Talk:The Book : Series I from A to H: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
--[[User:Rudra|Rudra]] ([[User talk:Rudra|talk]]) 11:05, 25 March 2014 (PDT) | --[[User:Rudra|Rudra]] ([[User talk:Rudra|talk]]) 11:05, 25 March 2014 (PDT) | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Oh dear, updated them without seeing this. Go ahead and revert if you want, though there are other elements of the update not related to re-categorizing that may be worth saving -- [[User:Sarlo|Sarlo]] ([[User talk:Sarlo|talk]]) 12:35, 25 March 2014 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 19:35, 25 March 2014
It seems that this book and its companions, Series II, Series III and The ABC (deriving from them), are more properly Osho-"written" compilations than books "about" Osho. I would re-categorize them myself but haven't much time and the whole format / template would have to be changed ("book" rather than "sanbook"). -- Sarlo (talk) 08:57, 24 March 2014 (PDT)
I consider The Book a work by sannyasins about Osho because it contains "definitions" of terms, almost like a piecemeal philosophy. It is one of the worst set of books ever published and i'm not surprised it was published by Sheela when she was really under the pump. It's almost as bad as Rajneeshism.
I would say, whenever we use Osho quotes to construct a mind set about Him or the world, it should stay in the Sannyas Bibliography. Of course there are many compilations out there, but they are not primarily used to prove the authors point of view about certain topics. They are mostly just a collection of excerpts that show the diversity of Osho's work dealing with various topics. --Rudra (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2014 (PDT)
Oh dear, updated them without seeing this. Go ahead and revert if you want, though there are other elements of the update not related to re-categorizing that may be worth saving -- Sarlo (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2014 (PDT)
