Tweet
Originally posted by Badlun
View Post
-
You blast all at once with whatever comes in your mind. Dear whoever will do effort he will spread his message and will be the winner. Today these people are giving their precious time, money and energies to the islamic teachings thats why they are getting success, the others are asleep. -
Please read here about them an dother groupsOriginally posted by Hallo View Post
Ahle Hadith is often used interchangeably with the Salafi dawah.Unlike the Ahl-al-rai/ literally "the people of rhetorical theology,/Hanafis the Ahl-e hadith, "the people of prophetic narrations" are not bound by taqlid but consider themselves free to seek guidance in matters of religious faith and practices from the authentic traditions (hadith) which, together with the Quran, are in their view the principal worthy guide for Muslims.
The Ahl-e hadith exert effort to raise traditional principles while restoring the original simplicity and purity to faith and practices.They also make every effort to eradicate customs either to innovation (bid‘a) or non-Islamic systems. Its members reject the strict and blind following of four major Sunni schools of Islamic law. Contemporary exponents of Ahl-e-Hadith in the subcontinent convincingly depict it as a continuous religious puritanical movement.Comment
-
Again you are right. Sufis do not have the resources of Saudis but at the same time they do not have the zeal and zest as well as the dynamism, organizational skills and dedication of wahabis, ahle hadith, jamate Islami, salafis, panjpeeris and tableeghis. This was recently my main discussion with a Sufi scholar from Pakistan.Originally posted by Friend View Post
Another issue is that non Sufis have found Pashtuns the nursery for their extremist ideology and that is why Taliban are mainly Pashtun. Wahabism worked mainly in Pashtun areas in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Punjabis and others are mainly Sufi minded.Comment
-
Sufi dont do anything regarding spreading their message but all the time you will listen to saying wahabis this and wahabis that and the funny thing is that they call everyone a wahabi who does not follow their way loool. Badun you also do the same thing always crying about wahabis. Tell sufis to start doing what their ancestors have done in the past and not the modern day sufis.Originally posted by Badlun View PostComment
-
Osho just copies wise things other people have said; this isn't great, Love is of many varieties; if you pick up a flower it does; but if you don't pick up a baby, it dies. Osho's lack of wisdom is that the love we have of nature should not be compared to the love we share with each other as these operate by different laws completely.[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
. Although Osho has eclectic elements in his discourses but he always seem very creative, very original and natural.Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
How original Osho is when he describes love here
You love, the more you will find untrodden spaces where love goes on and on spreading around you like an aura.
"But that kind of love has not been allowed by any culture. They have forced love into a very small tunnel: you can love your wife, your wife can love you; you can love your children, you can love your parents, you can love your friends. And they have made two things so deeply rooted in every human being. One is that love is something very limited – friends, family, children, husband, wife. And the second thing they have insisted is that there are many kinds of love.
"You love in one way when you love your husband or your wife; then you have to bring another kind of love when you love your children, and another kind of love when you love your elders, your family, your teachers, and then another kind of love for your friends. But the truth is, love cannot be categorized the way it has been categorized throughout the whole history of mankind. There were reasons for them to categorize it but their reasons are ugly and inhuman, because in this categorization they killed love...
"The reason why all the cultures have insisted on categorization is because they have been very much afraid of love, is because if there is existential love, then it does not know boundaries – then you cannot put Hindus against Mohammedans, then you cannot put Protestants against Catholics. Then you cannot draw a line saying that you cannot love this person because he is Jewish, Chinese. The leaders of the world wanted to divide the world, but to divide the world they have to do the basic division which is of love."
Comment
-
This is pure garbage; There's no wisdom in any of those statements; Osho is just making a claim and assumes his claim is true without any evidence to support it. It seems that I'm not the first person to see the flaw behind his thinking. How is different kinds of love ugly and inhuman? What authority does Osho have to say this? None. The Laws of the Universe indicate there are different kinds of "love" because people have different roles in our lives, the role of your brother is different than the role of your father and that is different than the role of your wife. The two relationships are intrinsically different. Osho's claim is absent of reality.
Osho seems to be just trying to justify one statement he makes that is easy to criticize by saying that the refutation is ugly. Being creative means to develop something very profound; Osho is fabricating some nonsense or copying someone else's ideas. That's not creative; that's being a Con-Artist. Osho is just like a Junk-Food type of Thinking, Like the kind someone gets in a McDonald's commercial. Jf he was wise it wouldn't be so easy to show exactly how he is wrong.[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
Your problem is that you demand evidence from every body but never give evidence for what you say. What evidence you have for your above statement?
To you your own statements seem logical, natural because you are convinced by your own self but when you disagree with some one you ask for evidence. If I say wow RTR has said very well, you will thank me and will never ask me that I should give evidence that RTR is right. This is human nature. No big deal.
Osho has millions of followers. They do not ask him evidence but feel that he is right in what he says. This is the world of Sufism where philosophical hair splitting, evidence, proofs, reasoning, logic , philosophy do not work.
This is the world of love and sentiment not a court or class room of philosophy full of arguments and counter arguments. Submerge your self in this ocean of love and you will feel spiritually enlightened and will no more be asking evidence for every thing in life. Spiritualism like religion is belief,love , emotions, feelings, intuition not intellect, reason, authority or evidence. It is experience not experiment.Comment
-
Yes you said it; these are just silly emotions; which means Osho just makes up a bunch of impressive rhetoric but when examined closely; they can be seen as nonsense by people who can still think logically. In the world of Sufism we understand the Laws of the Esoteric and the Subtle are at work; Anyone who says that in Sufism laws and logic do not work has neither Studied TRUE Sufism, never had any affiliation with an Authentic Tariqah tracing back to Muhammad (saw) and has never studied works of Sufis. They only follow the ideas of pretenders who themselves are ignorant.
I ALWAYS present evidence; But any evidence that doesn't serve your agenda you evade.. This is a perfect example; In my last post i STATED that everything has a different role demonstrates different varieties of love; this is a consequence of evolution and natural forces, This is evidence; it's a very natural and normal process that we experience all the time. Whatever reference Osho made does not prove his case of "ugly" and "inhuman"; these are just his emotions to react against anything that shows the weakness of his claims
Another evidence is that if ALL love is the same with no distinctions; then we should Love corruption and injustice, but if you love something then there's no reason to resist it; so ultimately this would be detrimental. It's easy to see that Osho's words are foolish if we use our minds. The universe has negative and positive forces; which love and hate are versions of ; without each other there is no activity in the universe. He is calling the foundation of humanity inhuman; which is a contradiction; so his argument is illogical.
The reason Osho's followers don't ask him questions is because they're brainwashed. he is not a wise man but a sneaky man.. Osho's words are for only irrational people who are easily fooled.
Badlun you are just brainwashed by a corrupt man; I hope you wake up out of this hallucination[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
Love is not a silly emotion. No emotion is silly. Emotion is life. In all kinds of love what is common is the love itself. This is what Osho means when he says love is one. We love goodness, virtue and beauty not corruption or some thing bad. Osho never said we should love evils.
The issue is that Osho is totally against mind, intellect, logic and reason. This is a different realm so a man like you who is so called rationalist will never understand Osho. The best lesson I learned from Osho is to kill my mind before it kills me. Heart has a reason which reason can't understand.
Mind is vacillation. The discipline of a meditator is to become so watchful of the mind, so alert to the mind and its stupidities -- its hesitations, its tremblings, its vacillations -- to become so watchful that you are cut off. That is the whole purpose of watching: watching cuts you off. Watch anything in the mind, and you are cut off. Watching is a sword. If a thought is moving in your mind, just watch it -- and suddenly you will see the thought is there, you are here, and there is no bridge left. Don't watch, and you become identified with the thought, you become it; watch, and you are not it. Mind possesses you because you have forgotten how to watch. Learn it.
Don't listen to the mind because mind means past; dead it is, already dead and gone.
It is non-existential. It is only the footprints of the events that are no more. Mind knows nothing of the present, it cannot know of the present. It has not any capacity to commune with the present because the present is always unknown. You cannot reduce-it to the past. And the fear of the mind is that the moment you encounter the present you have to be spontaneous, and the mind becomes useless. The mind has to be put aside.
Do you think Muhammad was a logician or philosopher? Do you think Islam is based on syllogism, deductive or inductive or other kind of logic.
I have started a thread on this theme and I am anxiously waiting for your thoughts here
Comment
-
Or I am seeking clarification before replying. Not a bizarre concept, right?Originally posted by ډګروال View PostComment
-
I never said love is a silly emotion; Osho is not motivated by love; he's motivated by Greed and Appetite. Of course he uses the word love because it plays on people's vulnerabilities Of course Osho is against logic and reason; how else can he brainwash his followers if they can think critically? What is to understand about Osho? He says ridiculous things and tries to mix it up with the things some other great minds said to make it seem like he is wise. This is easy to figure out.
When Osho says things like "kill the mind"; he means don't question ask him hard questions because he knows he can't give a sensible answer. He just The more you quote him the more you reveal Osho's silliness. Take a look; ok he says "mind is vacillation" but things like "Love" are states of the mind , emotions come from the mind; then love also is vacillation; so how can he promote one but discourage the other. It's contradiction. Secondly mind cannot know the present; mind is the present because it manuvers our thoughts in the present, mind reflects on the past but mind is in the present, mind also reflects on the future and the present. This is called time binding; Neuo-scientists have studied the relation of the mind to incorporate different stages of time. So Osho here is completely ignorant and wrong. http://neuro.bcm.edu/eagleman/time.html.
Osho confuses for dead the maturity of an event. The mind is always active with the present. In other words. Also look at this statement Osho makes
He's talking in circles; he is implying that Mind cannot know the present since it cannot commune with the present and it cannot commune because it doesn't know. LOL Only an irrational and uneducated person would think this is wise! About Muhammad(saw) he was a Prophet, we know the merits of his information by seeing how it actually works; So whether he was a logitician or philosopher we see the merits of what he taught by its practical usage and consistency with the way humans had evolved as a species in nature.Mind knows nothing of the present, it cannot know of the present. It has not any capacity to commune with the present because the present is always unknown[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
-
This is not only Osho but many Sufis and scholars like Imam Ghazali have opposed reason and philosophy. Osho himself was a philosopher by profession but was deadly against it.
My own approach is that reason is one way like senses, revelation and intuition to reach reality. When I sleep at night the formula of killing mind works wonderfully as I sleep in seconds but in my class room or office I have to use my mind and reason as well as senses.
The issue of Mind and Osho is highly interesting. You may do your own research on this theme and will find thrilling ideas.
For Osho mind is different than brain. Mind does not have a beginning but has an end and its end is enlightenment
Please try to read the whole links
No-Mind is Not Against Mind – Osho
I have been thinking all day of a way to ask the question: How to stop thinking?
Thinking cannot be stopped—not that it does not stop, but it cannot be stopped. It stops of its own accord. This distinction has to be understood; otherwise you can go mad chasing your mind.
No-mind does not arise by stopping thinking. When the thinking is no more, no-mind is.
The very effort to stop will create more anxiety, it will create conflict, it will make you split. You will be in a constant turmoil within. This is not going to help.
"...Mind can exist only in one way -- in running, always running after something, but always running. In the running is the mind . The moment you stop, the mind disappears. Right now you are identified with mind. The only problem is being in the mind. And the only solution is to get beyond mind. I call it meditation...
...The mystics in the East have never bothered too much about the mind; they have developed methods to bypass the mind. Those methods are the techniques of meditation -- they are just to bypassed the mind. Once we have bypass the mind, once bird's-eye view of your own mind, things start settling..."
...It was for a certain reason that mystics called meditation 'no-mind' because if you call it meditation, again the mind makes a goal out of it..."
Comment
-
I find Osho highly creative in his discourses like these
Questions about God and the universe have occupied humankind since millennia and a lot of nonsense has been made up by priests who themselves had no idea. In answer to a related question Osho says,
“If you say the universe needs a God to create it, then the question is bound to arise, “Who created God?” And then you fall into a regress absurdum. Then God one is created by God two, and God two is created by God three, and God three by God four, and then there can be no end. I don’t want to be absurd like that. It is better to stop the first fiction; otherwise you are sowing the seeds for other fictions.
I say existence itself is enough, it needs no creator. It is creativity itself.
So rather than asking me do I believe in a creator, you should ask me what is my substitute for God, the creator. My substitute is the existential energy of creativity.
And to me, to be creative is the most important religious quality.
If you create a song, if you create music, if you create a garden, you are being religious. Going to the church is foolish, but creating a garden is tremendously religious. That’s why here in my commune, work is called worship. We don’t pray in any other way, we pray only through creating something. To me, creativity is God. But it will be better if you allow me to change the word god into godliness, because I don’t want to be misunderstood. There is no person like God, but there is tremendous energy — exploding, unending, expanding. This expanding, unending, exploding energy, this creativity, is divine.
I know it; I don’t believe in it.
I have tasted it; I don’t believe in it.
I have touched it, I have breathed it.
I have known it in the deepest core of my being.
And it is as much in you as it is in me. Just a look inwards, just a little one hundred and eighty degree turn, and you become aware of a truth. Then you don’t ask for beliefs. Only blind people believe in light. Those who have eyes… they don’t believe in light; they simply see it.”
Osho, From Unconsciousness to Consciousness, Chapter 2, Question 2
Action is not Creativity, inaction also is not. It is action through inaction. It is not a doing; it is an allowing. It is becoming a passage so the Whole can flow through you. It is becoming a hollow banboo, just a hollow bamboo.
The more you think, the more you are. The ego is nothing but all the thoughts accumulated in the past. When you are not, the Whole is. That is creativity.
In creativity is surpassing, otherwise, at the most we can go on perpetuating ourselves. You create a child; it is not creativity. You will die and the child will be there to perpetuate life. But to perpetuate is not enough unless you start surpassing. And surpassing happens only when something of the beyond comes in contact with you. That is the point of transcendence-- surpassing. and in surpassing, the miracle happens--you are not, and yet for the first time you are.
The essence of wisdom is to act in harmony with Nature. That is the message of all the great mystics--Lao Tzu, Buddha, Bahauddin, Sosan, Sanai-- to act in harmony with Nature. Man has to act consciously in harmony with Nature because man has consciousness. Man can choose not to act in harmony, hence the great responsibility.
Comment
-
If you mean creative as in Fabricating falsehoods when it suits him; then yes
You're just quoting more Osho statements to confirm Osho's own beliefs, and these are not things he knows because He onlY SAYS he knows them; Saying and Being are not the same.; this is Circular reasoning. Basically both your posts can be summarized as "Osho says so, so it is true" This is an uneducated person's thinking; For someone who advocates Education and Development how can you be so weak and mentally incompetent that you even shun or disregard the mind? Total ignorance. No AUTHENTIC Sufi which has connection with an AUTHENTIC Tariqah ever says things like Osho In fact one of the most important concepts of Sufism is "HOSH DAR DAM" which means "Mind on Breath or" . In Sufism Mind is CENTRALLY important.
If He believes No-mind can still think; he is contradicting himself because the property of the mind is thinking. Mind is just the collective faculty of the conscious brain. The distinction that Osho tries to make is arbitrary; because all of these are properties of the mind, both belief and perception. Lack of Mind is a state of Ignorance the meaning of Enlightenment is Awareness without Mind there is no Awareness. Thus Osho is the thinking of the ignorant. Osho is not an actual Sufi; he's a Pretender just using the Sufi word to gained notoriety. By Quoting Osho you're showing us more of what is wrong with his claims.[QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]
2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.Comment
Comment