Pune, 21th September 2013 Open LetterTo Friends and Lovers of Osho From the Inner Circle Friends, Not another letter about trademark the mind moans, wanting to look the other way, hoping it will go away. Sadly for the mind, Osho insists that each and every time his work is attacked or misrepresented, those people, and their comments have to be answered. There is an attempt being made by Ramateertha and others to convince the world that Osho did not want trademarks, or did not want particular trademarks like the trademark of his name. And that if any such trademarks did happen, Osho was either unaware of it or his instructions to stop such trademarking were ignored by those around him. Only someone with absolutely zero experience and understanding of the mechanics of Osho’s work could invent the scenario described in the paragraph above. Osho and his work were attacked with lawsuits literally hundreds of times over the years. In those days it was people who presented themselves as enemies. Today the lawsuits are started by those who present themselves as his friends. Either way, Osho was very tuned to the minds of men and women, whether they were lawmakers or lawyers, whether the subject was branding or trademark, whether they were “enemies” or “friends.” In fact on the subject of branding Osho was well ahead of his time and understood exactly the value of a visual/mental association with a quality of experience. For example he arranged for photographs and a video session with him and all the newly named “OSHO” courses in the Osho Multiversity. He specifically asked that everything related to his work be branded with an OSHO, including the Osho Times, all of his Osho Active Meditations, even the Osho Computer Network. He made sure the word Osho was on every building, and when asked to just confirm that the name of the latest pyramid was “Osho House,” he replied, “No, Osho.” So, here we have Ramateertha, based on one interview from 1986 when trademark was not even mentioned, explaining to the world what Osho did or did not want, did or did not know, on the subject of trademarks. In reality, between that interview and Osho leaving the body, you can count on there being a few hundred business meetings in his room, where Osho discussed and gave clear guidance and direction for the many aspects of his work. So, the picture you are asked to accept from Ramateertha is of Osho for years carefully scanning through every Osho Times, and every one of his dozens of newly published books, where the trademarking of his name and work is clearly visible, but where he is then so unaware as to miss the trademark and copyright notices. Or if he doesn’t miss them, he forgets to bring it to the attention of his secretaries that he wants them all removed. Or that the secretaries are all in a bizarre conspiracy to deceive Osho. This conspiracy would then include Osho’s lawyers and others, to mislead Osho into thinking that this trademarking – that Ramateertha is so sure Osho didn’t want, but forgot to ask about in his one interview with Osho – didn’t exist! Such a silly scenario simply reflects ignorance, or a cunning effort to deceive. The facts are that Osho’s previous name “Rajneesh” was trademarked from the 1970’s and that legal trademark notices were placed on books, magazines, the Rajneesh Times, including the German edition, flyers, and so on. In addition to his name, additional trademark logos were used to brand Osho’s work – the Rajneesh Foundation triangle logo, the flying birds logo, Zorba the Buddha, his signature – all registered as trademarks to brand and to protect the work. His name Rajneesh is an established and protected international trademark since the 70’s. In addition, there are documents signed by Osho specifically addressing trademarks. Thus the suggestion that OSHO cannot be trademarked because it is a name is wrong in law, and also clearly not Osho’s opinion as the trademarking of “Rajneesh” shows. It was Osho himself who name-branded everything related to his work and ensured that the foundation and lawyers took care that the brand was legally registered and formally recognized. In 1989, it was again Osho himself who changed everything in his work to be renamed and re-branded to OSHO and again arranged that the foundation and lawyers take care of the legal formalities. Osho invented and created the new mark OSHO, requesting specifically that it be added to everything, even if it was not directly coming from him or his work – for example, OSHO Rebalancing and the OSHO Computer Network. That Osho took considerable pains to ensure that this trademarking continued after he left the body should surprise no one. Especially in the light of Osho’s direction that we change all and every branding name use of Rajneesh to Osho. So the Rajneesh Times becomes the OSHO Times, Rajneesh Dynamic Meditation becomes OSHO Dynamic Meditation and so on. In short, Osho instructed that exactly the same legal protection that he arranged in the 1970’s for the name Rajneesh be provided for the name Osho. Osho explains very clearly that the use of OSHO will expand very quickly and needs protection, as many people will see Osho as an umbrella under which they can place any of their own rubbish. His words! A letter was sent to the lawyers, dated 28th September 1989 while Osho was still in the body, instructing them to trademark Osho exactly as Osho had asked. Ramateertha’s idea that trademarking equals religion, which Osho never wanted, and so must also mean that Osho also didn’t want trademarking reveals the need to scrape the bottom of the barrel for any possible argument to try and undo Osho’s obvious wishes. What is so telling about this is that in Ramateertha’s attempts to use the law to overturn Osho’s wishes – and Ramateertha knows very well that these are Osho’s wishes – he uses the exact opposite argument. In his current court filings he claims that there should be no trademark precisely because Osho is a religion, and as such trademarking is not appropriate. What is particularly interesting about the public interview with Osho in 1986 for the Osho Times is that Ramateertha specifically asks about this mistrust of the process whereby people may again, like Sheela, misrepresent Osho’s wishes. Osho explains in great detail that he will not allow this to happen again, that there will be many doorways to him so he can always be asked directly about whatever you “don’t feel clear about…” That this mistrust “will disappear” and that “you have to clear it now.” Here we are, nearly 30 years later, and, once again the issue is: is this what Osho is asking for or what I want? That mistrust that Osho is asking Ramateetha to “clear” seems still not yet cleared and seems to be the basis for his whole action against the trademarks on Osho’s work.” Of course, our concern is not Ramateertha. Our interest is only to properly inform new people who might imagine that people like Ramateertha would know what they were talking about, not knowing that such people might never have had one private conversation in their lives with Osho concerning anything, let alone the intricate legalities of his work. Ramateertha’s claims that “organism” means that the legs move independently and in different directions from one another in the name of “freedom” is surprising coming from a physician trained in Germany – but shouldn’t be allowed to confuse others that this is Osho understanding of “organism.” That people are “banned” from the meditation resort, called by Ramateertha “a resort” in quote marks, should surprise no one. The guidance on this from Osho is very clear. In particular, anyone who spoke or acted publicly against his work was always banned. Even his long time secretary Laxmi was banned by Osho shortly before Osho left the body for speaking and acting against his work. The way back in was always very simple and is still the same: an equally public apology. As Osho explains, this apology was not for Osho or his place, but for the individual concerned. They could then let go of whatever it was that was fuelling their antagonism to Osho and at the same time clear the air with all those who might feel antagonistic to them, so they could start with an absolutely clean sheet. As Osho makes clear when speaking in his room shortly before leaving the body: There are many people in Buddha Hall tonight who are guru minds and who always know better, who keep their heads down now because they know that if they lift them up I will hit them hard. Once I am gone, those heads will rise. Then you will have to take care. Naturally, you had to be very foolish or at least foolhardy to attack Osho or his work when he was in the body. Today, suddenly there are so many “lions” with widely publicized opinions about what is right and wrong about the direction for Osho’s work. These same people suddenly seem to know what Osho really wanted, and that this is in some way related to what they want. If they know so much about Osho’s work, they will also know that when they publicly attack what Osho has put in place, they will be asked to leave the meditation resort until they also fulfill the simple criteria laid out by Osho for their return. If you are new to Osho you may well wonder why people write “resort” in quote signs. This is a not-very-subtle code for “What happened to my spiritual home called ‘an ashram’? Why have ‘these people’ changed it to a ‘meditation resort’? The word ‘resort’ is so unspiritual, businesslike even.” Again, the implication, as with the trademark issue above, is that Osho didn’t really know what was going on, let alone that he personally arranged a public meeting in 1989 in the auditorium where exactly this vision for future was spelled out. This was received with obvious delight and laughter, audible on the sound track. You can also sense the disdain from some of the “ashramites” of the time, who could no doubt sense that the description of the plans for a swimming pool and tennis courts, a beauty club and a spa, a gymnasium and a disco in a spiritual Club Med as in meditation, spelled the end of any “spiritual shrine.” This is really the key to all these endless attacks on Osho’s work: “I don’t actually care what Osho wanted, what I really care about is what I want. I like ‘Ashram.’ I like ‘spiritual.’ I will choose to ignore that Osho wants a place that reflects Zorba and Buddha, where materialism and spirituality are no longer separate: resort and meditation together. I don’t want to hear about the fact that Osho publicly dropped the name “Ashram” in September of 1989. In particular, I like the fantasy that Osho supports everyone to do whatever he or she wants in Osho’s name and calls that freedom. If you are new to Osho, please be assured that while Osho was in the body, all these fantasies remained repressed in the minds of the people concerned. Who would want their unconscious desires to redirect Osho’s work exposed in a public meeting! Now suddenly there are so many experts on this and that aspect of Osho’s work. Needless to say, the Osho you know, the one who is so specific in public about the precise source of our anger, jealousies, resentments, and so on, is the same Osho in private. One who is also so specific about critical issues related to his work, and in particular legal issues, including copyright and trademark. Those who Osho selected to take care of these details continue to do just as he has asked to the very best of their abilities, irrespective of the many alternative views from people other than Osho. Love, The Inner circle
Posted on: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:10:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015