Book review
By
Randeep
Wadehra
The
Ultimate Iconoclast by
Dr. Kuldip Kumar Dhiman
Ukay
Publishing Co. Pages: 312. Price: Rs. 295/-
“Acharya”, “Bhagwan” and “Osho” are some of
the honorifics attached to Rajneesh, the controversial Godman of yesteryears
who lives on in the memory of his followers, fans and critics. Even today his
popular image – created as much by media as by his actions and the consequences
thereof – is that of a Bohemian Baba or the High Priest of Hedonism; someone
indulging in spiritual dandyism to beguile the rich and the famous. He artfully
used his “notoriety” to reach out to his potential audiences around the globe.
While reading this book I was
reminded of Karl Marx – arguably one of the most influential philosophers of
all time. His philosophy not only gave birth to a brand new political-economic
ideology but also to a brand new governmental architecture that changed the way
nations used to be ruled earlier. However, Marx never provided a definitive
thesis on social democracy or any other form of government or economic model.
Although most of what he had said has become irrelevant now the aftereffects of
his ‘scientific-socialism’ are there for all to see in the government policies
in countries around the world. However, the point is, what Marx had said was
open to both falsification – as Soviet Russia did – and reinterpretation – as
was done in China and, to some extent, India. Various antitheses to his
essential thesis of scientific socialism found ready takers in different parts
of the world, especially in the capitalist societies of the West. A synthesis
of sorts was also fashioned in countries like India – not only in the form of
mixed economy but also in terms of ideological digressions that took place in
the precepts and practices of different communist outfits in India.
Osho, on the other hand, did not
need any outside agency to contradict, falsify or reinterpret his philosophy. As
Dhiman points out, Osho was quite capable of formulating a thesis and providing
its antithesis on his own. His dialectics, however, did not culminate into
synthesis. Instead, he took his arguments beyond the realm of thesis and
antithesis. Moreover, Marx’s focus was more on macro aspects of ideology
wherein the structure and functioning of a society as a whole formed the
subject matter; Osho, on the other hand, gave prominence to the individual’s
aspirations and evolution. Similarly, for Marx freedom of the individual had to
be subsumed to the needs of the society or state. For Osho the individual’s
freedom was sacrosanct.
Osho’s thoughts cover a wide
range of subjects that are cogent to a person’s temporal existence. At the
superficial level, his musings consist of demagoguery, thus prompting the
mainstream intellectuals to be dismissive of his views – they would not deign
to accept him as even a faux philosopher – and treat him as a silver-tongued
fraud. Dhiman, who has authored and edited a number of research papers and
books on philosophy and psychology, decided to investigate the real person
behind all the hype and prejudice. He took up the challenge with an open mind
since he is neither a follower of Osho nor his critic. However, the results of Dhiman’s
years of research surprised him as much as it would Osho’s critics.
In this tome, Osho comes out as a
spiritual guru who would prefer humanity to be free from the shackles of the
various types of “isms” that pass for religion and spiritualism. He is a
philosopher who does not believe in being consistent for the sake of being
consistent. He would rather be inconsistent in order to reach the ultimate
Truth that is both unchanging and absolute. He is an “iconoclast” in the sense
that he would not like his followers to hero-worship anybody – be it a Godman,
a philosopher or any other mortal.
Dhiman has certainly demolished
Rajneesh Osho’s conventional image and reinvented it as something substantive
and closer to the truth.
Published in The Financial World dated 05 March 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment