Comments on: Concept of God: Osho, Islam, Zakir Naik and the Acid Test http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/ This site will publish literary, spiritual, scoiological and political reviews. Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:33:24 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Varrier http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1248 Varrier Sun, 26 Jul 2009 11:33:24 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1248 Well, I have watched a few of Zakir Naik's lectures and debates. I don't think they hold any value. To me they are good entertainment. Like a David Dhawan movie starring Govinda, et al. As someone said " Do not argue with fools, people will not know the difference", that could be the reason why Sri Sri Ravishankar chose not to argue with Naik. Well, I have watched a few of Zakir Naik’s lectures and debates. I don’t think they hold any value. To me they are good entertainment. Like a David Dhawan movie starring Govinda, et al.

As someone said ” Do not argue with fools, people will not know the difference”, that could be the reason why Sri Sri Ravishankar chose not to argue with Naik.

]]> By: VEDANG http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1203 VEDANG Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:38:27 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1203 Also Hindusim and Islam can be compared.It is said that the stoe of kabab looks like shiva lingam and also nearly smeared with ashes(may be) SO it clearly the stone brought from allah or the almighty god is same as if it is brought from shiva.There is no proff anywhere but if we want to unite we can untie with any fact.IN fact we say mohammad was a prophet of god Jesus son of god Krishna himself god Allah himdself god .Well i do not understand what Zakir Naik speaks about.Well let him speak as everyone on this page have described very nicely.The comments are good and again Dr Acarya nice page thank you good bye. Also Hindusim and Islam can be compared.It is said that the stoe of kabab looks like shiva lingam and also nearly smeared with ashes(may be) SO it clearly the stone brought from allah or the almighty god is same as if it is brought from shiva.There is no proff anywhere but if we want to unite we can untie with any fact.IN fact we say mohammad was a prophet of god Jesus son of god Krishna himself god Allah himdself god .Well i do not understand what Zakir Naik speaks about.Well let him speak as everyone on this page have described very nicely.The comments are good and again Dr Acarya nice page thank you good bye.

]]> By: VEDANG http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1202 VEDANG Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:23:52 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1202 Yes but you have collected good information MR Acharya.And I also feel that he tells in side of muslims everytime.As once he told that when we see trough all religions we have to pick the common things and keep the odd for the tomorrow.He told that GOD is a creator.So let it be .He did not believe in hinduism and pinpointed it directly saying that where did this three some from i.e., Brahma Vishnu Mahesha.They are one only of the ""AUM"" or ""OM"" but have different works to do.But as his original method he picked few lines from inbetween and said yes Brahma is a GOD because he is a creator but keep mahesha out of this.What was that thing i could not bear some one tell my GOD like this.But due to the art of living course i had taken i was so calm so i could take it while seeeing the video.Well what ever he says or does.We should not criticise him as when we listen to him carefully he is right many time.But in the hindu case he again says he accepts GOD as Brahma but he having four arms and hands is not possible.He says that it is limitation to GOD that he can have only four arms.But i think Dr Naik was putting limitation to GOD saying that he cannot have four arms.If he didnot want to see limitation he can even see The Maha Vishnu Virat Swaroop or Shiva.Shiva is no body he is a tatva.It is said in veda GOD is no form he is beauti and he is love and beauti and the infinite.He can do anything and everything.But well we should always see good in others so Dr Zalir Naik is also good at the same time .So leave all this and this world needs love not hatred so we all should together serve the poor help them pray to GOD the one in which we belive and go on.And yes one more thng seee this ...............GOD is Generator Observer Destroyer so Brahma Vishnu Mahesha,And again nice article MR ACHARYA GOOD BYE jai gurudev...BYEBYE Yes but you have collected good information MR Acharya.And I also feel that he tells in side of muslims everytime.As once he told that when we see trough all religions we have to pick the common things and keep the odd for the tomorrow.He told that GOD is a creator.So let it be .He did not believe in hinduism and pinpointed it directly saying that where did this three some from i.e., Brahma Vishnu Mahesha.They are one only of the “”AUM”" or “”OM”" but have different works to do.But as his original method he picked few lines from inbetween and said yes Brahma is a GOD because he is a creator but keep mahesha out of this.What was that thing i could not bear some one tell my GOD like this.But due to the art of living course i had taken i was so calm so i could take it while seeeing the video.Well what ever he says or does.We should not criticise him as when we listen to him carefully he is right many time.But in the hindu case he again says he accepts GOD as Brahma but he having four arms and hands is not possible.He says that it is limitation to GOD that he can have only four arms.But i think Dr Naik was putting limitation to GOD saying that he cannot have four arms.If he didnot want to see limitation he can even see The Maha Vishnu Virat Swaroop or Shiva.Shiva is no body he is a tatva.It is said in veda GOD is no form he is beauti and he is love and beauti and the infinite.He can do anything and everything.But well we should always see good in others so Dr Zalir Naik is also good at the same time .So leave all this and this world needs love not hatred so we all should together serve the poor help them pray to GOD the one in which we belive and go on.And yes one more thng seee this ……………GOD is Generator Observer Destroyer so Brahma Vishnu Mahesha,And again nice article MR ACHARYA GOOD BYE jai gurudev…BYEBYE

]]> By: Hussein http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1184 Hussein Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:17:08 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1184 I am muslim and I am not fan of ZAkir NAik. zakir Naik belong to group called Wahaabiya who are found in saudi arabia. their version of islam in very leteral . and the are the most ignorant sect in Islam I am muslim and I am not fan of ZAkir NAik.
zakir Naik belong to group called Wahaabiya who are found in saudi arabia. their version of islam in very leteral . and the are the most ignorant sect in Islam

]]> By: Suresh Raspayle http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1129 Suresh Raspayle Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:06:48 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1129 Hope our egoistic Islamic Scholars understand what is and what is beyond --- Satsang: Ramesh S Balsekar Source : TOI How to differentiate between ego and mind? You can’t. They are the same. The thinking mind and the ego are the same. In the ordinary body-mind organism mind can be both working mind and thinking mind. In the case of the sage it is only the working mind. Is the body-mind organism like the programme in a data machine that produces thinking? The thinking happens according to the way the body-mind organism has been programmed. Why does a thought occur? It occurs because that is supposed to produce an output. So the equation E = mc² was there all the time, but only that body-mind organism named Einstein was programmed to receive the equation, that got that thought. The term ‘‘bodymind organism’’ means body and, in the case of an ordinary person, both the working mind and the thinking kind, but only the working mind in the case of the sage. The wanting to know is the individual sense of doership. Ramana Maharshi repeatedly said, ‘‘If the question arises, find out who wants to know.’’ If you really go into ‘‘who wants to know”, the ‘‘who’’ will disappear because there is truly no ‘‘who’’. The arising of the question is not in your control, or whether you take delivery of that question and get yourself horizontally involved. It is a vertical happening. Getting involved in that question is a horizontal involvement. So the horizontal involvement is avoided with this question: ‘‘Who wants to know?’’ Is going into who you are, a horizontal activity? Asking the question, ‘‘Who wants to know?’’ is the working mind. Arising of the question is vertical, the involvement of the thinking mind is horizontal. the working mind is not horizontal. The working mind is the present moment. So in the present moment the working mind asks the question ‘‘Who wants to know?’’ and if the thinking mind doesn’t come in try to answer the question, then the ‘‘who’’ disappears. There are two aspects. One is the monkey mind – the thinking mind which asks questions, provides answers, and asks further questions of those answers and goes on and on. Then another aspect, the working mind, is only focused with doing what needs to be done at the moment in the circumstances. It is not concerned, not even with whether the work that is being done is necessary or not. Nor is it concerned with the consequences. It is only focused on doing the job that is being done, and it is not concerned with ‘‘who’’ is doing the job. It is the thinking mind that says, ‘‘I’m doing this work, and ‘i’ must find out what the consequences are going to be.’’ So the thinking mind always thinks about the consequences in the future. The working mind is not concerned with the future. The ‘‘one’’ who is concerned with the consequences of the future is the thinking mind, the ego. In the working mind there is no individual, no ego. So in the working mind if there is no individual doing the work, then ‘‘who’’ is to worry about the consequences? In the working mind there is no individual worker – the work is just being done. The individual ‘‘doer’’is the thinking mind wanting to know: After the work is done, what is going to happen to me? The ‘‘me’’ is the thinking mind, ego. The ego is the identification with the name and form as an individual with the sense of doership – whatever happens to this body ‘‘i’’ am doing it, and ‘‘i’’ am the one who is going to suffer the consequences. Hope our egoistic Islamic Scholars understand what is and what is beyond —

Satsang: Ramesh S Balsekar

Source : TOI

How to differentiate between ego and mind?
You can’t. They are the same. The thinking mind and the ego are the same. In the ordinary body-mind organism mind can be both working mind and thinking mind. In the case of the sage it is only the working mind.
Is the body-mind organism like the programme in a data machine that produces thinking?
The thinking happens according to the way the body-mind organism has been programmed. Why does a thought occur? It occurs because that is supposed to produce an output. So the equation E = mc² was there all the time, but only that body-mind organism named Einstein was programmed to receive the equation, that got that thought.
The term ‘‘bodymind organism’’ means body and, in the case of an ordinary person, both the working mind and the thinking kind, but only the working mind in the case of the sage.
The wanting to know is the individual sense of doership. Ramana Maharshi repeatedly said, ‘‘If the question arises, find out who wants to know.’’ If you really go into ‘‘who wants to know”, the ‘‘who’’ will disappear because there is truly no ‘‘who’’.
The arising of the question is not in your control, or whether you take delivery of that question and get yourself horizontally involved. It is a vertical happening. Getting involved in that question is a horizontal involvement. So the horizontal involvement is avoided with this question: ‘‘Who wants to know?’’
Is going into who you are, a horizontal activity?
Asking the question, ‘‘Who wants to know?’’ is the working mind. Arising of the question is vertical, the involvement of the thinking mind is horizontal. the working mind is not horizontal. The working mind is the present moment. So in the present moment the working mind asks the question ‘‘Who wants to know?’’ and if the thinking mind doesn’t come in try to answer the question, then the ‘‘who’’ disappears.
There are two aspects. One is the monkey mind – the thinking mind which asks questions, provides answers, and asks further questions of those answers and goes on and on. Then another aspect, the working mind, is only focused with doing what needs to be done at the moment in the circumstances. It is not concerned, not even with whether the work that is being done is necessary or not. Nor is it concerned with the consequences. It is only focused on doing the job that is being done, and it is not concerned with ‘‘who’’ is doing the job.
It is the thinking mind that says, ‘‘I’m doing this work, and ‘i’ must find out what the consequences are going to be.’’ So the thinking mind always thinks about the consequences in the future. The working mind is not concerned with the future.
The ‘‘one’’ who is concerned with the consequences of the future is the thinking mind, the ego. In the working mind there is no individual, no ego. So in the working mind if there is no individual doing the work, then ‘‘who’’ is to worry about the consequences? In the working mind there is no individual worker – the work is just being done.
The individual ‘‘doer’’is the thinking mind wanting to know: After the work is done, what is going to happen to me? The ‘‘me’’ is the thinking mind, ego. The ego is the identification with the name and form as an individual with the sense of doership – whatever happens to this body ‘‘i’’ am doing it, and ‘‘i’’ am the one who is going to suffer the consequences.

]]> By: Srichetan http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1126 Srichetan Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:21:48 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1126 But, my own understanding is this, that whenever commandments are given they create difficulties for people, because by the time they are given they are already out of date. Life moves so fast; it is a dynamism, it is not static. It is not a stagnant pool, it is a Ganges, it goes on flowing. It is never the same for two consecutive moments. So one thing may be right this moment, and may not be right the next. Then what to do? The only possible thing is make people so aware that they themselves can decide how to respond to a changing life - OSHO. But, my own understanding is this, that whenever commandments

are given they create difficulties for people, because by the time

they are given they are already out of date. Life moves so fast; it

is a dynamism, it is not static. It is not a stagnant pool, it is a

Ganges, it goes on flowing. It is never the same for two

consecutive moments. So one thing may be right this moment, and

may not be right the next. Then what to do? The only possible

thing is make people so aware that they themselves can decide

how to respond to a changing life – OSHO.

]]> By: lokesh http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1059 lokesh Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:40:32 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1059 Just want to thank you for this scholarly article!!! Jakir Naik said OSHO had diabetes, and many other diseases, and thereafter tested him on the touchstone of characteristics of God mentioned in Quran. He went on to describe whats written on Osho's tombstone- "Osho never born never died". Still, he culdn't understand in the least that wht Osho was talking about was not his body but sumthin else...Sir, thanks once again for you erudite article but, we need not respond to a parrot, it is not worth it. Responding to a parrot means giving it some importance, which it doesn't deserve. Just want to thank you for this scholarly article!!! Jakir Naik said OSHO had diabetes, and many other diseases, and thereafter tested him on the touchstone of characteristics of God mentioned in Quran. He went on to describe whats written on Osho’s tombstone- “Osho never born never died”. Still, he culdn’t understand in the least that wht Osho was talking about was not his body but sumthin else…Sir, thanks once again for you erudite article but, we need not respond to a parrot, it is not worth it. Responding to a parrot means giving it some importance, which it doesn’t deserve.

]]> By: Prasad http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1053 Prasad Sun, 31 May 2009 12:38:49 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1053 I observed Mr Zakhir Naik wants to prove his theories by tactical, cunning arguments. His GOD stays somewhere and all living creatures living in a different world. If his God is a Tea vendor in the other world then also when we go there and should become his servents who is serving the bigger allahs of the further Worlds Hee! Hee! Got my point........ I observed Mr Zakhir Naik wants to prove his theories by tactical, cunning arguments. His GOD stays somewhere and all living creatures living in a different world. If his God is a Tea vendor in the other world then also when we go there and should become his servents who is serving the bigger allahs of the further Worlds Hee! Hee! Got my point……..

]]> By: Sreechetan http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1052 Sreechetan Fri, 29 May 2009 10:59:11 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1052 If Moses comes back, I don´t think he will give you the same ten commandments ? he cannot. After three thousand years, how can he give you the same commandments? He will have to invent something new. - OSHO If Moses comes back, I don´t think he will give you the same ten commandments ? he cannot. After three thousand years, how can he give you the same commandments? He will have to invent something new. – OSHO

]]> By: Sreechetan http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1051 Sreechetan Thu, 28 May 2009 06:30:29 +0000 http://drvasu.wordpress.com/2007/10/25/concept-of-god-osho-islam-zakir-naik-and-the-acid-test/#comment-1051 Remain in wonder if you want the mysteries to open up for you. The mysteries never open up for those who go on questioning. The questioners sooner or later end up in a library. The questioners sooner or later end up with scriptures, because scriptures are full of answers. And answers are dangerous, they kill your wonder.- OSHO. Remain in wonder if you want the mysteries to open up for you.
The mysteries never open up for those who go on questioning.
The questioners sooner or later end up in a library.
The questioners sooner or later end up with scriptures,
because scriptures are full of answers.
And answers are dangerous, they kill your wonder.- OSHO.

]]>