Recollections Jiddu Krishnamurti Rajneesh Osho UG etc. - Reza Ganjavi

By clicking on these ads you support this website. (We do not endorse these offerings).

Also Visit Reza Ganjavi's:

Music Downloads: iTunes, etc.

If you like this page or have other feedback, please contact me: (info {at} rezamusic {dot} com)

Return to Rezamusic.com

These exchanges occurred in a small mailing list a friend of mine has. Some very interesting ideas and recollections here about J. Krishnamurti, Osho, UG, etc.

Reprinted with permission.

On 10/1/2010 8:25 PM, Shreeniwas wrote:
My very personal view. This could offend you if you are attached to these people.

I visited Rajneesh's Ashram in 1987. I found him very hurt, cynical and cruel. He is a glib
talker, a gifted stand-up comedian. There is nothing original about that chap. People close to him say he died of AIDS, he was a serious sex addict. The book " Bhagvan, the god that failed" clearly shows what a confused man he was. He stole most his message from Buddha, K, and others. If people follow him , nobody can save them. Though he is a shade better than UG. I have met that chap a few times. He was very jealous of K, class conscious, violent and stole everything from K , while not acknowledging it. He tried to persuade me to give him publicity, invited me to lunch a couple of times and gave me all his books. When I told him he was jealous of K and was desperate for publicity he got upset. I think these two guys are truly mad.

Regarding K, I was a person who doubted him, questioned him and publicly asked him questions about his comfortable life style.

What was remarkable was after my questions disturbed his meeting, caused much doubt in people who were listening, he did not allow anybody to condemn me. When I went back and said: " Sir I hope I haven't offended you by publicly saying those things... " He replied : " No sir, not at all, I am not that kind of person sir" My doubts never left me for long but what really matters now is not what or who he really was. He was loving, caring and genuinely sane till I last met him in Vasanth Vihar, one month before he died.

Many things he said have happened to me after 24 years , but they could all be coincidences too. What matters is if I can be harmless, understand the tricks of the ego.

Cheers
Shreeniwas
========================================================
On 9/27/2010 5:19 PM, Sitanshu Kumar wrote:
I have read rajnessh since i was fifteen, and having seen him in person when I was only four. Lately when I hear him, it seems his understanding of all major issues is faulty, if not plain wrong. But one thing I detect in him, he had a some kind of fearlessness, Wether it came from complete resignation, or something else, I do not know. He played around too much with sex and material things ( which is completely frivolous). I do not think anybody should read Osho at al. It may lead to madness.

Regards
Sitanshu
========================================================
subbu,
As I was taking a walk in the morning, it came to me. Is there a superior being ?
In my realization there is not. Only a "clear" being. This bring is like glass or quartz crystal , without a mark. But all the light is amplified many times over. As I said I remember Rajneesh from when I was 4, he used to wear white clothes. I was about 50 feet. I did not feel anything thing extra-ordinary.

My earliest remembrances of K was when I was 5. I still remember him as a light bulb. A yellow light bulb. K was darker than Rajneesh, but a yellow light emanated from him. Of course as soon as he stepped, the whole congregation would become silent. Pin drop. As I have indicated earlier K had some sort of super clairvoyance. Any way I got side tracked. Rajneesh had good potential, but attachments got the better of him, indulged in a lot of delusionay thinking. Out friend Pathik did agree with me, that towards the end of his life, he was positively mad. Be-aware of the spiritual path .

Regards
Sitanshu

========================================================

Hi Subbu
As I was growing up fist chirst, then gandhi and then rajneesh and then K became a big figure for me ( in that order). As I have grown older, I realized that all men have drawbacks. But now, I do not see any spirituality in Rajneesh. He
was an armchair philosopher, most of the time reading books written by others. He also seemed to be living for wealth and sex, all that profane crap. Living for these things is profanity of life, not using them when required.

Sorry for expressing these for a man that is gone. He makes a good light reading for many, and they should continue. But I still maintain that seriously following him
can lead to madness. I did mention K and Rajneesh in the same paragraph, but I never think of them together. I still think is a joker but not as mad as UG krishnamurti.

Regards,
Sitanshu

On 12/28/2011 5:55 AM, Subu Kavasseri wrote:

The etymological root meaning of Samadhi is 'putting together in place'.

Reminds me of a definition of art !

It is not to be confused with 'construction'. In fact it means 'deconstruction'
quite paradoxically. I think Sitanshu rightly put it as non-becoming. Cadbury
also gave a definition - 'cessation of thought', for nirvikalpa samadhi.

I am always impressed at how rich and deep these Eastern ideas are -- to even think along these lines of a "state" as my dear friend Michael Mendizza keeps reminding us, of peace, for lack of better word, implies a level of depth that is somewhat missing in traditional Western ideas.

I would put all that together (no pun intended) and define samadhi as 'deconstruction
of that which is put together by thought and thus, the ending of becoming'.

which is the same as what I understood of K saying (but K read Buddha anyway but i believe him that he came to it first hand - even if i hear from you there's a flower out there i can still go perceive the flower first hand - so coming to something first hand doesn't mean to be the first to come to it.

Sariputra, the great disciple of the Buddha was once asked how he would define
Nirvana and he simply said 'cessation of becoming'.

K's non-dualistic state where the observer is the observed, comes close to the
definition of Nirvikalpa Samadhi as given in Wikipedia. K never spoke much about
what happens after physical death, but since 'samadhi' does not have anything to
do with a person, it probably does not matter if there are two definitions of samadhi
- one for a state before physical death and the other after physical death.

He often didn't talk about this subject but when pressed In a discussions, what I understood of it was that he referred to the stream of human consciousness and stepping out of it by ending one's anxieties etc while alive and otherwise staying in that stream -- how original this idea is, maybe you guys can tell me more but it sounds pretty Buddhistic as well doesn't it ? I'm not saying K was repeating a theory. How true this was to him is just a matter of speculation.