LovePrevails Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I really enjoyed the jist of this article, a particularly moving quote for me was: "It seems that there has been a conspiracy, going on for centuries, of mediocre people against the genius. " you will have to excuse one or two religious examples, the message is worth it. Thinking Is Dangerous March 1, 2014 | By WakingTimes | Reply Osho Waking Times Thoughts are always subversive. Only people who do not think are not subversive. Thinking is a crime. Jesus is crucified, Socrates is poisoned, Gautam Buddha is stoned. These people have not harmed anybody. They were the most loving, most compassionate human beings possible — but they committed a crime, and the crime's name is thinking. No society wants any of its members to think. Thinking is dangerous. The society wants robots who simply do whatever is told to them, who cannot say no — that is impossible for them. They are machines. It is not accidental that every developed society is replacing man by machines. Machines are obedient, never subversive. Have you ever heard of any machine being a revolutionary or a rebel? It has not happened up to now that we had to crucify a machine. Machines are very respectable people. I am not a machine. And there is no way of thinking, other than being subversive. Thinking means you doubt; thinking means you are not ready to accept what is being told to you. You want to decide on your own. Thinking means to be rational, to be logical; and humanity up to now has been superstitious… Yes, I am subversive. And only the subversive people are responsible for all the progress of the world. Whatever you have — all civilization, all scientific growth, all technology — is the contribution of subversive people. It is not the contribution of the superstitious. So I am happy to declare that I am subversive, absolutely subversive. To belong to that category is a great honor. Jesus Christ belongs to it, Socrates belongs to it, Galileo belongs to it, Gautam Buddha belongs to it. These are the real human beings. Others are only part of the crowd, cogs in the wheel. The society decides what is right, and they never question. The society decides what is wrong, and they never question. What is the difference between animals and man? Each human being has to be subversive if he wants to be a human being. That's the definition given by Aristotle: man is a thinking animal. Thinking is equivalent to subversiveness… Socrates lived a long life; then they poisoned him. Jesus preached for three years continuously, and then they crucified him. I was only in Greece for two weeks when they arrested me. And they threatened that they would burn the house, dynamite the house, if I didn't leave the house immediately. These are the same people who had poisoned Socrates two thousand years before… Do you think crucifying Jesus was the answer? The crucifixion created Christianity. Was poisoning Socrates the answer? Nobody is respected more in the whole history of Greece than Socrates. People have completely forgotten the names of those who had decided to poison him. But Socrates' name will remain immortal as long as human beings are on the earth… It seems that there has been a conspiracy, going on for centuries, of mediocre people against the genius. And of course the mediocre people are in the majority — they have all the power. They have the government, they have the military, they have the police, they have the nuclear weapons. The genius has nothing except his intelligence, and intelligence is basically revolutionary; it cannot be otherwise. Its very quality, its intrinsic quality, is rebellion — rebellion against darkness, rebellion against untruth, rebellion against slavery, rebellion against everything that prevents man from becoming his total, grown-up self.
dsayers Posted March 2, 2014 Posted March 2, 2014 I want my money back. The message was not worth it at all. The root of all thought, from within the womb is, "I can die." This is an acceptance, not a subversion. Every thought we have after that begins with acceptance of that which we know to analyze that which we do not. Reality is a system and our thoughts are designed to be able to more accurately describe more of reality. Understanding leads to survival. Stability leads to comfort. There's comfort and survivability in understanding the consistency of matter. The systems that this article is talking about thought subverting are systems that do not accurately describe the real world. Those systems were put in place by people who used understanding of the real world to exploit others. Those people were able to inflict these bogus systems by making egregious threats against those who resist up to and including instilling in people the ability to self-attack. At which point the victims' thoughts that subvert reality accept the imposed reality that failure to conform threatens their survival. The article fails by putting the cart before the horse. In the end, he talks about rebellion against slavery as if slavery pre-dates thought. It also fails by making numerous unsubstantiated claims, including intelligence is revolutionary and cannot be otherwise, and the opening sentence: Thoughts are always subversive. I only read the whole thing because you said it was worth it. I hope you will share what you got out of it.
LovePrevails Posted March 2, 2014 Author Posted March 2, 2014 Here, let me offer you a full refund! I think it expresses and prizes individuality and the right of the individual to think out of the box and question the dogmas he has received from his society I see what you mean about thought not necessarily being subversive, as in - people have thought to create systems of repression in the first place but I think you can substitute "thought" for "free thought" : ie. "Thinking means you doubt; thinking means you are not ready to accept what is being told to you. You want to decide on your own. Thinking means to be rational, to be logical; and humanity up to now has been superstitious…" ie. not critically examining what you hear is not really thinking Also, Osho did talk about force being exerted against children, school religion and politics being conditioning/control systems, and intervening in child abuse he talked extensively about how parents and culture want to mould children into what they want them to be instead of finding out who they are and giving them freedom to bloom so he was not ignorant to root causes nor did he ignore then hence why he was such a controversial figure.
Phuein Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 While I agree with Osho's fundamental observations, about thinkers and societies, I disagree with his conclusion that this is a social conflict. It isn't. This is a natural, logical, conflict. It is a conflict not between people, the "deviant thinker" being "more" than the traditionalist, if I may use that word. This is a conflict between methods. When I say methods, I mean that each person is designed differently. We all have different properties. Some are stronger, some are quicker thinkers, and others may be more patient, or more sympathetic. Each method, or strategy, has its' pros and cons, in different places, and in different times. I feel that due to the rarity of "thinkers", it had always been a rather socially unrewarding strategy. This conflict is between the person, the thinker, and the nature that designed them to be this way. Don't blame people for being different; blame nature that wanted variety, and heed nature, as it says, "too late, buddy."
Recommended Posts