I liked metaphor with "New Age Wolves".
I saw the flaw as early as in the late 1970's. Osho is mentioned among the fraud gurus and he had this Bagwhan Sri Rajneesh cult in the US that even hit Sweden with their dancing message. Many musicians was attracted to them and they came out very programmed. One young and lovely, very famous artist here lost his life more or less when the red Bhagwan cult was dissipated, he came into a severe depression and never really got out of it - so some ten years later he ended his life before a train in the Stockholm underground. Not blaming the cult for that, but only mention that they played with peoples trust and faith and well being while they could not remain the standard or the structure as they vanished.
People that join such cults are often vulnerable in the category "give away my power" type of people, and when the pupil gets out in the cold, and the leader goes to jail or flee to the mountain, depression and psychiatric illness might easily take them. It is like an unhealthy relationship that get to the bottom when it is over.
Yeah and it was a shame that he became all that. Osho really got messed up. I was gleaning some things written yesterday cause been a long time since I looked at Osho/Sheela, which is what I call it, cause once she came in the picture, I would say this more fueled the 'shadow side' of Osho. And even his last three books written by him while he was on nitrous oxide, which some debate that, but looking how crazy Osho got toward the end, in all likelihood, true. Im surprised Sheela didnt do more time for all the attempted murder shit she did.
But in a way, whilst much of the really bad decisions were by Sheela, did Sheela possibly represent some destructive components of Osho muddying the waters of his own Shakti, like she became
it? Really begs the question. How much was Osho accountable? I think like shakti, can mutate in the form of a dragon, really on any yogi and overpower, perhaps she represented an outer example of this, and this is why such harm occured with other folks, and it could still be occuring now, even with him gone.
Its an inner/outer consideration, definitely.
But one of the things I was thinking of, per power and the source, impeccability - the thought 'take only what you need,' is really criticial. Like osho kept pushing the buck on meditation. Is there a too-far per the techniques? I mean, how far do we really 'need' to go per meditation, and what is just plain necessary and simple? We are human afterall, and perhaps just taking only what we need is enough.
Thing is, if certain yogis, masters, folks whatever, get a big high on the power, say like adi da, they'll take way more than they need, so they can overpower others with that power. And then, what are the results? Do these power-junkies ever learn from the fall of so many others?
While say a leader/teacher in whatever form, can be a source of power (but mainly if done well, to aid others to find their own reserves), and some can aid, really, taking power 'over' others, vs power to be able to aid others to find their own, use it impeccably and well, and also only aid others who are ready and able, so they wont abuse others with it (another tricky part - hence why many mysteries remain as such), thats the other critical thing too, and why you dont see many folks being enlightened in droves necessarily. Cause if they become it, they may indulge in it, and abuse many others with it, and the damage which can occur can really bastardize things, steer folks away. yet still, not all can do it themselves, so teachers have value. But when you have frauds and folks who say may have been authentic but abused their power, which is really source power, then this really can cause more delays for others who, really are searching earnestly for their own liberation.
Just some thoughts.