Osho and his experiment with a commune in Oregon

To create the "new world", you need to create the "new consciousness" or awareness first, or a "new man", just as Osho, for example, tried to do in his experiment with the commune in Oregon, which, actually, "succeeded" to a large degree, and the results of that experiment are available, at least if you dig around. Moreover, there are hundreds of books of his that go into the most minute details of any conceivable aspect of Life as such, from personal to universal.

Whether it was "right" idea or "wrong", "virtuous" or "evil" is for you to decide for yourselves. Yes, there were some problems with it and they are the same kinds of problems we are dealing with in Benya's reports, the issues of governing and control. We'll touch upon some of them later in this chapter.

But that experiment did "work", at least from the standpoint of many practical aspects, and there are plenty of beneficial ideas to be learned from it. Except it was not entirely self-sufficient and did need the external funding to purchase those things that were not produced or manufactured within the commune, and that IS one of the major problems with it. The main source of income was from the sales of his books and from several yearly festivals. But that may not be applicable as a general case. It "worked" only in his particular case.

So, that model still needs some refinements, even though the basic things, like food, shelter, clothing, medial and child care, education, various services and construction and other basic needs were covered quite well.

Interestingly enough, there was no money circulated inside the commune. You wouldn't even hear about it any place you go. Money was used only in the dealings with the external world. So, it was essentially a pure communist model in this regard.

The model of the NWO also assumes the absence of money, but for a different reason, since everything "belongs" to the "emperor of the world", by implication. So, this, by itself, is quite an issue to look at and see if it at least points us in the "right" direction.

We are not trying to promote it here, but one thing is certain: that was probably the only known case in the entire recorded history, outside of the religious or tribal communities, where relatively large number of people were able to live together, take care of things without any kinds of conflicts or aggression, without pressures of the ideas of "survival" or any kind of ego-centric activity and ideology, which is quite an achievement in itself. Yes, we are aware of the idea of a Kibbutz, as implemented in Israel, but let us not get sidetracked.

Furthermore, the entire environment was of joy, relaxedness, giggle, laughter and appreciation. There was no pressures at a work place. There was no "competition" of any kind. Basically, he was against the very idea competition in principle, and for a good reason.

Why do you need to "compete"? For what? Is Life about "competition", which inevitably leads to the "cut-throat" viciousness eventually, at least in plenty of cases and spheres of activity?

Or is it about exploration and refinements of who you are and growth of you awareness, eventually leading you to placement of yourself in the "larger picture" of nothing less than Life itself? The very idea of "competition" needs to be looked at, and in a much more insightful manner than what we have at the moment.

The very idea of "overwhelming" the others, or "getting on the top of them", or "winning" some futile game is what? And leads where, but to some absurd of self-defeating nature?

For example, in the capitalist model, there is an idea of "diminishing returns", meaning that the more you "gain", the less significant it becomes and the less of a "progress" can you make. Because initially, you can multiply your profits by orders of magnitude. But when you own trillions, how easy is it to increase it in relative terms to your existing worth, not even talking about multiplying your wealth by orders of magnitude?

Nowadays, you can see this global obsession with all sorts of "competition", nearly everywhere you look. But who does ever ask a simple question: am I trying to just PROVE to others, and, ultimately, to myself, that I am "not worse" than them, and, in fact, even "better", compared to them, and can even "overpower" or "defeat" them? But for what?

There was no need for ideas of "achievement" of anything. The only "achievement" one could even mention is to live in joy and appreciation and "take it easy", without any unnecessary strain or effort, even though - yes, things do need to get done, and they were done quite well, in the implicit manner.

In Zen, there is a notion of an "effortless effort". Quite an interesting concept, which is a key to the meditation, which is the state of inner peace and silence in your mind, when your "channels" to the "higher levels" are open. But that is another story.

And that single aspect alone is something inconceivable in the framework of the "modern world". Because if you look at the "real world", then what you see is an endless "rat race", compared to that model, in which there was no need for any "rats" or their "races", inevitably leading to an abyss.

It looks like the time has come to review the results of that experiment and see if we can find those things in it that could be implemented in the "real world", and not just in some limited single "commune". Because the existing models and approaches on this planet at this junction simply pale in comparison to what was achieved in his "commune".

What we have today on this planet is basically not more "advanced" than the ideas of the outright barbarism, parasitism and exploitation of everything that moves, or does not move, for that matter.

If we just look at a few major aspects, such as being able to live together with others, without any violence or conflicts of all kinds, or fear of "survival" and the inherent "competitive pressures", and the very idea of "competition", as such, which merely translates into cut-throat existence, then what other known "system" allows you to operate in such a non-hostile environment outside of some religious monasteries or tribal environments?

The "bottom line" about the Osho's "commune" is that with all this talk about some mythical "elders" or "world government" of a benevolent kind, you are not even close to what was already done and may be verified and reimplemented "as is", pretty much.

And the reason is simple: how could the "blind" of Benya's kind possibly see and propose anything that really works for all, not just some, and works in the long run and allows the mankind to live in peace and harmony?

Because these people, with all their ideas about some mythical "village elders" or "world governments, do not have a slightest clue of what is "harmony", as such. All they know is endless struggles, the ideas of "survival" and "winning over" something or "achieving" some "goal" in their never ending struggle with their own Selves, just to "prove" something.

Yes, understood: "how can you punish the blind for not being able to see?"

And that is precisely why the idea of the "enlightened" men, at least one of them, being the primary choice for the "global village elders", may turn out to be to best choice possible. One just needs to ask the simple question: would you rather live in the world, governed and directed by the people of Jesus' kind, according to quite a few principles he had outlined, or would you insist on some other selection criteria? No wonder, he was called a "King". Because, if there were any REAL kings on this planet, who would they be?

But one thing you can be sure of: it is certainly more engaging and "enlightening" than anything you will ever hear from the propagandist Benya, as blind, as arrogant and as dictatorial, as any of those he condemns all the time.

If you review some books by Osho and compare the depths of his vision to the "revolutionary ideas" of Benyas of all kinds, then those of you, who at least have SOME ability to SEE, will be able to see the difference. And that difference is of day and night, in quite literal terms.

Osho books collection
(Contains about 300 of his books)

Date: 2016-01-14; view: 733