Main Story

• Each Sannyasin has to be my Successor

“I want my sannyasins to inherit my freedom, my awareness, my consciousness. And each sannyasin has to be my successor, has to be me. There is no need for anybody to dominate. There is nobody for anybody to dictate to. They are on their own. If they want to be together they can be together. Out of their own freedom, it is their choice and their decision. If they want to move free they have all the rights to move free.”
OSHO
The Last Testament, Vol-2

During all His life, Osho was against all forms of organized religions and did not want to create another religion around him. He had insisted that all sannyasins and all centers remain independent of any hierarchy and controls. The connection was always considered to be directly between Osho and individual sannyasins. Sannyasins and other lovers of Osho have always been a group of individuals engaged in their own individual understandings of religiousness rather than becoming followers of another organized religion.

One of the most common reasons given while trying to control Osho’s movement is that they want to protect Osho’s work. The urge to protect is a strong one, but does Osho or His work need our protection? Did Osho want this kind of protection?

People used to say to Osho, “I would die for you”. And Osho used to reply “Nobody has to die for me. My sannyasins have to live for me. And life and living is arduous. Because it cannot be a momentary impulse; it is not impulsive...

 And I don't teach you impulsiveness, I teach you transformation. So please, nobody has to die for me. Never. If you love me, live for me, love for me. Let your life be a song, a joy, a celebration. When you are happy you are with me, when you are dancing you are with me, when you are loving you are with me. That is my work, that is my mission.”
OSHO
This Very Body the Buddha, Chapter-2

Do we want Osho’s work to be controlled when He specifically asked us never to impose any control?
Osho was always aware of the dangers to individuals and the dangers to Truth posed by organizations, hierarchies, religions, priesthoods, arbiters of purity. Advocates of trademarks claim that trademarks would protect Osho’s work, but the opposite is true. Nothing presents such a risk to Osho’s work as centralized control. Osho, in His wisdom, was well aware of this and consistently spoke against control.

“My commune is an organism rather than an organization.
We are intelligent people:
There is no need for anybody else to tell you what to do, how to do.
Your intelligence is your responsibility.
Nobody is going to force any responsibility on you. But I know why the question arises -- because you have been trained from your very childhood.”
OSHO
From Misery to Enlightenment, Chapter-29

If Osho’s teachings are subject to centralized control now, they will be subject to that control when the people who actually knew Him are all dead. If the teachings are subject to control they can be edited, interpreted, changed, or completely suppressed and destroyed. Whoever took control as the trademark holder could wipe Osho out as an inconvenient teller of Truth. Is it any wonder Osho always spoke so strongly against this kind of centralization?

Recently Trademarks applied for in 1991 by the Zurich entity, after Osho left His body in 1990, were cancelled in the United States. The proceedings of the case clearly showed that Osho had never ever wanted Trademarks or Copyrights and did not give out any such rights to any individual or organization, leave alone the Zurich entity.

One of the many beautiful things about Osho’s work is that He never taught just one technique, one approach, one way. His teachings have always been an umbrella of essential truth that can encompass all kinds of approaches and techniques that appeal to a wide variety of individuals. The centers Osho asked people to found were never homogenized versions of McMeditation franchises. The centers Osho asked people to found arose from the hearts of individuals. They had the spirit and flavor of individuals and local groups of individuals. They were varied and alive. They reflected the variety in Osho’s whole approach. Osho spoke of a caravanserai, and you could hear the music and see the colorful clothes and joyful dancing people in His description. This is a caravanserai of individuality, and individuality can never be franchised.

Common sense tells us that this flavor of individuality can only be preserved if the centers wish to remain as free and independent as Osho asked them to be. And Osho’s work can only be safe in future generations if it lives up to its essential nature: a wildfire of truth burning out of the control of the ego/mind.

“I am fighting against any kind of institutionalization, organization. I want a totally different thing. I call it organism, not organization.”
OSHO
The Last Testament, Vol-2, Chapter-19

Will some people misrepresent and distort Osho’s teachings? Well, sure. That’s going to happen no matter what we do. There’s no way to prevent it. It’s the nature of the human mind to define and revise. The Zurich Foundation is already doing this by publishing all kinds of compilations of Osho’s discourses. Shortly before He left His body Osho specifically asked that no more compilations be done, but they continue to appear. Example of some of the compilations and grossly edited books are The Book of Wisdom, Body Mind Balancing, The Nine Sutras etc.

Osho’s solution to misrepresentation and distortion was to archive His original material; to make sure that original archives of books, electronic files, and audio/video recordings are available in the future. Osho was well aware that there are great disputes about what Buddha really said, what Jesus really said, and so on. He wanted to be the first Master to provide archives so that people can always go back to the original to check on authenticity.

If there is centralized control of Osho’s work, this archived material could end up in a locked archive like the Vatican’s, if it survived at all. If Osho’s work burns as a wildfire of truth through the hearts of individuals (and the Internet), there will always be archives available to those who want to know, because individual renegades will make sure archives are available. The best protection for Osho’s work is to keep it free and uncontrollable. We can all work together to set up archives, while making sure no one has the power to destroy them. One such archive has been created on www.oshoworld.com which can be accessed freely without cost for nearly all of Osho’s discourses and books in Hindi and English.

Osho repeatedly pointed out that His work was not His, but simply truth. No control of the people doing work in His name was necessary or desired. In fact, control was to be avoided at all cost. All centers were to be free of outside control forever.

“But nobody is my follower. Nobody is going to be my successor. Each sannyasin is my representative. When I am dead, you all -- individually -- will have to represent me to the world. There is not going to be any pope. There is not going to be any shankaracharya. Each sannyasin, in his own capacity, has to represent me.
This has never happened -- but it is going to happen! You are all my successors.
When I am dead, that simply means I have left this body and entered all the bodies of my people.
I will be within you.
I will be part of you.”
OSHO
From Death to Deathlessness, Chapter# 25

After the cancellation of the Trademarks in the United States of America, there have been efforts to spread false fears of misuse of Osho’s name. It is said that the name Osho being generic can be easily used for computers or tissue, in the absence of trademarks. However, the name is already being widely used in many parts of the world. In Japan, it is being widely used to refer to anything from mountains to rivers, and businesses to individual names, for instance, restaurants and hotels, stores, health clubs, pharmacies, printing and publishing companies
In Africa, the name Osho is used by individuals for themselves and a lifestyle magazine is named Osho. In one of the African native languages, Osho means “that’s what it is”.

In most cases where the name has been used, it is not defamatory and does not denote or refer negatively. The name has been used with respect and reverence. However, it should be noted that all these usages do not refer to our beloved master, Osho.

The trademarks that were registered in the US were broadly in categories for:

1) Prerecorded electronic media, namely, CD's, Video CD's and DVD's in the field of education, philosophy, and science.

2) Prerecorded audio and video tapes in the field of education, religion, philosophy and science.

3) Books and printed materials for education purpose in the field of religion and philosophy

4) Educational services, namely, conducting individual sessions, workshops, retreats, seminars, groups, courses and training in the field of the teachings of the Mystic Osho.

5) Spiritual counseling and meditations; and providing meditation information via a global computer information network.

6) On-line periodical relating to the spiritual and mystical teachings of the Mystic Osho

7) Providing religion, philosophy and science information via a global computer network.

8) Instructional books and playing cards for the game of Tarot.

9) Entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game.

The following terms were applied for Trademarks:

1. Osho
2. Osho Active Meditations
3. Osho Kundalini Meditation
4. Osho Nadabrahma Meditation
5. Osho Zen Tarot
6. Osho Transformation Tarot
7. Osho Rebalancing
8. Osho Meditation Resort
9. Osho Multiversity
10. Osho Times

If “Osho” had been used as a trademark in relation to the work of our beloved master and if the Zurich entity had actually owned exclusive rights in the pseudonym Osho (neither of those things is true) the Zurich entity could have used these trademarks to control the use of Osho for these goods and services. For anything else, such as computers and tissue, the trademarks would not have any effect, as trademarks only apply to the specific goods and services listed or those that the public might confuse with the goods and services listed. So if anybody chose to use the name Osho for computers—which the public is unlikely to confuse with meditations, bodywork, and so on—and have it registered, there is no way to stop him unless, trademarks are claimed for Osho in the category covering computers. One could only register a trademark for Osho for computers if one were actually manufacturing Osho computers. So it would never be possible to use trademark registrations to prevent others from using Osho as a trademark for all unrelated goods and services.

In cases of gross misuse or deliberate defamation, Osho centers need to be alert and object to the negative usage.  There are laws in various countries that could be used. India has laws forbidding hurting religious feelings. There are also laws about false association and fraud in every country. These laws might be effective in combating the kind of uses of Osho the advocates of trademarks claim to fear, but trademark law would have no effect at all.

Since the “protection” of Osho’s work is the rationale given for why trademarks are needed, its very interesting to note that neither the Zurich entity, which claims trademark ownership outside of India, nor OIF, India, which claims trademark ownership in India, has taken any action against those using the Osho name negatively in India.. There have been cases where Osho’s name has been misused as a trademark for toilet seats and sewing machines, but the trademark claimants did nothing about this. Osho Friends has opposed all these uses and has been trying to prevent the negative misuse of Osho’s name.

The groups that want to control the Osho movement have not opposed the making of the film “Guru of Sex” which proposes to be blatantly defamatory. It clearly shows that registering, or attempting to register trademarks of Osho in a few categories does not stop others from using the same name for sewing machines or tissue. It simply does not alter this status. The Osho movement and Osho Meditation Centers, if they are alive in their own environments, can restrict and oppose others from misusing Osho’s name, on their own.  If “Osho” is used in a negative way to refer to our beloved master there are laws about false association and fraud that can be used to prevent misrepresentations. In India, laws about injury to religious feelings can prevent even broader uses.

The Osho trademarks were registered (or applied for) by the Zurich entity and OIF, India in only a few categories, and that never helped in restricting others from registering “Osho”for products or machinery or toilet seats. The Osho trademarks were registered only in categories that related to Osho, His meditations, Osho Meditation Centers and Osho movement, which demonstrates that it was only the Osho movement that the Zurich entity and OIF, India; wanted to control. With the cancellation of these trademarks this attempt to control Osho’s work against His wishes cannot continue, and Osho’s work can expand just the way Osho wanted it. With the expansion of Osho’s work, Osho the enlightened master, His meditation and His movement will be known throughout the world. Osho Meditation Centers all over the globe can always prevent misrepresentation in the usage of the name of Osho, whenever they come across such a case.

The attempt to control the Osho movement through the use of trademarks and copyrights has resulted in contraction and shrinkage of Osho’s work. The essential and basic work is the publications of His books primarily in English and Hindi and then in various languages of the world. Making His discourses available in different formats such as DVDs, MP3CDs, etc., and more importantly on the internet.

Osho Meditation Centers are the backbone of this work and of making Osho’s meditations available to the world. Osho always wanted His people to be included and involved in His work as much as possible.

 The attempts to control through trademark and copyright ownership claims have resulted in shrinkage and contraction of His work in all these areas, because of repeated threats of legal action if Osho’s people carry on His work. If the trademarks were legitimate, they could be used to control the expansion of the Osho Meditation Centers and His meditations and thereby any center or a sannyasin who wanted to open a center would need to comply with the demands of the controlling body. This is in contrast to what Osho wanted. Osho trusted each of His centers completely and wanted them to grow and flower on their own with their own understanding of His teachings. Each Osho Meditation Center, in whichever part of the world, should have a fragrance of its own, different and unique from all other centers of the world. One center cannot be a carbon copy of another. It is an Osho Meditation Center and not a McDonalds, where it is difficult to distinguish one outlet from the other. The Osho centers would be suffocated if the controls of trademarks and copyrights were allowed. (Fortunately, the trademark claimants don’t own Osho’s meditations and don’t own exclusive rights to use “Osho.” There is also no evidence that Osho ever transferred His copyright ownership.)

The legal threats have been still more hurting and damaging. The publications, instead of expanding and thriving worldwide, have been reduced and limited to the big publishers. Sannyasins and Meditation Centers who were asked by Osho to publish His books have been cornered legally to stop publications. A case, for example is that of Swami Sant and Ma Ghata in France. See Osho World Patrika-Hindi issue of July 2004

Hundreds of books, nearly 150 titles of English and 110 of Hindi books remain unpublished today. If various centers all over the world pool their energies and start publication of His work, the figures would not be so huge. Audio and video of Osho’s discourses are rarely available in shops around the world. Here again, decontrol and freeing the publication to let Osho Centers record and distribute His discourses would make Osho available more widely.

On the internet, the presence of Osho could be huge, if sannyasins and lovers are not threatened time and again and Osho content pulled down. Only one website carries most of His books and discourses free of cost and that is www.oshoworld.com. Given complete freedom, the internet would be humming and buzzing with Osho.

Now that the trademarks have been cancelled in so influential a place as the US and the copyright claims have been challenged, it’s time for the Osho movement to resolve how it will move forward. Does it make sense to keep debating control or no control when control isn’t legally possible? (There’s still the whole religious freedom issue.) Is there a way to resolve this and move on without wasting so much energy and resources that could be used to spread Osho’s work and for our own growth?

Please express your opinion on the above by logging on to www.oshofriendsinternational.com/

Top