Two emaills I wrote to KFA Trustees after they
invited Ravi Ravindra to give a talk and posted a link to his pathetic
book (or should I say Tabloid).
As a result of these KFA re-sent their mass mail deleting the link to his book.
EMAIL 1
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Why is the KFA publicizing Ravi
Ravindra's K-bashing book?
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:55:32 +0100
Dear Trustees of the KFA
I noticed that not only you have scheduled Ravi Ravindra to speak at
the foundation but you've sent out a link to his most horrible book to
your mailing list. What is happening to the KFA?!? Have the people
who've sent this link actually read the book? This is one of the worst
books ever written about K which not only exhibits the confusion and
cluelessness of the author, but tries to justify it by attempting to
discredit K, and in not such an elegant way. Though not quite
as malicious as Radha Sloss, this book is not much better when it
comes to
logical inconsistency
Ravindra argues that K is a failure because Ravindra didn't understand
him. It's easy to disseminate confusion -- there's a big market for it.
And some people love him because it comforts their confusion.
Many people love anybody who discredits K because "if K is so bad, then
I don't have to bother about the challenges he puts forth". That's why
the myth of "nobody got it" is so popular (you can see discussion on
that and Ravindra's book in the "circulars" section of
"psychology/philosophy" section of my site www.rezamusic.com
I have nothing against Mr. Ravindra personally, and I know he's a
friend of Mark, but saw him talk a few years ago and his talk was as
boring as
his book -- it echoed the same confusion and attitude -- that K's
challenges are not applicable -- that comes across in his book.
But people do occasionally change, so maybe Mr. Ravindra has changed
and suddenly has found clarity in what K says (I doubt it but it's
theoretically possible). Maybe the talk at KFA will be great. But to
publicize his dreadful book is really an insult to K.
Don't forget that K almost dissolved at least one of these foundations
and you know his attitude towards organizations in general, so while
you're doing a lot of good work, please don't over-do it. Inviting
Ravindra to speak and publicizing his book does not appear to be within
your charter of "preserve and disseminate".
All good wishes
Reza Ganjavi
<phone>
EMAIL 2
email 2
[slightly edited for web publication]
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Excerpts from Ravi Ravindra's
book
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:03:50 +0100
A couple of you wrote back. I will take the liberty to respond to the
group:
The person who put the link to the book is not to blame. He merely
trusted that a speaker who wrote a book about K wrote a decent book not
a piece of trash. I think the issue is deeper -- it's about doing too
much perhaps. I think the foundation has a lot more life than before
and there are a bunch of new good people on the board and it's obvious
things are moving in a good direction. However, as stated in the last
email, I think you ought to keep in mind K's attitude towards
organizations, and the original charter of the foundation. Otherwise
you
run into the danger of doing things with good intentions which end of
being counter-productive.
As for details about the book and the author, I can only share with you
my opinion with some examples (listed below). Ravi seems a mediocre
mind with good academic qualifications (but as my mom says, you can
also
load up a lot of books on a mule). He was apparently swayed by Radha
Sloss and thought of making some money by writing that trash (around
the same
time). He admits to not having understood or applied much of what K
says, so he bashes K in return (pretty common and typical response: if
you discredit K, you don't need to bother with the challenges).
He is not anti-K. He's just mediocre. He has academic qualifications
and he gets invited to speak and he does it -- the last talk I saw was
boring as hell and Dr. Krishna who was there challenged him on some
points and Ravi just got stuck. He seems to fit the profile of those
Mary Lutynes refers to as having been too close to the sun and
therefore burned (instead of warmed :)
He was close to K (as he says) and didn't understand much (as he
admits). But he's not the only one. There are many who just don't seem
to grasp the immensity of what K's talking about, apparently because
they don't or can't apply it. The reason why they can't apply it can be
explored in an essay which is beyond the scope of this email :)
And it appears, according to my understanding of certain historical
events K may have felt that people around him had understood him less
than others. This is a fact that to this date can be seen. Reason for
it, could be that they concentrated too much on the person -- something
that K warned about.
In the spirit of Sloss the book, at times, apparently tries to discredit K. I don't mind people
stating facts or opinions about K but when they get into gossipy
conclusions that just don't add up, it's a problem. That was Sloss's
style too and I had correspondence with her and she ultimately had no
answer to:the question of how she effectively concluded that 2 + 2 is
5. That's exactly what she does. She says because of A and B therefore
C.
Ravindra's arguments are not any better, and much less elegant. They're
"cheap shots" at K.
The foundation was well aware of this yet, I guess to do something,
invited him to come to town. And are we paying for his trip? What a
waste of money!
Maybe at the talk someone can take a few quotations from his book and
call him up on it and ask him to clarify his comment about the virgins
-- is K's desire to have young virgins around due to his not having a
mother complex or due to his sexual desire or something special about the Process that required virgins?
I wrote to Ravi on October 21 1995 and copied KFA. Never
heard back. At least Sloss wrote back :)
Ravi's arguments include:
- "K always wanted women-specially youthful and pure virgins" to be
around him during his process, and that since he lost his mother at an
early age "he sought and found
women who would mother him". These argument appearing in the same
paragraph imply something that Ravi does not make so clear.
- Ravi comments on Sloss's book, saying K was not forthright and
consistent in his word and deed which is not true at all. It is a fact
that K told some of his close friends about the affair, but he didn't
announce it in public talks, neither did he ever say, don't have sex,
neither made any contradictory "moral proclamations" that Ravi accuses
him of making. One's sexuality is one's own business. But Ravi takes
his cheap shot anyway because bashing K relieves him of having to take
on the challenges K puts forth (my interpretation based on having heard
the arguments of so many K bashers).
- Ravi's reference to support his book's theme that K is inconsistent
is none but Radha Sloss. How credible of a source, and for a respectable academic like Ravi !!
- Looking for consistency is a trap. Ravi should know this given his
academic background. Is the universe consistent? We observe cosmic
objects crashing into each other and yet we observe great order. Ravi
would never write a book about these "two birds on one tree" which is
the whole theme of his pathetic book: to discredit K which is the same
as flattering him, same movement: put him on the pedestal, which he
does, and then shoot him down. K warned about this but who was there
to listen? I guess people close to him were too caught in his
magnetism to
pay attention, study, what he had to say.
- Ravi seems to sympathize with Sloss who boldly asserts that K
encourage people to follow him, that he had some sort of a complex that
he needed attention so he spoke to large audience to get attention and
other such ridiculous ideas. Ravi seems to have ignored so incredibly
many times that K spoke about the subject of true meaning of
discipline and not wanting followers.
- Ravi wrote in the book: "though no doubt I too had added to K's
sorrow by not understanding". At least he has the courage to admit his lack of
understanding. It's ok to not understand something, but why write a
book about it? And why would the foundation promote this book?
- Here's another fun quote from his comic book:: "in his talks he
frequently and often without relevance to the topic at hand returned to
harangues against the Brahmins and the Christians, the only two
religious groups with whom he had any prolonged contact during his
theosophical phase..." Ya, K talked without relevance just to
bash Brahmins and Christians (Not!!). Brilliant argument Ravi !!
We can never rule out that he might have changed.
Kind Regards
Reza Ganjavi
AMAZON REVIEW BY REZA GANJAVI
Amazon Review
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Book given 1.0 out of 5 stars
Book written to justify author's ignorance, November 28, 2007
By
Reza Ganjavi "www.rezamusic.com" - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)
This review is from: Krishnamurti: Two Birds on One Tree (Paperback)
In this work Mr. Ravindra tries to justify his self-admitted lack of
understanding of J. Krishnamurti by taking numerous stabs at him and
trying to discredit him. A waste of money, don't buy it.
Another reviewer puts it well:
"At the end if it, Ravi Ravindra, who is trained as a physicist,
questions if J.Krishnamurti was not a freak, as the Ravindra tells us
honestly that he seems to feel incapable of living a life without a
center, or perhaps also because he never saw anybody around
Krishnamurti that was centerless or without selfishness."
That forms the centre of Ravindra's motives: deep inside he seems to
think K was a failure. Yes, he must feel the immensity of the
challenges K poses and not being able to grasp it because the ego is
too strong, he concludes K was a failure. But he doesn't do that
elegantly, he tries to do that by discrediting K, using cheap gossip
and shaky logic. But just because someone failed to understand and
apply K doesn't mean K's teachings can not be tested, applied, grasped,
or discarded on their own without focusing on the teacher.
The reviewer further writes:
"he ends investigation and seem to have thrown in the towel, but that
also demands a lot of courage,even if some will see this a an
incapacity to learn."
Yes, but Ravindra gives talks and writes books to spread his confusion.
As long as there is a market, there is a product. So gullible people
love to listen to people like Ravindra. His confusion comforts theirs,
and justifies their not wanting to take on potentially life changing
challenges like, is it possible to live without fear or inner conflict?
COMMENTS
" I remember agreeing with your original criticism of Ravi
Ravindra's book some years ago but would have to read it again now if I
wanted to make further comments." "Great letter to KFA. Brilliant analysis of R's statements. I heard Ravi last year at Krotona. Each time he mentionned K,
I disagreed with him. He just picks up a sentence here and there, and
takes it apart. Not very scientific. Great lack of understanding. Zero insight! Best," "I met the guy years ago, didn't like him the minute I met him, I had
this strange feeling about him, sleazy is the word to describe him . .
. bravo <> thank you for your energy and insight, thank you for
challenging the foundation and helping it keep on course." RG:
Many thanks for your comments.
The points in the mail were twofold:
1)
why is the foundation promoting his book (they had a link to it) --
after my mail to them they removed the link and re-sent their mailing.
So people's dogmatic idea that people outside foundation should not
comment on the work of the foundation were proven wrong - such comments
are helpful at times.
2) why is he invited to speak given this
horrible book? It's just my opinion that he was very disrespectful to K
in this book and apparently rode on the back of Radha's success to make
some money (he uses her as reference), and years later, now that
there's a market for speaking about him, he's doing that. He shouldn't
be speaking about K because of his admissions in the book and in his
talk I last saw.
I will notate these points in the file in case
it makes my intentions for writing it more clear. I was not trying to
defend K per-se but I found contradictions in what his foundation is
doing. Ravi would have never had the nerve to publish that book while K
was alive. So in effect, he was very disrespectful of K in what he
published -- now going around talking with respect about K while that
disrespectful book is still being marketed (by the poor chap's own
foundation) just doesn't seem right, IMO :)
QUOTE
This quote is very telling: the professor projecting his ignorance on others. He's simply wrong.
"Whenever
people have turned, even momentarily, inward, and have had a look, they
can see – I’d be happy if you do it right now, to turn inwardly and
just see, a few fleeting moments of observation will show you – that
internally there's almost a constant state of apprehension or anxiety
or worry, as if this is the psychological analog of the Brownian motion
in matter." Ravi Ravindra
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: ALL AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS, WRITINGS,
COMPILATION, AND OTHER WORKS BY REZA GANJAVI ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT
LAWS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.