Template talk:Rajneesh movement/Archive 1

Adherents

The template is present in the articles of a couple of individuals who would more likely describe themselves as sympathisers, rather than members of the Osho movement. These are Barks, Robbins and Sloterdijk.

• Barks visited the commune and wrote favourable introductions to one or two of Osho's books, but never became a disciple of Osho's.

• The case with Robbins is similar; he has a long history of making pro-Osho statements, wrote an introduction to a book by Osho's personal physician (and perhaps other introductions to books published by Osho's publishing houses), but again, states quite clearly that he does not consider himself one of Osho's followers. (Osho applauded his words, saying "he is my sannyasin" -- but that was Osho's opinion, not that of Robbins.).

• Sloterdijk, on the other hand, has said that he did become a follower of Osho's in the seventies; however, I've read a derogatory statement by him about the Osho movement, even though he continues to speak favourably of Osho himself. Again, I don't think he would consider himself as part of the Osho movement (except in the widest possible sense), even though he says he has a high regard for Osho as a philosopher, as well as an enormous personal debt of gratitude.

• Vinod Khanna too was a bona fide disciple, in fact, Osho's gardener in Rajneeshpuram, but he dropped sannyas for a while, making critical remarks about Osho in the media, and it was only after Osho died that he recanted those remarks; he is perhaps the only one of the people listed as adherents who would be happy to be described as such.

I don't know what the solution is; whether it is to change the category from "Adherents" to "Sympathisers" (not quite right because Sloterdijk does not necessarily sympathise with the movement as much as with Osho), drop it, or whatever. Cheers, -- Jayen466 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• What title would you prefer for that section? Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Will think about it. In a way, we are talking about admirers of Osho (not necessarily his movement, which includes some distinctly non-admirable history), but am not sure that is such a great category-former. We may have a Wikipedia category for "Marxist philosophers", say, but not one for "People who enjoy reading Proust" ... let me think about it for a while. Cheers, -- Jayen466 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, have just seen that you have added Khushwant Singh as an adherent; again, the good man is an atheist, he applauds Osho's iconoclasm and is an admirer of his (often atheistic) writings, but would not describe himself as a disciple or adherent. What compounds the problem is that there is no official procedure or outer marker of becoming a sannyasin these days (cf. http://www.neosannyas.org), it is just individuals' decision, and even that may vary from day to day. -- Jayen466 19:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Your clarification or suggestions on the talk page would be appreciated. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

I think on balance, and for now, we should just drop the Adherents line altogether. We can always revisit this later, but as it stands, the Adherents listing seems to me to do more wrong than right. To my mind it would be just as (in-)appropriate to include all the people here in the list. -- Jayen466 23:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

•  Done - Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Thanks. I fear, somehow, our personal opinions are on opposite ends of the spectrum on these matters, but so far I must say I have enjoyed our "collaboration." Cheers, -- Jayen466 23:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same thing, so far, as well. Thanks. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
      • Okay, I have taken the cat and template out of Singh, Barks and Robbins, since for them the relationship is more peripheral; I've left it in for Khanna and, on second thoughts, Sloterdijk, since he is at least on record as stating something to the effect of "once a sannyasin, always a sannyasin", in a newspaper interview. Cheers, Jayen466 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Sounds good. Cheers, Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC).

Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International

Is there any reason that Byron v. Rajneesh Foundation International isnt included in the list of incidents? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)