The mislabeled nature of Osho’s title becomes painfully obvious within the first few sentences.
At first glance it will be apparent that Intelligence: The Creative Response to Now is a collection of speeches as writers tend to correct inconsistencies before print. In most instances public speakers also edit these errors out prior to performance, and while the off-script nature of speeches can inject error an experienced speaker keeps this to a minimum. Errors abound in Osho’s speeches, yet he presses on undeterred.
Intelligence is not an achievement. You are born intelligent. Trees are intelligent in their own way, they have enough intelligence for their own life. Birds are intelligent, so are animals. In fact, what religions mean by God is only this – that the universe is intelligent, that there is intelligence hidden everywhere. And if you have eyes to see, you can see it everywhere. Life is intelligence. – page 1
Born Chandra Mohan Jain, Osho had many names throughout his life and like his connection to these names, his definitions of words seem equally as fluid. Osho, as I will refer to him, enjoys reinterpreting words to shrink the available vocabulary in a discussion. He does this to such an exhausting extent that a notebook and pen are required to steelman his arguments. This is made further annoying when one learns Osho has no real point, and instead this is a long-winded act of sophistry. I suppose if one were practicing for debate this might be of some value, but for the casual philosophy reader this is not a case of the speaker’s English as a second language. I do not recommend this book to anyone, and only purchased it myself on recommendation from a friend.
Osho claims that all people are born of equal intelligence and yet society, through some malevolent scheme, drills that intelligence out of us. As proof for these claims Osho offers up appeals to authority through short fables involving characters such as Einstein, Hegel, Buddha, Jesus, and even, audaciously enough, himself. His ignorance of these characters – fictional or not – is only eclipsed by the arrogance with which he employs them.
He formed a new-age type movement which emphasized meditation and mindfulness as a central doctrine, and like the fake martial arts master who speaks in riddles, Osho keeps followers by making his message hard to decode. Sometimes defining intelligence as curiosity and sometimes as understanding; he values intelligence over intellectualism – the latter of which he defines as thinking. In Osho’s world, intelligence comes from the heart and intellectualism resides in the head.
After ostracizing listeners from society by propping it up as a boogeyman, they are comforted by being offered a cure: meditation. “The society is very much afraid that if the child’s intelligence is left intact, then he will never be a part of any slavery, of any structure of domination (page 113),” Osho said. “Meditation is needed only to undo what society has done… It simply negates the damage, it destroys the illness (page 6).”
Meditation is a means for stepping outside of one’s self and reflecting upon experiences, and at one point Osho even acknowledges this himself. Unfortunately, his muddled language makes this less than clear. It is the topic of meditation and its purpose that introduces fallacy into Osho’s argument.
Committing a common error among meditators who lack a background in psychology, the ability to teach meditation often leads to a false confidence in understanding cognition. Having withdrawn and reflected on their own thought process, meditators often conclude that everyone else’s thought processes must be the same as their own.
Thinking cannot give you the right answer because thinking can only repeat that which is known. Thinking has no vision for the unknown. Have you ever tried thinking about the unknown? How will you think about it? You can think only about that which you already know; it is repetitive. – page 76
Osho’s lack of imagination is not universal. Entire genres of literature are devoted to the unknown. Science fiction, for example, bravely predicts what the future will look like often with eerie accuracy. In the past, entire pantheons were created in an attempt to explain away the fears of the unknown. If this seems like a rather short rebuttal to his assertion, I apologize, he makes assertions such as this and takes for granted that the receiver accepts them.
As one works through the book incidents such as above make it increasingly difficult to take Osho seriously. Perhaps he was charismatic in his performances; however, when committed to ink the charm is lost. There is no real substance to be found in any issue Osho raises and there even seems to be an admission by him that he has nothing of value to contribute: “I go on teaching, knowing well there is nothing to be taught. That’s why I can go on infinitely,” he says. “If there were something to be taught I would be finished already.” – page 97
If he has nothing to teach, it must be asked, why continue peddling this drivel? As with Osho’s explanation of cognition, he again draws from personal experience when speaking of leaders.
The leader is continuously in need of being convinced again and again that what he says is right. For that he needs growing numbers of committed people. And the more fanatically committed, the more convincing they are to him… And in a circular way, his certainty convinces the followers – because he becomes louder, more stubborn; he becomes absolutely certain. Ifs and buts disappear from his language – whatever he says is the truth… It is the psychological need of both… – page 56
A cult of listeners reassures Osho that he is correct. His tirades against intellectualism reveal that it is a topic often on his mind. What are these speeches if not a poor attempt to be an intellectual? It is clear through his false citations of public figures such as Einstein that Osho envies their prestige. By courting a group of followers he justifies his grandiose idea that he is just as intelligent as they are. This is an individual of weak self confidence who manipulates others to reinforce his own ego. It’s disappointing to say, but this outline of a public figure may sound familiar to American readers.
Lucid Ink 