My background is as a follower of Osho (the guru from Wild Wild Country). I have read some of the Buddhist texts (Dhammapada, Diamond Sutra), and I've spent some but not a ton of time with "Buddhist" teachers.
My view of this article: while I appreciate anyone writing about religion today, I don't really love what the article says and it sounds a bit like a general criticism of organized religion from someone hoping it's something it of course isn't.
What does it matter that your friends aren't serious or religious enough for your liking? This is ultimately a solo pursuit. What does it matter that you can find a sutra from Gautama that sounds sexist? This isn't about Gautama. What does it matter that an interpretation of what Gautama said is 'modern' or 'original'? This isn't about that.
This (religion) is about your personal religiousness. Your spirituality. There's a lot of beauty in the world of Buddhism to experience. It isn't for me, either, but I'm not angry or resentful about that.
Sorry for the delay, got caught up with the kid and cooking.
Of course! What's interesting to you about it, out of curiosity?
I do still consider myself a follower of Osho. I technically haven't taken sannyas (this is the name of the process of formally joining Osho as a disciple and receiving a new name -- eg 'Sheela' or 'Devaraj' -- and mala), but these days, in my opinion at least, that isn't a critical aspect of being part of the community. (FYI, sannyas is also a term in hinduism for renouncing your life and becoming a monk, basically, but 'neo-sannyas,' created by Osho, is renunciation-free; you're basically just saying, I'm serious about this meditation thing).
I thought Wild Wild Country was an excellent documentary about a really, really juicy and evocative topic. I'm bummed that they didn't spend at least a LITTLE more time on the question of "why do these people like Osho so much" (and what does Osho have to say), but I understand that that wasn't really the point of the documentary, which was to focus on a wild, explosive story. To me, an equally interesting story is why the heck were a bunch of highly-educated, independent doctors and lawyers moving out into the middle of nowhere to be self-sustaining and celebratory? Why did they seem so much happier than everyone else in our society, at least at certain points? But the story that sells better is 'why did this lady try to kill this other guy.' I'm hoping there will be a sequel that goes in greater depth.
I'm glad you have positive feelings towards Wild Wild Country. I though it showed a lot of restraint in presenting the bulk of Osha's followers as decent people. The "villains" are the attempted murderers and the local townspeople who lost their minds when some non-Christians showed up.
My view of this article: while I appreciate anyone writing about religion today, I don't really love what the article says and it sounds a bit like a general criticism of organized religion from someone hoping it's something it of course isn't.
What does it matter that your friends aren't serious or religious enough for your liking? This is ultimately a solo pursuit. What does it matter that you can find a sutra from Gautama that sounds sexist? This isn't about Gautama. What does it matter that an interpretation of what Gautama said is 'modern' or 'original'? This isn't about that.
This (religion) is about your personal religiousness. Your spirituality. There's a lot of beauty in the world of Buddhism to experience. It isn't for me, either, but I'm not angry or resentful about that.