What do you think?
Rate this book
Osho Life Essentials
Kader, Özgürlük ve Ruh
Yaşamın Anlamı Nedir?
"Sorulara cevaplar arıyor değiliz, varlığımıza bir cevap arıyoruz."
OSHO
Osho-Yaşam Gereklilikleri Serisi bireyin yaşamında ortaya çıkan en önemli sorulara odaklanır.
Her kitap zamana meydan okuyan ve daima güncel keşifler, içsel yaşamımıza ve varoluşun tabiatına özgü sorulara odaklanan, kişisel mana ve amaç arayışımız açısından hayati önem taşıyan sorularla ilgili irdelemeler içerir.
Kader, Özgürlük ve Ruh: Yaşamın Anlamı Nedir? insana özgü soruları derinlemesine araştırır: "Ruh" diye bir şey gerçekten var mı ve eğer varsa, nedir? Karma kavramı nereye uyar? Kader nedir, özgürlük nedir ? Hayatımın belli bir anlamı veya amacı var mı?
"Gelecek yıllarda insanlığın bütün gidişatına çok değişik biçimlerde yön verildiğini göreceğiz. Olası en büyük felaket nükleer savaş değildir. Nükleer savaş ancak yok edebilir. Asıl felaket psikoloji bilimlerinden gelecektir. Bir insanın nasıl tamamen kontrol edilebileceğini öğrenecekler. Bilinçli olmadığımız için, önceden belirlenmiş şekillerde davranmaya yöneltilebiliriz."
"Sen özgürsün ama özgür her eylem bir sorumluluk getirir - ve bu senin esaretindir. Buna ister esaret de, ki güzel bir kelime değildir, ister sorumluluk de. Ben öyle diyorum. Belli bir eylemi tercih edersin - bu senin özgürlüğündür. Fakat o zaman sonuçlar senin sorumluluğun olacaktır."
"Sorulara cevaplar arıyor değiliz, varlığımıza bir cevap arıyoruz."
OSHO
Osho-Yaşam Gereklilikleri Serisi bireyin yaşamında ortaya çıkan en önemli sorulara odaklanır.
Her kitap zamana meydan okuyan ve daima güncel keşifler, içsel yaşamımıza ve varoluşun tabiatına özgü sorulara odaklanan, kişisel mana ve amaç arayışımız açısından hayati önem taşıyan sorularla ilgili irdelemeler içerir.
Kader, Özgürlük ve Ruh: Yaşamın Anlamı Nedir? insana özgü soruları derinlemesine araştırır: "Ruh" diye bir şey gerçekten var mı ve eğer varsa, nedir? Karma kavramı nereye uyar? Kader nedir, özgürlük nedir ? Hayatımın belli bir anlamı veya amacı var mı?
"Gelecek yıllarda insanlığın bütün gidişatına çok değişik biçimlerde yön verildiğini göreceğiz. Olası en büyük felaket nükleer savaş değildir. Nükleer savaş ancak yok edebilir. Asıl felaket psikoloji bilimlerinden gelecektir. Bir insanın nasıl tamamen kontrol edilebileceğini öğrenecekler. Bilinçli olmadığımız için, önceden belirlenmiş şekillerde davranmaya yöneltilebiliriz."
"Sen özgürsün ama özgür her eylem bir sorumluluk getirir - ve bu senin esaretindir. Buna ister esaret de, ki güzel bir kelime değildir, ister sorumluluk de. Ben öyle diyorum. Belli bir eylemi tercih edersin - bu senin özgürlüğündür. Fakat o zaman sonuçlar senin sorumluluğun olacaktır."
195 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2010
88 people are currently reading
839 people want to read
About the author
Osho
4,294 books6,796 followersRajneesh (born Chandra Mohan Jain, 11 December 1931 – 19 January 1990) and latter rebranded as Osho was leader of the Rajneesh movement. During his lifetime he was viewed as a controversial new religious movement leader and mystic.
In the 1960s he traveled throughout India as a public speaker and was a vocal critic of socialism, Mahatma Gandhi, and Hindu religious orthodoxy.
Rajneesh emphasized the importance of meditation, mindfulness, love, celebration, courage, creativity and humor—qualities that he viewed as being suppressed by adherence to static belief systems, religious tradition and socialization.
In advocating a more open attitude to human sexuality he caused controversy in India during the late 1960s and became known as "the sex guru".
In 1970, Rajneesh spent time in Mumbai initiating followers known as "neo-sannyasins". During this period he expanded his spiritual teachings and commented extensively in discourses on the writings of religious traditions, mystics, and philosophers from around the world. In 1974 Rajneesh relocated to Pune, where an ashram was established and a variety of therapies, incorporating methods first developed by the Human Potential Movement, were offered to a growing Western following. By the late 1970s, the tension between the ruling Janata Party government of Morarji Desai and the movement led to a curbing of the ashram's development and a back taxes claim estimated at $5 million.
In 1981, the Rajneesh movement's efforts refocused on activities in the United States and Rajneesh relocated to a facility known as Rajneeshpuram in Wasco County, Oregon. Almost immediately the movement ran into conflict with county residents and the state government, and a succession of legal battles concerning the ashram's construction and continued development curtailed its success.
In 1985, in the wake of a series of serious crimes by his followers, including a mass food poisoning attack with Salmonella bacteria and an aborted assassination plot to murder U.S. Attorney Charles H. Turner, Rajneesh alleged that his personal secretary Ma Anand Sheela and her close supporters had been responsible. He was later deported from the United States in accordance with an Alford plea bargain.[
After his deportation, 21 countries denied him entry. He ultimately returned to India and a revived Pune ashram, where he died in 1990. Rajneesh's ashram, now known as OSHO International Meditation Resort and all associated intellectual property, is managed by the Zurich registered Osho International Foundation (formerly Rajneesh International Foundation). Rajneesh's teachings have had a notable impact on Western New Age thought, and their popularity has increased markedly since his death.
In the 1960s he traveled throughout India as a public speaker and was a vocal critic of socialism, Mahatma Gandhi, and Hindu religious orthodoxy.
Rajneesh emphasized the importance of meditation, mindfulness, love, celebration, courage, creativity and humor—qualities that he viewed as being suppressed by adherence to static belief systems, religious tradition and socialization.
In advocating a more open attitude to human sexuality he caused controversy in India during the late 1960s and became known as "the sex guru".
In 1970, Rajneesh spent time in Mumbai initiating followers known as "neo-sannyasins". During this period he expanded his spiritual teachings and commented extensively in discourses on the writings of religious traditions, mystics, and philosophers from around the world. In 1974 Rajneesh relocated to Pune, where an ashram was established and a variety of therapies, incorporating methods first developed by the Human Potential Movement, were offered to a growing Western following. By the late 1970s, the tension between the ruling Janata Party government of Morarji Desai and the movement led to a curbing of the ashram's development and a back taxes claim estimated at $5 million.
In 1981, the Rajneesh movement's efforts refocused on activities in the United States and Rajneesh relocated to a facility known as Rajneeshpuram in Wasco County, Oregon. Almost immediately the movement ran into conflict with county residents and the state government, and a succession of legal battles concerning the ashram's construction and continued development curtailed its success.
In 1985, in the wake of a series of serious crimes by his followers, including a mass food poisoning attack with Salmonella bacteria and an aborted assassination plot to murder U.S. Attorney Charles H. Turner, Rajneesh alleged that his personal secretary Ma Anand Sheela and her close supporters had been responsible. He was later deported from the United States in accordance with an Alford plea bargain.[
After his deportation, 21 countries denied him entry. He ultimately returned to India and a revived Pune ashram, where he died in 1990. Rajneesh's ashram, now known as OSHO International Meditation Resort and all associated intellectual property, is managed by the Zurich registered Osho International Foundation (formerly Rajneesh International Foundation). Rajneesh's teachings have had a notable impact on Western New Age thought, and their popularity has increased markedly since his death.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
September 22, 2010
Osho books don't need to be reviewed. I guess it's a waste of time to do so. Very deep concepts with easy language. Highly recommended
July 17, 2014
This book was the first OSHO book i had ever read... I was randomly drawn to it while i was traveling Thailand at a small bookstore, it gave me such a different perspective on life and was a huge stepping stone in my journey of self discovery and path towards spirituality. Would definitely recommend this book for anyone looking for a very real and straightforward perspective on life.
June 29, 2024
My first Osho.
Antireligious spiritual pseudo…something 🍌
Everyone is in a schizophrenic state.
Everyone is wrong, from God to Darwin.
Death is not real.
The meaning of life = there’s no meaning?
Fun read on a sunny day.
Antireligious spiritual pseudo…something 🍌
Everyone is in a schizophrenic state.
Everyone is wrong, from God to Darwin.
Death is not real.
The meaning of life = there’s no meaning?
Fun read on a sunny day.
December 21, 2024
Some stories within the book are interesting, fun to read, but after reading the whole book I don't feel anything is really left of it within me to make me a better person or to have a higher knowledge.
It's mostly mumble jumble concepts often with contradictions between themselves.
It's mostly mumble jumble concepts often with contradictions between themselves.
July 23, 2020
Unless you do the right thing, it won't work. As there is a science and technology to create external well-being, there is a whole science and technology – the yogic science – to create inner well-being through which you can become
the master of your own destiny.
Nothing is predetermined, not even death. Everything has been created by you. The problem is you create most of it unconsciously, so you think it is being heaped upon you from somewhere else. If you can create something unconsciously, you can also create it consciously. That is the whole effort of all spiritual processes – to see that you create your life consciously instead of blundering through it by creating it unconsciously.
Once you make that effort, you will see more and more of your life becomes self-determined, not pre-determined. If you have mastery over your physical body, 15 to 20% of your life and destiny will be in your hands. If you have mastery over your mind, 50 to 60% of your life and destiny will be in your hands. If you have mastery over your very life energy, 100%; a hundred percent of your life and destiny will be in your hands to such an extent that you can choose the moment of death, as to when and how you should die – and I am not referring to suicide. You can choose the womb in which you will be born, how you will be born – every moment of your life can become self-determined.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing is predetermined, not even death. Everything has been created by you. The problem is you create most of it unconsciously, so you think it is being heaped upon you from somewhere else. If you can create something unconsciously, you can also create it consciously. That is the whole effort of all spiritual processes – to see that you create your life consciously instead of blundering through it by creating it unconsciously.
Once you make that effort, you will see more and more of your life becomes self-determined, not pre-determined. If you have mastery over your physical body, 15 to 20% of your life and destiny will be in your hands. If you have mastery over your mind, 50 to 60% of your life and destiny will be in your hands. If you have mastery over your very life energy, 100%; a hundred percent of your life and destiny will be in your hands to such an extent that you can choose the moment of death, as to when and how you should die – and I am not referring to suicide. You can choose the womb in which you will be born, how you will be born – every moment of your life can become self-determined.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Read
December 26, 2024The critic, faced with an emancipatory text, is put into an awkward position. “Why so cynical? Can’t you see that this is just trying to help people?” True, but sinister. In this specific case, Osho’s emphatic support of the devil in the story of Adam and Eve is a nice reference point for the dangers of sweet speech. It is easy, convenient, to choose the path that declares earthly pleasures to be apt, valuable, absolute. It is much harder to dispense with them in the pursuit of Platonic ideals. Here, then, lies the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Osho; how can materiality be good, but Buddha the ascetic be the exception? This can only be the case where west meets east, where post-war globalization softens the bulwarks of traditional life.
When evaluating an emancipatory text, it must be evaluated on three levels; that of the messenger, the message, and the text. These things intermingle and are infinitely referential (see: Barthes) but can be brought to the surface, like a topographical map, to illuminate certain features within the various textual strata. Let us proceed.
OSHO
As a messenger, Osho fails to pass muster. To note:
1. Ex post facto, the Osho movement failed. Reference 1 and 2 at the end of the review provide clear indications that the promulgated environment of the Ashram was one of libidinous excess, where the bare nature of man met the impoverished defenses of women and child and usurped their freedoms, under the auspice of free love. Even beyond the rampant abuses within the Ashram, one can see the Osho movement’s focus - the perpetuation of the Ashram - was mistaken
2. Osho himself, in his life, reflected mostly the worst of his message. The alleged bioterrorism (conveniently not his responsibility) and subsequent deportations make for a martyr story that requires a convert’s generosity of interpretation. The Rolls Royce collection shows a slavish adherence to the material. To the skeptic, he was clearly a negative character.
3. Osho, in his conversations, lies. To be clear - Osho is a preacher. Clever dispensation with the preachers places him against the grain to those who are believers in other preachers, but it does not free him from the position of proselytizer, try as he might to claim a more austere, illuminative role. As such, that which he preaches must be held to a high standard, by his own admission. And his preaching is frustratingly dishonest. Other faiths have reference-able texts, and must adhere to those guides. Osho liberated himself from this standard and builds myths out of scraps of reality. Decidedly modern! The most egregious examples were the exchange between Van Gogh and the purported buyer and the exchange between Yeats and Tagore. Osho takes a scrap of history - Van Gogh cut his ear, Tagore’s poetry meets Yeat’s poetry - and from the scrap creates an allegory. It’s a deductive play that relies on the suspension of belief in favor of the endpoint, the lesson to be learned. Lost in that process is truth, that frustrating objectivism which negates the affective potency of Osho hijacking epistemic pillars we associate with legitimacy. These exchanges, as told, did not occur! They are eloquent, yet false, and call into question what else Osho is willing to expound upon, falsely, in favor of his larger goal. Trust little one who plays with truth as if it were a dough.
OSHO’s PHILOSOPHY
Osho’s philosophy similarly fails to pass muster. To note:
1. Re-framing the initial contradiction: How can:
A. Karma be
B: Siddhartha Buddha be the exception
C: Nirvana be accessible
D: Materialism be good?
The karmic model requires a dispensation of the material world - the contradiction exists between A-C and D.
2. The above assumes Buddhism to be legitimate, but Pop Buddhism like this also struggles excessively to prove the base logics, like reincarnation. Osho’s abuse of quantum physics is timely but poor; where the line/dot of quantum particles is observable, the soul transfer is…not! This, then, requires the leap of faith that plagues all belief systems.
3. Critical here is the delta between Buddhism - the act of meditation, karma, the formlessness of shared consciousness - and Osho Buddhism. His contribution to the belief system, critically considered, is minimal. This places him in the interpreter position, not in the progenitor position, because his blend of mysticism with materialism is overly dependent on the bedrock provided by a previous philosophic form. The philosophy is mutative, but not evolutionary, and the inability to provide a new metaphysic leaves the philosophy aimless once meditation is no longer claimable.
THE TEXT
Osho was very capable as an extemporaneous speaker and quick to transfer a question back into his script, with the connective tissue of allegory executed near flawlessly. His lucidity and comfort on the block means he can quickly project confidence and assertiveness, and this skill is handily deployed. But, without the hypnotic quality of speech, the potency of the language is limited and artificial, and it becomes easier to find the holes otherwise sublimated.
Generally, the Q+A format allows for an organic conversational flavor, even though this is a heavily edited compilation of perfect execution over the course of 30 years of sermons. Since this is a formulation of the philosophy at its best, then we must be our sharpest in our skepticism.
To close - all prophets are false prophets. One must be cynical, must be cactus sharp, when faced with a message that professes to cure ills. Recommended are two texts that engage with Osho at a more fundamental level. Atomised by Michel Houellebecq - Houellebecq most certainly was aware of Osho and his ilk, since they were so powerful in Germany, and Atomised is a near direct refutation of the hedonic principles of the ashram. Separately, Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy - McCarthy gives a good dose of nihilism which questions the blasé indifference of the self-absorbed mystic. Faced with humanity at its most Hobbesian, will the meditative Dionysian prove their philosophy to be more powerful? I say no.
Reference 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
Reference 2: https://theprint.in/pageturner/osho-r...
When evaluating an emancipatory text, it must be evaluated on three levels; that of the messenger, the message, and the text. These things intermingle and are infinitely referential (see: Barthes) but can be brought to the surface, like a topographical map, to illuminate certain features within the various textual strata. Let us proceed.
OSHO
As a messenger, Osho fails to pass muster. To note:
1. Ex post facto, the Osho movement failed. Reference 1 and 2 at the end of the review provide clear indications that the promulgated environment of the Ashram was one of libidinous excess, where the bare nature of man met the impoverished defenses of women and child and usurped their freedoms, under the auspice of free love. Even beyond the rampant abuses within the Ashram, one can see the Osho movement’s focus - the perpetuation of the Ashram - was mistaken
2. Osho himself, in his life, reflected mostly the worst of his message. The alleged bioterrorism (conveniently not his responsibility) and subsequent deportations make for a martyr story that requires a convert’s generosity of interpretation. The Rolls Royce collection shows a slavish adherence to the material. To the skeptic, he was clearly a negative character.
3. Osho, in his conversations, lies. To be clear - Osho is a preacher. Clever dispensation with the preachers places him against the grain to those who are believers in other preachers, but it does not free him from the position of proselytizer, try as he might to claim a more austere, illuminative role. As such, that which he preaches must be held to a high standard, by his own admission. And his preaching is frustratingly dishonest. Other faiths have reference-able texts, and must adhere to those guides. Osho liberated himself from this standard and builds myths out of scraps of reality. Decidedly modern! The most egregious examples were the exchange between Van Gogh and the purported buyer and the exchange between Yeats and Tagore. Osho takes a scrap of history - Van Gogh cut his ear, Tagore’s poetry meets Yeat’s poetry - and from the scrap creates an allegory. It’s a deductive play that relies on the suspension of belief in favor of the endpoint, the lesson to be learned. Lost in that process is truth, that frustrating objectivism which negates the affective potency of Osho hijacking epistemic pillars we associate with legitimacy. These exchanges, as told, did not occur! They are eloquent, yet false, and call into question what else Osho is willing to expound upon, falsely, in favor of his larger goal. Trust little one who plays with truth as if it were a dough.
OSHO’s PHILOSOPHY
Osho’s philosophy similarly fails to pass muster. To note:
1. Re-framing the initial contradiction: How can:
A. Karma be
B: Siddhartha Buddha be the exception
C: Nirvana be accessible
D: Materialism be good?
The karmic model requires a dispensation of the material world - the contradiction exists between A-C and D.
2. The above assumes Buddhism to be legitimate, but Pop Buddhism like this also struggles excessively to prove the base logics, like reincarnation. Osho’s abuse of quantum physics is timely but poor; where the line/dot of quantum particles is observable, the soul transfer is…not! This, then, requires the leap of faith that plagues all belief systems.
3. Critical here is the delta between Buddhism - the act of meditation, karma, the formlessness of shared consciousness - and Osho Buddhism. His contribution to the belief system, critically considered, is minimal. This places him in the interpreter position, not in the progenitor position, because his blend of mysticism with materialism is overly dependent on the bedrock provided by a previous philosophic form. The philosophy is mutative, but not evolutionary, and the inability to provide a new metaphysic leaves the philosophy aimless once meditation is no longer claimable.
THE TEXT
Osho was very capable as an extemporaneous speaker and quick to transfer a question back into his script, with the connective tissue of allegory executed near flawlessly. His lucidity and comfort on the block means he can quickly project confidence and assertiveness, and this skill is handily deployed. But, without the hypnotic quality of speech, the potency of the language is limited and artificial, and it becomes easier to find the holes otherwise sublimated.
Generally, the Q+A format allows for an organic conversational flavor, even though this is a heavily edited compilation of perfect execution over the course of 30 years of sermons. Since this is a formulation of the philosophy at its best, then we must be our sharpest in our skepticism.
To close - all prophets are false prophets. One must be cynical, must be cactus sharp, when faced with a message that professes to cure ills. Recommended are two texts that engage with Osho at a more fundamental level. Atomised by Michel Houellebecq - Houellebecq most certainly was aware of Osho and his ilk, since they were so powerful in Germany, and Atomised is a near direct refutation of the hedonic principles of the ashram. Separately, Blood Meridian by Cormac McCarthy - McCarthy gives a good dose of nihilism which questions the blasé indifference of the self-absorbed mystic. Faced with humanity at its most Hobbesian, will the meditative Dionysian prove their philosophy to be more powerful? I say no.
Reference 1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...
Reference 2: https://theprint.in/pageturner/osho-r...
May 27, 2025
“De mens is een zoektocht - geen vraag, maar een zoektocht. Een vraag kan intellectueel worden beantwoord, maar een zoektocht moet existentieel worden volbracht. Het is niet zo dat we enkele antwoorden op enkele vragen zoeken, we zoeken naar een antwoord op ons zijn.”
De meest fundamentele vraag in het leven is “Wie ben ik?”. Daarop is geen antwoord. “Blijf bij de vraag. Doe niets en ga nergens heen: en begin niet in enig antwoord te geloven. Blijf bij de vraag.” “Niet dat het antwoord wordt verkregen; er is geen antwoord. Dat kan er niet zijn omdat het leven een mysterie is.” Volgens Osho is er een verschil tussen theologie en religiositeit: “Theologie biedt jou antwoorden - kant-en-klaar, geproduceerd, gepolijst, perfect. Religiositeit geeft jou geen enkel antwoord; het helpt je alleen diep in de vraag door te dringen. Hoe dieper je in de vraag gaat, des te meer merk je dat hij aan het smelten is, dat hij verdwijnt. En als de vraag verdwenen is, komt er een enorme energie vrij in jou. Je bent er, zonder een vraag. En als er geen vraag is, is er natuurlijk geen geest. De geest is de vraagsteller. Als er geen vragen worden gesteld, is de geest ook verdwenen - puur bewustzijn - alleen de lucht zonder wolken, de vlam zinder enige rook. Dat is wat goddelijkheid is.”
“Een zoeker moet alert zijn op kant-en-klare antwoorden. Ze zijn beschikbaar; vanaf elke kant worden ze je aangereikt. In feite is je geest al geconditioneerd. De antwoorden zijn je gegeven nog voor je de vraag hebt gesteld.”
“God is niet het antwoord- goddelijkheid is de toestand van zijn waarin de vraag verdwenen is. Goddelijkheid is de toestand van geen-geest.”
“Ga naar een kerk en je zult je gezelschap vinden, je zult replica’s van je leven vinden. Misschien is de taal een beetje anders, het ritueel een beetje anders, maar de basis is hetzelfde. De basis is dat de mens is gereduceerd tot een innerlijke burgeroorlog.” Osho betoogt dat alle religies met hun antwoorden blind maken voor de échte vragen in jezelf. “Wat kan worden gegeven, kan niet echt zijn. Het echte heb je al; alleen het valse moet worden weggenomen.”
Volgens Osho hebben alle religies en filosofen gefaald, omdat ze allemaal reageren op de tekortkomingen van anderen maar die van zichzelf niet zien. Als lezer denk ik, hoe kan ik weten of dat niet evengoed voor Osho geldt?
“Jezus kon niet overleven, dus is Jezus volgens Darwin niet de geschiktste mens. Pontius Pilatus is veel geschikter, meer op het juiste spoor. Socrates is niet de geschiktste, maar de mensen die hem vergiftigden, die hem ter dood veroordeelden, zijn dat wel. Darwins gebruik van het woord ‘geschiktste’ is ongelukkig.”
Doel?
We zijn van jongs af aan getraind om te denken in onderscheid tussen doel en middellen. Heeft het leven zin? Het moet een doel hebben, toch? En met een doel is het leven een middel. Is god het doel, nirvana? Een verdeling tussen doel en middel verdeelt je geest. Idem met liefde, schoonheid… welk doel dient het, wat heeft het voor zin? Volgens Osho: “het leven bestaat alleen uit dingen die helemaal geen zin hebben, die helemaal geen bedoeling hebben - in die zin dat ze geen enkel doel hebben, dat ze je nergens naar toe leiden, dat je er niets uit haalt. Met andere woorden, het leven is in zichzelf waardevol. De middelen en doelen zijn samen, niet gescheiden.” “Ik wil dus dat je alleen maar leeft omwille van het leven.”
“In deze wereld is er maar één geluk en dat is jezelf zijn. En omdat niemand zichzelf is, probeert iedereen zich op de een of andere manier te verbergen achter maskers, pretenties, huichelarijen.”
Niet alles in dit boek is interessant. Zo vertelt Osho een warrig verhaal over dat Jezus en Mozes in India zijn geweest en daar hebben geleerd over reïncarnatie. Dat Boeddha en hij daar ook in geloven. En dat Mohammed niet in India is geweest en er niet in gelooft. Over dat mensen in India lui zijn geworden van het geloof in reïncarnatie, omdat als iets in dit leven niet lukt, dan in een volgend… Wat moeten we hier van denken?
“Goed werk doen is één ding, en goed zijn is iets heel anders. Ik zeg niet: doe geen goede werken. Ik zeg: laat goede werken voortkomen uit jouw goed zijn.”
Intelligentie
Osho vertelt een legende van een rijk man die bij een wijze komt en vraagt hoe hij gelukkig kan worden. De wijze zegt: “Til uw been op.” De rijke is niet gewend dat aan hem opdrachten worden gegeven, dus met tegenzin tilt hij zijn rechterbeen op. Dan zegt de wijze: “Til nu uw andere been op..” wat natuurlijk niet kan. De wijze legt uit: als mens heb je de vrijheid om zelf keuzes te maken (welk been als eerste, was de keuze van de rijke man). De consequenties zijn daarna voor jou om te accepteren (het andere been lukt dan niet meer). (Karma). Zo kan een rijke tevreden zijn met de rijkdom die hij heeft maar niet ook de gemoedsrust en spiritualiteit van een arme hebben. De arme kan van het niet-materiële genieten maar heeft geen toegang tot de weelde van de rijke. Volgens Osho willen de meeste mensen wat ze niet hebben, maar is het intelligentie om te genieten van wat je juist wel hebt.
De meest fundamentele vraag in het leven is “Wie ben ik?”. Daarop is geen antwoord. “Blijf bij de vraag. Doe niets en ga nergens heen: en begin niet in enig antwoord te geloven. Blijf bij de vraag.” “Niet dat het antwoord wordt verkregen; er is geen antwoord. Dat kan er niet zijn omdat het leven een mysterie is.” Volgens Osho is er een verschil tussen theologie en religiositeit: “Theologie biedt jou antwoorden - kant-en-klaar, geproduceerd, gepolijst, perfect. Religiositeit geeft jou geen enkel antwoord; het helpt je alleen diep in de vraag door te dringen. Hoe dieper je in de vraag gaat, des te meer merk je dat hij aan het smelten is, dat hij verdwijnt. En als de vraag verdwenen is, komt er een enorme energie vrij in jou. Je bent er, zonder een vraag. En als er geen vraag is, is er natuurlijk geen geest. De geest is de vraagsteller. Als er geen vragen worden gesteld, is de geest ook verdwenen - puur bewustzijn - alleen de lucht zonder wolken, de vlam zinder enige rook. Dat is wat goddelijkheid is.”
“Een zoeker moet alert zijn op kant-en-klare antwoorden. Ze zijn beschikbaar; vanaf elke kant worden ze je aangereikt. In feite is je geest al geconditioneerd. De antwoorden zijn je gegeven nog voor je de vraag hebt gesteld.”
“God is niet het antwoord- goddelijkheid is de toestand van zijn waarin de vraag verdwenen is. Goddelijkheid is de toestand van geen-geest.”
“Ga naar een kerk en je zult je gezelschap vinden, je zult replica’s van je leven vinden. Misschien is de taal een beetje anders, het ritueel een beetje anders, maar de basis is hetzelfde. De basis is dat de mens is gereduceerd tot een innerlijke burgeroorlog.” Osho betoogt dat alle religies met hun antwoorden blind maken voor de échte vragen in jezelf. “Wat kan worden gegeven, kan niet echt zijn. Het echte heb je al; alleen het valse moet worden weggenomen.”
Volgens Osho hebben alle religies en filosofen gefaald, omdat ze allemaal reageren op de tekortkomingen van anderen maar die van zichzelf niet zien. Als lezer denk ik, hoe kan ik weten of dat niet evengoed voor Osho geldt?
“Jezus kon niet overleven, dus is Jezus volgens Darwin niet de geschiktste mens. Pontius Pilatus is veel geschikter, meer op het juiste spoor. Socrates is niet de geschiktste, maar de mensen die hem vergiftigden, die hem ter dood veroordeelden, zijn dat wel. Darwins gebruik van het woord ‘geschiktste’ is ongelukkig.”
Doel?
We zijn van jongs af aan getraind om te denken in onderscheid tussen doel en middellen. Heeft het leven zin? Het moet een doel hebben, toch? En met een doel is het leven een middel. Is god het doel, nirvana? Een verdeling tussen doel en middel verdeelt je geest. Idem met liefde, schoonheid… welk doel dient het, wat heeft het voor zin? Volgens Osho: “het leven bestaat alleen uit dingen die helemaal geen zin hebben, die helemaal geen bedoeling hebben - in die zin dat ze geen enkel doel hebben, dat ze je nergens naar toe leiden, dat je er niets uit haalt. Met andere woorden, het leven is in zichzelf waardevol. De middelen en doelen zijn samen, niet gescheiden.” “Ik wil dus dat je alleen maar leeft omwille van het leven.”
“In deze wereld is er maar één geluk en dat is jezelf zijn. En omdat niemand zichzelf is, probeert iedereen zich op de een of andere manier te verbergen achter maskers, pretenties, huichelarijen.”
Niet alles in dit boek is interessant. Zo vertelt Osho een warrig verhaal over dat Jezus en Mozes in India zijn geweest en daar hebben geleerd over reïncarnatie. Dat Boeddha en hij daar ook in geloven. En dat Mohammed niet in India is geweest en er niet in gelooft. Over dat mensen in India lui zijn geworden van het geloof in reïncarnatie, omdat als iets in dit leven niet lukt, dan in een volgend… Wat moeten we hier van denken?
“Goed werk doen is één ding, en goed zijn is iets heel anders. Ik zeg niet: doe geen goede werken. Ik zeg: laat goede werken voortkomen uit jouw goed zijn.”
Intelligentie
Osho vertelt een legende van een rijk man die bij een wijze komt en vraagt hoe hij gelukkig kan worden. De wijze zegt: “Til uw been op.” De rijke is niet gewend dat aan hem opdrachten worden gegeven, dus met tegenzin tilt hij zijn rechterbeen op. Dan zegt de wijze: “Til nu uw andere been op..” wat natuurlijk niet kan. De wijze legt uit: als mens heb je de vrijheid om zelf keuzes te maken (welk been als eerste, was de keuze van de rijke man). De consequenties zijn daarna voor jou om te accepteren (het andere been lukt dan niet meer). (Karma). Zo kan een rijke tevreden zijn met de rijkdom die hij heeft maar niet ook de gemoedsrust en spiritualiteit van een arme hebben. De arme kan van het niet-materiële genieten maar heeft geen toegang tot de weelde van de rijke. Volgens Osho willen de meeste mensen wat ze niet hebben, maar is het intelligentie om te genieten van wat je juist wel hebt.
December 21, 2025
My first literature written by Osho, very relatable and relevant in recent times. Helps you with the dilemma we have faced in recent times, be it personal or professional issues. Religious or spiritual, this book teaches the value of being practiced and present.
One quote that is stuck with me is ‘ We are inherently free and have freedom and along with it comes our bondage or in easier words responsibility.’
One quote that is stuck with me is ‘ We are inherently free and have freedom and along with it comes our bondage or in easier words responsibility.’
March 17, 2020
This is the best Osho book I have ever read. Well, I may say the same thing about most other Osho books too.
In life, we get to choose what we want to do; that is our freedom. But, how we use our freedom determines our bondage which we may call destiny. And soul is something that remains when the ego is lost. Osho explains some of the most abstract concepts in a very tangible way.
In life, we get to choose what we want to do; that is our freedom. But, how we use our freedom determines our bondage which we may call destiny. And soul is something that remains when the ego is lost. Osho explains some of the most abstract concepts in a very tangible way.
September 23, 2024
O carte care parcă îți deschide sufletul spre o altă parte a lumii. Personal, mi-a ‘validat’ câteva afirmații. S-ar putea să nu fie pe gustul tuturor doar din cauza acelor afirmații. Vorbește foarte mult despre manipularea societății, crearea scopului religiei - diferența între religia- Biserică și adevarata credinta- spiritualitate.
July 1, 2019
Life happens and we assume meaning to it. The book lies on the fringes of atheism and theism. Osho through his discourses tries to invoke a sense of inquiry in people of the being we believe ourselves to be. According to him meditation becomes the key to this inquiry and religion a mere anecdote. The book explores so much more and yet is likely to be a light read.
May 17, 2024
First Osho book I read after being fascinated by his teachings for some time.
Really changed my perspective on life and the book has had an immense impact on me, it was kind of like being hit with a shot of espresso in the morning or waking up after a deep sleep.
Really changed my perspective on life and the book has had an immense impact on me, it was kind of like being hit with a shot of espresso in the morning or waking up after a deep sleep.
March 27, 2025
The simplicity of Osho’s words touches my heart every time! Very beautiful book which will inspire you to walk on your own path towards yourself. I have started smiling more and breathing more freely and deeply as I read and try to implement his teachings in my life. Love it! 🩵🙌✨
September 5, 2019
Quite exciting at the beggining, gets boring at the end. Repeats himself too many times.
April 9, 2020
Not a great book, it tells stories that are untrue and a lot of it is very repetitive
Read
December 16, 2020well I didn't find the answer for that question in that book for sure ...
January 17, 2022
Somehow the second half of the book is a bit boring, but overall a good book.
January 12, 2023
Live life full in the present.
February 4, 2023
A lot of valuable knowledge
July 27, 2016
In true Osho fashion, this book was enlightening and refreshing to read. Osho's words always make me reevaluate the way I'm looking at life in the greater scheme of things and the way I process my own day to day living.
This book reinforces many of the principles emphasized in his other work, but I am a fan of the question/answer format of the Life Essentials series. It makes the usual conversational tone of his words feel even more pointed. It also offers a frame of reference for where others who have interacted with him are in relation to him, something I've found helpful as I figure all this stuff out.
All in all, a helpful read for those looking to question the way they currently see things. If you've read other Osho books in the past, you'll come across some similar themes (and stories/parables) he's used in the past. However, repetition helps me learn so I'm still a fan!
This book reinforces many of the principles emphasized in his other work, but I am a fan of the question/answer format of the Life Essentials series. It makes the usual conversational tone of his words feel even more pointed. It also offers a frame of reference for where others who have interacted with him are in relation to him, something I've found helpful as I figure all this stuff out.
All in all, a helpful read for those looking to question the way they currently see things. If you've read other Osho books in the past, you'll come across some similar themes (and stories/parables) he's used in the past. However, repetition helps me learn so I'm still a fan!
November 4, 2012
As much as I love these Osho books, I fear I may have reached a point when they are starting to feel redundant. Many of the passages in this book are duplicated word-for-word in other books by Osho, but not only that, the general message of the book is the same as well. This book has been helpful in refreshing my memory of some of the more important life lessons Osho elucidated on in previous books, but nothing more than that. I would still recommend it, though, to any unfamiliar with his work, or with Eastern philosophy.
August 16, 2020
Debo admitir que este libro llegó en un momento difícil de mi vida. Recuerdo muy bien que me costó trabajo conectar con lo que decía el autor... pero una vez que logre entenderlo y captar su esencia no lo pude soltar. Hace unos días volví a releer todas las frases y fragmentos que marqué... ha pasado tiempo e incluso siento que conecto aún mejor con lo que dice Osho.
Diría que este libro es ese primer paso que cuesta mucho, pero que abre un panorama enorme a la conciencia y meditación personal. Lo recomiendo ampliamente.
Diría que este libro es ese primer paso que cuesta mucho, pero que abre un panorama enorme a la conciencia y meditación personal. Lo recomiendo ampliamente.
June 30, 2014
Hoje terminei este livro pela segunda vez, ou seja li a tradução do livro em português: 'Destino, Liberdade e Alma.' Julgo que os livros de Osho têm certa sabedoria, sem estar de acordo com tudo o que diz. E as piadas que tem no livro não são muito engraçadas, a meu ver. Acho, contudo, que a mensagem central de este livro é que é importante fazer meditação para estar mais centrado e nisso sem dúvida tem razão o Osho.
March 17, 2013
Some ideas are extraordinary, very interesting and disturbing, others are just strange, I definitely found something that was of help... What I didnt like - Osho kept repeating certain ideas many times.
February 20, 2012
"Never love the wrong thing, because it will transform you." - Osho
"Conscience is one of the meanest inventions of humanity." - Osho
"Conscience is one of the meanest inventions of humanity." - Osho
July 23, 2012
Lot of nice sayings regarding reincarnation and soul are explained here.Really the human being with desireless cannot give rebirth, is explained clearly here...
June 24, 2018
Amazing book
Must read..it's a manual on life...a self help book...I recommend it to all looking fr some answers..I read it twice and will do many more times.. a great book.
Must read..it's a manual on life...a self help book...I recommend it to all looking fr some answers..I read it twice and will do many more times.. a great book.
September 21, 2014
Prea profunda pentru mine. Poate cu alta ocazie, o sa inteleg si apreciez mai bine.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews