving the energy flow, by decentering it, one can eliminate this tension.

The mistake they made is that they got addicted to this state.

Instead of decentering in order to gather together the divided flows, they simply decided to remain within, and to celebrate, this diluted state of energies.

They then gave it a name such as GOD.

And thus pacifists were born.

Osho denies being a pacifist, but only for the reason that pacifists are focusing on the future. He is a man who lives wholly inside the present.

So what did Osho do to resolve the excessive Apollonian tendency? To overthrow it with excessive Dionysian tendency.

Concentration must be immediately balanced with decentration. The shorter the periods between the two, the better. The longer, the worse.

Modern age is characterized as bipolar precisely for this: due to the two phases being considerably temporally separated.

One works hard from Monday to Friday in order to party hard from Friday to Sunday. That’s not natural.

There is no natural build up and release of energy.

There is, quite simply, no concentrated energy anymore. All energy is decentered, is decentering continually, until its complete disappearance.

In Baudrillard’s terms, we are living in an age of premature ejaculators.

Osho, thus, should be seen as a grown up spoiled child. He’s impressive precisely because he isn’t merely a spoiled child: he’s also a grown up to a large extent.

Here’s some “good hearted” interpretation of Nietzsche:
oshosearch.net/Convert/Articles_ … 00029.html

And here’s some shamanic “trance dance” ritual:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezPjpMS6OvY[/youtube]

Sorry, you must have a cock in your ear due to your apparent hearing impairment: Nietzsche was also sometimes a mystic.

Thats reassuring. A proper Nietzsche gets killed off at the getgo. Its why I turned so hostile to the ideas he advocated in Iraq.

I’m not under the delusion all his influence will die off, but his main mass has no choice but to, as it is inherently incompatible with long term survival, it is only the philosophy of the dying, of those trying to.

I doubt Osho’s unifying concept of live was that of the Stoics, in which community ethics is founded upon. Might be just as kinky as the earlier varients. I’m guessing Osho just inducted a bunch of tantric assumptions in and informed his top payers they were transcedentally aware.

Before you lecture me on your brilliant insights, read this short essay. I know a hell of a lot more than you think others can know, armed with your three Nietzsche commentaries as a instant expert. At least Sauwelios and Cezar tried to show they were broadly read.

asianreflection.com/superman.shtml

Says everything you said. Fucking amazing…

Not doing that either. Still. Im not eating anymore either. Had a great breakfast and paid the rent in 20’s. Im not not sweating. Its fucking hot here and I have no pool.

Osho was a drug addict too. And what’s a difference between a mystic and a drug addict? Many drug addicts claim to be mystics too.

meditation-handbook.50webs.com/osho2.html

Nietzsche is said to have used hashish, opium, and potassium bromide (nervous system sedative). Note, both of them had ‘valid medical reasons’ for using the drugs.


It didn’t end very well for both of them. Do you want to use them as your role models and do you want to end the same way?

youtube.com/watch?v=ub_a2t0ZfTs

I honestly haven’t come across sources I trust that list Nietzsche’s drug use… one guy here offered some evidence in the past (an example) but I don’t push that issue too much cause physicians were giving out all sorts of crazy addictive shit, even testing it on themselves to see if it was safe. INTJs do admittedly have health obsessions… it can get absurd and Nietzsche tried most everything to rid himself of his syphilius.

Ironically, when he was vat shit crazy storing his own poop and eating it, had they not taken it from him and had it molded over with penicillin, could of cured him.

I am not really too surprised this guy was drugged up though (osho). Half of India is hooked on something… they sing praise of Soma, so don’t really have qualms seeking a substitute. Doesn’t do much for them though… which is why the other half insist on renouncing drugs.

If you need the drugs for actual medical reasons, so be it, but if all the drug is, us a shortcut to a kind of cognition, your better off without it. Better to develop your own internal faculties on your own. I presume LSD and other drugs are very intense to experience, but also observe users more or less die off intellectually as a result. It isn’t good for the mind. A sober and well homed, disciplined mine is capable of doing much more. Drugs meant to provide shortcuts, like the Golden Dawn sometimes advocate, I’m against. You need to know how the modes of mind link up and organically function instead of just arriving through a pill… the end result is a shadow of how the mind should be experienced when it is functionally working. Most mystics with a philosophical bent east and west put in decades of effort in meditation and study to achieve new awareness. They did the hard work, learned the ins and outs of various aspects of one region of the mind before moving on to the next. The drug experience is highly unlikely to get you to a useable spot. People often say they are smarter, but just seem dumber.

Neurosyphilis was successfully treated with malaria induced fever therapy - that is, if one was strong enough to survive the course of treatment.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/bodyh … 6FHTY-cHIU

Ive no doubt Nietzsche used opiates with psychedelic effects, intended or not.

Einstein definitely used coke like all of them in that time, but recently I read that traces of LSD were also found.
The double Helix idea was conceived in an acid trip, and much more has been, but soon after the drug was outlawed. I suspect it being used behind closed doors intensively. More than a suspicion. It’s too useful.

independent.co.uk/news/scien … 79571.html

Read that article Pandora, method wasn’t first tested till 1918.

I suspect had he known if it, he would of tried it though.

And that article was shit FC. It doesn’t make the mind more complete, but overrides natural functions, mixing the processes. Someone having a involuntary trip years after last taking LSD seeing soap in the shower floating before them isn’t in possession of a more advanced Ming, but of a visual apraxia. Motor functions are going to be off in coordinating in such a state.

Our mental mechanisms didn’t evolve for LSD or window licking, they evolved within a framework of specific modes of mind that allow us to complete specific tasks.

When you start fucking with the divides between the various modes, which each use their own neurotransmitter signatures, your ability to process complex information between points A to the intended destination via that chart is thrown off. For starters, a trip fuvks the whole process up… and instead of focusing on completing a natural task, your focused on the trip itself.

Our ability to know where we begin and end, our individuality and relationship to our environment and others are equally crucial.

It may be of use someday in specific injections to a particular segment of a cranial nerve to treat a disorder, but as it us now, it is rotten, makes people less functional and less aware.

It goes back to the Proslogion of St. Anslem… He is developing a ontological definition of God between universal monism and specificity. On one had, God is literally anything and everything in Non-Duality, Indian advaita agreads with this… but on the other he is asserting specificalities of imagined states of the Godhead. His formulations for God are like Magnus Andersons’ for Nietzsche’s overman… The highest form that can be imagined.

Problem is, specificalities buck the oceanic feeling of LSD… LSD doesn’t result in a gull monism, but does break down how the Pythagorean table of opposites is navigated and ascertained, it is how we visualize and know something visually (the haptic aspect causes a paradox, you may know in one but not the other in coordination, meaning when you complete a challenging task you may express disbelief)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Opposites

finite, infinite
odd, even
one, many
right, left
rest, motion
straight, crooked
light, darkness
good, evil
square, oblong

How we construct dream images, or merely imagine, is deeply dependent upon this, in a succession (not that order though), to create imagery in a hypnogogic state. When you see a image in your head, your constructing it using aspects integrating those variables… They are variables for a fucking reason, as it is task specific. All our technology, all our senses, are set up to react within certain norms. You fuck with the norms without adapting the other hardware, you put that individual in a potentially less successful situation for successfully completing tasks, and for survival… Not to mention it complicates diagnosis later on in life. A simple sodium imbalance can cause issues parallel to dementia, but you add this to the mix, it can really throw a doctor off in diagnosis, especially when he can’t question the patient about their medical history as they can’t recall shit and turn more childlike. Latent symptoms can really fuck up etiological efforts.

More complete as in more self-referential? It’s dangerous to tinker with mind alteration techniques (whether it’s through psychotropic drugs or self-hypnosis). The danger is that you’d lack an objective/outside perception of what is really going on, unless you video tape yourself or keep a diary in order to keep perspective. Otherwise, you’d lose your self as you’d lose a solid reference point (the reality that was responsible for our evolutionary survival). It is one thing to tinker with an object’s brain, in a study, and completely another to tinker with your own.

Don’t you love how she put me on ignore then completely agrees with everything I say to you?

What’s this all about?

First time you’ve talked directly to me in years. You haven’t talked to me since I told Maia she should put gummy worms and ketchup in her eye sockets and pull them out in the food court of the mall. I was apparently the most evil chauvenist in the world. If I had no eyes, I would straight up do that. You got angry, stopped speaking to me. Just assumed I was on ignored after a while. I would say something, you would then say the exact same thing… And I figured it was because you couldn’t see.

Then I started to get worried, cause your a militant angry feminist, and if your saying everything I’m saying, and aren’t aware of it… that might mean I’m a angry, militant feminist too and never was aware if it, so I became worried that I was secretly gay or some shit. But then I thought… A lot of feminists are dykes, and dykes try to think like guys, so if she is thinking like a guy, then that means I’m not gay, just a stereotypical male. Then I got upset that I was stereotypical, cause it made me feel like I lost my uniqueness, and so started wearing large, oversized hats to stand out. Now, nobody is quite like me.