[Book] The Buddha Said by OSHO (10\10)

[Bill W]

I'm going to highlight my favourite parts of this book, what these favourite parts mean to me, and how I try to assimilate them into my recovery and spiritual growth. Just to give you some context with the way I have done this.... I'm new to spirituality teachings and terminology. Half of the posts on this forum I can't pretend to fully understand. I hit rock bottom 7 months ago, multiple mental health difficulties, multiple addictions. I'm now 7 months clean in terms of alcohol and sleeping pills. I'm deeply involved with Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12-step approach but consider myself open to virtually anything on my journey. I'm full of contradictions probably, and this will likely be very obvious if I bite the bullet and start a journal on this forum.

I got this book early in my recovery (so about 6 months ago). I'd never heard of Osho and was beginning to get really curious about Buddhism, so the book appealed......I loved OSHO's style. Not on the fence. Tells you straight. 

I can't even begin to do this book justice here.... Game-changer for me.

Chapter 1

Osho writes that Buddha, unlike Jesus was a rationalist and that even Einstein would not be able to find a flaw in Buddha's reasoning. This appeals to me because I am trying to be more pragmatic with my recovery and development. I get obsessed easily and am regularly a complete slave to my emotions.

I'm currently torn about the value of prayer in my recovery and development. I think the way I have been "praying" is probably more of a "speaking out loud" type of meditation? I am unsure if to pray means you are telling yourself that what you’re saying or asking for is definitely going somewhere and being "received" by something... God? A Higher Power? If I "pray", me personally, I am not at all convinced yet that it is being received by anything, or anyone other than myself. There is a bit in Chapter 1 that I find empowering. Osho argues that Buddha's position on prayer is that it's pointless because there is "no help coming". That, if you discover you have lost your way, it is your responsibility and no one else's, to help you find your way back. Osho seems to put forward that Buddha would consider prayer an insult, and part of an avoidance to not take personal responsibility. He goes onto make a strong argument formeditation, and that meditation provides everything and prayer provides nothing. 

A bit in chapter one that literally made me LOL when I read it, was Osho stating that Buddha said that just because you feel a need, reality has no necessity to fulfil it. How true! 

Chapter 2

Osho highlights some of the core teachings of Buddha around clinging and attachments. He writes that anytime you call something "mine" you are falling into stupidity! I liked Osho's term of "you are trying to hold a river in your arms". 

Part of Chapter 2 which sumarises so much of the whole book for me is Osho referring to the "law". If you don't follow the law, you will be unhappy. He says the whole question is one of discipline and not prayer. Understand the law if you want to be happy. He also writes some powerful things about desire and the pitfalls of desire. 

Going back to the pragmatic feel of the book, Osho argues there is no "sin" or condemnation in Buddhist terminology. If you make a mistake, simply correct the error. I like this interpretation.Basically, follow THE LAW!!!! F*** with The Law and The Law f****s with you!

Chapter 3

Possibly the best chapter for me in the whole book. It's about mindfulness and dealing with anger. Buddha, of course, teaches detachments from thoughts and feelings. Osho words it beautifully when he advises us to be like a "watcher" on the hills, remaining "aloof", as if you were totally out of the situation (a situation that would ordinarily give rise to anger). 

There is emphasis on forgiveness, but it would appear not so much from a moral or ethical stance, but from a practical stance. Anger and resentment is stupid, doesn't work, and goes against The Law!

Osho writes that Buddha taught that we should be aware and mindful of our feelings, but not get obsessed with them, and not to be obsessive about anything. 

Osho says that Buddha taught that the energy of anger is the same energy as compassion and love and that we need to respect the energy of anger and transform it into compassion and love. The energy needs to go somewhere, so we need to work on creating a path for this energy, moving it from negative energy to positive energy.

Chapter 4

Lots of good stuff about ego in this chapter. Osho argues that most people, instead of trying to become wise, simply do their best to denounce the wise due to the threat to the ego....... (he is wise, and I am not wise). 

Chapter 4 highlights that The Law is actually Dhamma and that Dhamma has nothing to do with any "God". Buddha is against the idea of a God because believing in God is to move away from taking 100% personal responsibility for your life and your problems. 

Chapter 6

Osho discusses 20 things Buddha taught are difficult to attain but well worth trying to attain. There are more brilliant tips for dealing with difficult people! My favourite is when Osho writes that Buddha taught to take advantage of any situation when someone attempts to insult you. Buddha saw this as a great opportunity for us to become less mechanical and more conscious. That it is a beautiful chance to grow. This has really helped me personally to think of things in this light. What I mean is, that rather acting on animal instinct due to a perceived injustice, I can try to be immediately aware of the opportunity to rise above it. Practice, practice, practice I think!

Chapter 8

There is a lovely section where Osho makes reference to the Bible..... 'Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth'. Osho argues Jesus is speaking the truth here, and that Jesus is giving the same message Buddha did. Meekness is actually powerful. Osho actually goes to great lengths here, giving examples of what meekness really means and why it's a great character trait to strive for. This chapter for me is all about humility and how to obtain it. 

Chapter 14

I think this chapter is more powerful to me now than it was at the time I originally read it. I am somewhat belatedly realising that in my recovery and development there is a lot less to acquire than I thought, but a hell of a lot more to get rid of than I imagined. Osho argues that Buddha differs to many religions in that we are actually possessing too many things which are not needed, whereas religion generally teaches that we are lacking.

One of my favourite snippets of this chapter is when Osho writes that one of Buddha's most basic teachings is to "surrender to reality". This is huge for me. So true!

Chapter 16

Powerful stuff about staying in the present. Like the rest of the book, practical references to why this is important and how to do it. 

Chapter 17

This is about Buddha's Noble Eightfold Path. Osho gives examples of how to achieve what Buddha had in mind for us. 

[kieranperez]

I saw this book yesterday at a bookstore here in San Francisco! Thanks for the review!

On 5/4/2019 at 2:38 PM, Bill W said:

'm new to spirituality teachings and terminology. Half of the posts on this forum I can't pretend to fully understand. I hit rock bottom 7 months ago, multiple mental health difficulties, multiple addictions. I'm now 7 months clean in terms of alcohol and sleeping pills. I'm deeply involved with Alcoholics Anonymous and the 12-step approach but consider myself open to virtually anything on my journey. I'm full of contradictions probably, and this will likely be very obvious if I bite the bullet and start a journal on this forum.

Man, I'm so happy for you! This is so amazing! Great on you brother! Follow the path (at your own pace!)  

So glad to hear this massive progress. I can't wait to follow along with your journey! You got this man! There will be suffering in this path but you're taking this path consciously. I don't know you but I'm sure the hardest part has been conquered. Remind yourself there will be hiccups but man, sounds like you've conquered a fucking mountain to even get this part. 

You fucking got this man! 

[Bill W]

I just wanted to bump my review. This book is just packed full of wisdom. Great read. 

[Ibn Sina]

There are so many free osho pdfs that can be downloaded but not this one,

NOOOOOO

I hope these teachings are present in other 400 downloadable pdfs. 

But personally I think, Osho's book are not the perfect representation of Buddha's teachings, Osho puts his own flavour to the teachings of other saints. Like I am sure Buddha has never said - To take advantage of people who insults you by raising one's consciousness. But I think Buddha would agree with Osho's creative methods. 

But it works for the people of the modern generation, Osho packages his spiritual teachings for the modern consciousness.

Osho has even made up stories about Buddha which were entertaining to the general audience, and he used to get in debates with the orthrodox Buddhist monks, and Osho's argument would be, the essence of the story is the same, whether the event happened or not doesn't matter. The historicity is useless.

 

 

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[kieranperez]

@Ibn Sina are you really here to be a historian? No one on earth has an accurate detail of Buddha and what he said. In the end there is no Buddha.

[Ibn Sina]

@kieranperez 
But I agree with Osho's arguement that 'historicity' is not important, the essence of the teaching is important. I myself am an avid follower and reader of Osho.

I was just stating what is the case, that what Osho says is not the 'perfect' representation of Buddha, ( I think so)

Osho is way more lively, funny, charismatic, rebel like, poetic than Buddha (by which I mean the Buddha of the scripture.  That is as close as we can get to the real Buddha)

To know real Buddhism, one would have to dive into the scriptures, which is way less fun than Osho's books.

and complex. 

Buddhists have  their own epistemology, their own psychology, metaphysics, they have studied emotions to great depth, they have studied cause and effect, they have developed so many techniques. they have highly complex philosophical systems, they have divisions of consciousness, have made distinctions within sensations and mental activity.

It's extreeeemely huge.

It would be like taking  a  philosophy course on German Idealism, instead of reading beautiful poetry.

' 

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[kieranperez]

@Ibn Sina to know “real Buddhism” would be to wake up. 

Buddhism is not Buddha. 

Work towards waking up and get off this academic analysis. You can draw distinctions and contrasts forever. That game will never end. 

[Ibn Sina]

8 hours ago, kieranperez said:

@Ibn Sina to know “real Buddhism” would be to wake up. 

Buddhism is not Buddha. 

Work towards waking up and get off this academic analysis. You can draw distinctions and contrasts forever. That game will never end. 

 

I think that would be 'zen' , where there is more emphasis on practice than philosophy. 

Anyway, thanks for your opinion. Although  I have heard it countless time's before and have done that too. And later I incorporated philosophy in my practice.

 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[kieranperez]

8 hours ago, Ibn Sina said:

 

I think that would be 'zen' , where there is more emphasis on practice than philosophy. 

Anyway, thanks for your opinion. Although  I have heard it countless time's before and have done that too. And later I incorporated philosophy in my practice.

 

Lol you still don’t get it.

Philosphy is not enlightenment.

Zen is not enlightenment.

Buddhism is not enlightenment. 

Academic nitpicking of traditions is not enlightenment. 

Nonduality is about practice and waking up now indpendent of what silly tradition you’re part of or subscribe to at the end of the day. No tradition “has the truth”. 

If you’re don’t wake up, you’re just jerking off your mind at the end of the day and spinning your wheels and that game will never EVER end.

If you’re not practicing you’re not going to awaken. I can pretty much guarantee you that. And if you don’t awaken, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re talking about an orange without having ever eaten an orange. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by kieranperez

[Ibn Sina]

2 hours ago, kieranperez said:

Lol you still don’t get it.

Philosphy is not enlightenment.

Zen is not enlightenment.

Buddhism is not enlightenment. 

Academic nitpicking of traditions is not enlightenment. 

Nonduality is about practice and waking up now indpendent of what silly tradition you’re part of or subscribe to at the end of the day. No tradition “has the truth”. 

If you’re don’t wake up, you’re just jerking off your mind at the end of the day and spinning your wheels and that game will never EVER end.

If you’re not practicing you’re not going to awaken. I can pretty much guarantee you that. And if you don’t awaken, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re talking about an orange without having ever eaten an orange. 

 

I think you don't get it.

I never said any of them (zen, buddhism, philosophy) is enlightenment.

Actually you and I have the same view of enlightenement, I agree with your last sentence.

It's just that you have an extreme aversion with all philosophical stuff.

, I have never said academia is way to enlightenment, I have never said philosophy is about enligthenment,

it's just that I am talking about buddhism and you are saying- philosophy academic is not connected to enlightenment. Just by talking about philosophy you believe that I think philosophy or academia or concepts leads to enligtenment,

Look, whatever opinion you give about enlightenement, you say (it's this ___, no you don't get it, it's this ____), the buddhists have left no stone un turned. You are just a small topic within them. They have lived for 2500 years, so don't think you have got it all and what you say is the TRUTH and rest is false, it may seem like it but if you really consider that billions of people , who are just like you, who perhaps have lived through the path more dedicated  then you, then your view , no matter how TRUTH it looks, is not the entire picture.

Even Gautama Buddha is incomplete, just look at Leo and see how he has added to it.

And here you are like you have it all, you have the entire answer and this it.

Millions of people have had satori, samadhi. Billions (Over a course of thousands of years). 

There are masters who have reached  God and have one outpouring, there are masters who have another outpouring. 

You are just saying that reject philosophy, do practice. Anything new to say? No. So just don't keep repeating. Just go away. What you say is just one outpouring of one of millions of enlightened masters, mainly the school of Zen.  I am also a meditation practitioner.

SO JUST DON'T KEEP REPEATING WILL YOU? (You don't  get it you don't get it, okay move on)

You just said- 

Philosphy is not enlightenment.

Zen is not enlightenment.

Buddhism is not enlightenment. 

Academic nitpicking of traditions is not enlightenment. 

Nonduality is about practice and waking up now indpendent of what silly tradition you’re part of or subscribe to at the end of the day. No tradition “has the truth”. 

I am quoting you here.

 it's all a small topic in buddhism.

I GET IT. YES although you don't believe it. ( I know you may be shaking your head with a big smile saying no you don't get it)

Your emphasis is in practice, rejection of philosophy, emphasis on silence, the void, rejection of all academic nitpicking.

I GET IT, just don't keep correcting with more words.

It's  just that it is a small topic. 

 again you will repeat the same thing- 

Philosphy is not enlightenment.

Zen is not enlightenment.

Buddhism is not enlightenment. 

Academic nitpicking of traditions is not enlightenment. 

Believe it or not but I AM a meditation practitioner, I have had my moments with the silence, I have experienced like my ego wasn't there, I wasn't there, it's in my consideration, I will take all psychedelics I get,  and just because I talk about philosophy it's not like you have to put that quotation box and keep saying - you don't get it you don't get it, it's not this, it's that, while I am literally accepting every word you say.

I HAVE experienced Silence. That is what keeps me interested  in spirtuality in the first place. It's the peace of meditation, without it the philosophy is just meaningless words.

Just move on, reply to some others.  I don't think I need your advice.

And by 'get it' I don't mean I am enlightenment, I mean I get where you are coming from.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[kieranperez]

40 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

They have lived for 2000 years, so don't think you have go it all.

@Ibn Sina

40 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

It's just that you have an extreme aversion with all philosophical stuff.

Don’t assume you know what I have aversions to. You don’t know me. I have a deep love for philosophy. If anything I’m more philophsicaly minded than anything else as far as my mind and what.

Having said that, that doesn’t diminish my underlying point. Anything you or I can conceive of is irrelevant as far as enlightenment goes. It’s a game that will not under nor ever be completed.

Enlightenment, or truth, or that which really cannot be depicted not symbolized cannot have a concept regardless of our limited interpretations. We could write an infinite number of books on what enlightenment is. The reason it seems to you that I have an aversion to some philosophical interpretation is because it’s irrelevant at the end of the day. 

My emphasis here is on waking up, nothing more nothing less.

40 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

the buddhists have left no stone un turned.

Belief and assumption

40 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

You are just a small topic within them.

I am not a topic nor some concept lol. You’re drawing and fabricating these distinctions. You’re not recognizing your assumptions here.

I suggest you stay vigilant about your projections of me, my character, etc. You don’t know me.

All authority you outsource to others occurs in you.

Truth has no picture. Anything you or I say about the Absolute is at the end of the day completely false and just wrong. From the relative side of the street (and this includes conversations regarding the Absolute) there will always be some partial truth in everything and also falsehood. 

Like I said, be mindful of what you assume about me. There’s a reason I’m emphasizing what I’m emphasizing. Philosophy is a lot of fun. I get it. I can appreciate that. However, everything that’s relative, you perceive, believe, even sense is all your/my/our mind that has no Absolute existence to it. All stories at the end of the day do not exist. I’m not calling myself some special dedicated one nor did I ever. You’re assigning that to me. Everything occurs right now. The sense of relative world helps to open up blind spots in our own layers of assumptions to what is right here. The consciousness of the Absolute is not reserved to a special dedicated few. 

[Ibn Sina]

48 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

@Ibn Sina

Don’t assume you know what I have aversions to. You don’t know me. I have a deep love for philosophy. If anything I’m more philophsicaly minded than anything else as far as my mind and what.

Having said that, that doesn’t diminish my underlying point. Anything you or I can conceive of is irrelevant as far as enlightenment goes. It’s a game that will not under nor ever be completed.

Enlightenment, or truth, or that which really cannot be depicted not symbolized cannot have a concept regardless of our limited interpretations. We could write an infinite number of books on what enlightenment is. The reason it seems to you that I have an aversion to some philosophical interpretation is because it’s irrelevant at the end of the day. 

My emphasis here is on waking up, nothing more nothing less.

Belief and assumption

I am not a topic nor some concept lol. You’re drawing and fabricating these distinctions. You’re not recognizing your assumptions here.

I suggest you stay vigilant about your projections of me, my character, etc. You don’t know me.

All authority you outsource to others occurs in you.

Truth has no picture. Anything you or I say about the Absolute is at the end of the day completely false and just wrong. From the relative side of the street (and this includes conversations regarding the Absolute) there will always be some partial truth in everything and also falsehood. 

Like I said, be mindful of what you assume about me. There’s a reason I’m emphasizing what I’m emphasizing. Philosophy is a lot of fun. I get it. I can appreciate that. However, everything that’s relative, you perceive, believe, even sense is all your/my/our mind that has no Absolute existence to it. All stories at the end of the day do not exist. I’m not calling myself some special dedicated one nor did I ever. You’re assigning that to me. Everything occurs right now. The sense of relative world helps to open up blind spots in our own layers of assumptions to what is right here. The consciousness of the Absolute is not reserved to a special dedicated few. 

 

Look, I know, you give emphasis on practice. 

I have considered that.

I am also a practitioner, I am not always  in my mind thinking philosophy leads to enlightenment.

So you and I agree.

It's just that whenever I talk about philosophy you say philosophy doesn't lead to enlightenment (since your posts are doing that), and I say yes you are right.

We are on the same page. 

I was not assuming when I said you had aversion with philosophy because you directly attacked me talking about philosophy and reduced its importance , . It was a direct inference from your behaviour (though not fully correct since the information is from which I make the inference is incomplete)

48 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

I am not a topic nor some concept lol. You’re drawing and fabricating these distinctions. You’re not recognizing your assumptions here.

I meant your view about emphasis on practice and rejection of philsophy is a topic / school of buddhism. ( how can you literally believe that I was saying you are not a topic of buddhism. Just look at the context and understanding from there. Ofcourse I wasn't literally saying that )

48 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

1 hour ago, Ibn Sina said:

the buddhists have left no stone un turned.

Belief and assumption

Not a belief and assumption, but a metaphor to say that they have done great deal of research (how I meant) (which is a belief from historical evidence, so it's not your 'belief' belief )

48 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

Having said that, that doesn’t diminish my underlying point. Anything you or I can conceive of is irrelevant as far as enlightenment goes. It’s a game that will not under nor ever be completed.

And I am saying the same thing, not the opposite. So why are you saying it over and over?

As I was saying , please stop repeating.

Edited July 7, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[pluto]

There's nothing like reading a good book, thanks for the share

[DrewNows]

@Bill W Cool thanks for sharing! 

I can relate to what you said in your summary for chapter 3. I noticed yesterday i became attached or too overly concerned with how I felt, my emotional state, shifting out of being a watcher and creating a lot of self judging thoughts