J. Krishnamurti

redschmed · Post by **redschmed** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:14 am

Anybody read his "Commentaries on living". It is a series of 3. I find it interesting and provoking.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:47 pm

I've read many J.K books. So many that I can't remember if I read that one.

Have you read 'Lives in the Shadow with Krishnamurti' by Rahda Sloss?

It is essential that you read that book if you want to take JK seriously.

And he is worth taking seriously.

[edited the following in...]

oh yeah, and if there is anything about his work that your puzzeled by or want to talk about - -I'd love to talk it out with you.

MKFaizi · Post by **MKFaizi** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:05 pm

We have to do this again?

I have written here for years. I never could have believed that enlightenment required such redundancy.

Could there not be posted an ENLIGHTENMENT PRIMER or some such FAQ that would post a GENIUS premise on Krishnamurti and others?

I mean, it would be nice if writers here could already have the foundation and expound upon it.

Faizi

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 3:15 pm

Marsha,

Istead of merely complain, why dont you give us a link of an old genius forum conversation about J. krishnamurti?

Besides, it is foolish of you to assume that the conversation that could potentially happen on this thread is fated to be a repeat of all the other posts that had something to do with J. krishnamurti.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:44 am

I think Jiddu Krishnamurtiâ€™s work should be read by every lover of truth, after I read Jiddu Krishnamurti, it set the bar incredibly high in terms of the caliber of literature I read afterwards. To my mind, the simplicity and concise nature of Kâ€™s words makes the writing of Soren Kierkegaard and many others seem much too wordy, drawn-out and not to the point.

His books represent quite a feat for human language indeed. I find his writing clearer than the words of the Buddha.

Thanks K, youâ€™ve done a honorable service for humanity, CP takes his hat off to K.

although the man wasnt without his imperfections, as Cory Patrick suggests, Lives in the shadows of Jiddu Krishnamurti is an excellent book to read as a means to dispel one's ideals of the man.

sschaula · Post by **sschaula** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:07 am

I haven't read anything by him. Does anyone care to post something thoughtful that he wrote?

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:35 am

These are some K quotes taken from Wikipedia:

The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: 'Truth is a pathless land'. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security â€” religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

"So we are inquiring what makes a bird. What is creation behind all this? Are you waiting for me to describe it, to go into it? ... Why? Why do you ask [what creation is]? Because I asked? No description can ever describe the origin. The origin is nameless; the origin is absolutely quiet, it's not whirring about making noise. Creation is something that is most holy, that's the most sacred thing in life, and if you have made a mess of your life, change it. Change it today, not tomorrow. If you are uncertain, find out why and be certain. If your thinking is not straight, think straight, logically. Unless all that is prepared, all that is settled, you can't enter into this world, into the world of creation."

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity. Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution.

When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experience and the experiencer. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep radical mutation in the mind.

Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence.

So, the questioner wants to know why it is that he cannot go beyond all these superficial wrangles of the mind. For the simple reason that, consciously or unconsciously, the mind is always seeking something, and that very search brings violence, competition, the sense of utter dissatisfaction. It is only when the mind is completely still that there is a possibility of touching the deep waters."

"So, to meditate is to purge the mind of its self-centered activity. And if you have come this far in meditation, you will find there is silence, a total emptiness. The mind is uncontaminated by society; it is no longer subject to any influence, to the pressure of any desire. It is completely alone, and being alone, untouched it is innocent. Therefore there is a possibility for that which is timeless, eternal, to come into being. This whole process is meditation."

"If one can really come to that state of saying, 'I do not know,' it indicates an extraordinary sense of humility; there is no arrogance of knowledge; there is no self-assertive answer to make an impression. When you can actually say, 'I do not know,' which very few are capable of saying, then in that state all fear ceases because all sense of recognition, the search into memory, has come to an end; there is no longer inquiry into the field of the known."

MKFaizi · Post by **MKFaizi** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:00 am

I don't have any links to the old list.

But it is the same thing. Heard it all before.

Yaddayaddayadda.

Faizi

jonfield · Post by **jonfield** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:40 am

Since You Are Not Serious
You Might As Well Not Read This
by The World Teacher

In 1955 in Benares, India, Krishnamurti gave a talk with questions and answers on the theme, What Is It to Be Serious? Are you familiar with that particular lecture? Even if you are familiar with it, it has obviously not helped you where it counts. You are spiritually blind, a prisoner of subtle prejudices. You imagine you get something from Krishnamurti or other sources of spiritual influence, but basically you are distracted, superficial and incapable of sustained inquiry or genuine search for spiritual truth. You are a social self ever striving to get or give attention from other social selves. And, above all, you do not want to face the facts of your actual state, of what is driving you.

Your best bet is to leave this website now and not read this article or any other article here. But to leave now would be to admit to yourself that you are an ignorant, proud, distracted and neurotic social self without authentic individuality or heightened awareness. So you will probably continue to thoughtlessly read this article in your usual shallow manner. Though you are actually stupid, you think you can form a meaningful opinion of all this.

Try to register the truth of yourself and other readers of this article. It is a very healthy shock that you will continue to avoid. It goes hand-in-hand with your failure to understand Martin Heideggerâ€™s Being and Time, as well as Carlos Castanedaâ€™s Tales of Power.

If you are a member of the Krishnamurti Cult, if you believe J. Krishnamurti is the most advanced spiritual influence on Earth, you are hopelessly stuck in a pathetic dead end. It means you have no thinking ability, no learning capacity and zero energy of higher dimensional development. Krishnamurti is only an introduction to something and not a path of unfolding cosmic consciousness. Only idiots of low potential cling to Krishnamurti.

The ugly fact is that you are empty, stupid and heedless. You are too normal and stagnant. You are rotting in daydreams, sex fantasies or merely keeping busy. You talk, you socialize, but you do not realize. You are wasting your life in trivial crap. Your inner life is nothing but a pretentious farce. No drug trip will transform your consciousness; no blessing from a highly energetic person can be sustained by you. And your so-called â€œindependenceâ€, â€œfree thinkingâ€, â€œfree choiceâ€ and â€œfree willâ€ are nothing but fucking self-deceptive jokes. Your silly and conceited mediocrity is horribly obvious to any real seer.

Hearing the words of this article has done nothing for you and will continue to do nothing for you because you cannot listen with genuine inner truth-awareness. Your farcical presence here is totally asinine. You are like a blind bat trying to perceive a work of human art. The whole thing is all too predictably lost upon you. Your appearance in the higher world is something like a subhuman vegetable staring into space without comprehension or direct perception. You are nothing but a typical mass-hypnotized moron of the present apocalypse, the Kali Yuga Climax.

Letâ€™s set aside the ridiculous notion that you are getting ready to do some serious thinking or develop higher dimensional awareness. It just isnâ€™t going to happen. Only one visitor in thousands who come to this website has a slight, vague clue what all this is really about; all the rest, including your own dull self, only blank out or make some nasty comment. You have neither real knowledge nor useful higher experiencing. You are intellectually and spiritually lazy. Your spiritual evolution is simply not happening and you cannot know what this really means. Also, your Assemblage Point is stuck in the normal position of the tonal, the social ego of idle talk and fleeting shared curiosities. In fact, the Flyer is keeping your inner energy ate-up down to the bottoms of your feet, which means the Quantum Kundalini Power in your system is also very low. You are just a creature of your conditioning, driven by habits of body and mind.

Your beliefs and disbeliefs are utterly ignorant and useless, but you will continue to protect them from the real Unknown, which will continue to scare the hell out of you. You are thus going to fail to have a magical life. You will only drift into old age and death without ever knowing what you missed, just like everybody else you associate with on the Web or in your boring, foolish life pattern.

You are not serious and you are not going to become serious any time soon. You will only drift and lurch into further worries, sufferings and disappointments, which will not teach you much of anything.

You are a perfect example why I do not present any means of personal contact with myself. Since you cannot understand anything you read here, personal attention could not possibly help you. Anyone who would try to teach you is false by definition. Only false teachers try to help false students. Real students are never brought to real teachers through websites or advertising.

You will never be a real student or teacher of anyone. You will also never be a genuinely thoughtful, free-willed individual capable of developing on your own. This is because you are truly a complete asshole

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:32 am

K was a blowhard. Not enlightened. Osho used to send people over to make fun of him. Concise? Are you kidding? Look how all his bullshit just keeps coming.

He was set up by a corporation - the Theosophical society - to write books and con white folks. His concept is a sort of stylized writing of social commentary that sounds like something, but was really bullshit. People loved it. He had a serious look on his face and pretended to be a simple guy (he was really fucking his matron on the side). He didn't laugh or smile, so white folks thought his shit was deep. Very similar to the QVC.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 1:46 am

Jonfield,

Are you a follower of Gabriel Chiron? Are you actaully him? Do you publish writings on a website?

Your writings seem like they are just copied and pasted from somewhere. Or maybe you are just regurgitating what you've been programed to believe from the neosocrates website - regurgitations littered with vain personal flourishes?

Why dont you actually engage in a coversation with someone?

So far, your style/method of communication is loud and clear:

Assure the reader he is complete idiot, emphasize over and over how stupid he is, how hopelessly stunted and base he is, and then go on to describe to the reader what your idea of superiority is.

Are you capable of having a conversation?

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:23 am

Unwise,

I thought, since you are such a big fan of Rajneesh Osho, you might like to explore this website.....

http://home.att.net/~meditation/wrong-way.html

Here are a few Exerpts:

Rajneesh once claimed to have the ability to materialize objects through the power of will, but he said he chose not to use this ability as it represented a "lower state of consciousness."

Rajneesh was a man who conned his own disciples out of millions of dollars, who owned over 90 Rolls-Royce automobiles, who had sex with hundreds of young women half his age, and who ended up taking 60 milligrams of Valium a day and inhaling enough nitrous oxide to inflate a dirigible

Rajneesh was an advocate of the ancient Hindu myths of "Tantra," and in a lecture he defended the ancient Tantric practice of parents having sex with their own children. At his Oregon commune Rajneesh allowed middle aged men to have sex with prepubescent girls. Rajneesh used the myths of Tantra to rationalize all of his dishonest and illegal behavior, as well as his own exorbitant drug use

Rajneesh once stated that all wars would end by the year 2000 as the world would become so interdependent that war would be politically unacceptable.

Rajneesh later hired an advertising agency to advise him on how to gain more disciples. He was told that prophesies of the end of the world sold best. After hearing that he started to predict world wide nuclear war and suggested that he and his sannyasins (initiated disciples) could survive in caves and then reemerge to save the world.

As stated in 'Osho, Bhagwan Rajneesh, and the Lost Truth' - Rajneesh claimed that the AIDS epidemic would kill three quarters of the world's population.

He had his disciples spray their hands with alcohol before eating and wear rubber gloves during sex to avoid AIDS transmission.

Rajneesh's lifelong teaching was that all human beings have souls which reincarnate form one lifetime to the next, and we are all trapped in a continuous cycle of birth and death until enlightenment sets us free. He claimed to remember all of his own past lives and that he was once a great Indian guru as well as one of the early Dalai Lamas. In his last drug dazed years he suddenly and briefly reversed himself and stated that there was no reincarnation and that the very idea of reincarnation was a "misinterpretation" of other phenomena. I think his drug taking experiences made him realize that he was just a human brain, as the drugs he indulged in, nitrous oxide and LSD, clearly reveal the neural-cellular nature of consciousness. Rajneesh thus briefly admitted in essence that his entire life's teaching was false, based on myths and lies, and that he had no first hand experience of souls, reincarnation, ghosts, or "bodyless masters;"... all the attention grabbing headlines of his fairy tale philosophy. His words were just a regurgitation of ancient myths, books he had read, and his own vivid imagination. Rajneesh wanted to be known as the greatest teacher since Buddha and he was willing to lie day after day and year after year to gain that reputation.

Ask yourself this question. What does the average Mafia crime boss or corrupt dictator want most? The answer is millions of dollars, absolute power, a harem of women, and a daily supply of booze or drugs. Now ask yourself what did Rajneesh want and get? The answer is millions of dollars, absolute power, a harem of women, and a daily supply of drugs. Rajneesh used myths of the occult and his natural ability to influence people to achieve the same goals. He could look people directly in the eye and lie without flinching, and that helped him become a financially successful guru. Lies and fantasy sell better than telling the simple truth, so Rajneesh decided to sell spiritual consumers what they wanted to hear.

Rajneesh's own words and life history prove that he had no great wisdom and that he was subnormal in his understanding of science, mathematics, ethics, simple logic, and common sense. What Rajneesh did have was a tremendous power of presence and the gift of hypnotic oratory. He fooled himself into equating his own raw consciousness with intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence and consciousness are not the same thing, and those with the most consciousness are not necessarily the most honest and wise.

Even common street drugs like LSD can induce a kind of distorted state of superconsciousness, and hallucinogenic drug users are not known for great wisdom, balance, and virtue.

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:40 am

Ah, I miss Rajneesh. What a sense of humor! Magnificent. I don't like to collect dirty laundry from people - and I was not a witness to any of the above - so I don't know if it is true. Were you?

They say George Bush was drunk when he choked on that pretzel, but I don't know. I wasn't there. This is often why I make fun of history and amazing claims about Hitler and so on. How do you know, were you there?

Even if Rajneesh did all of the above, he was clearly enlightened and far beyond your judgments and understanding. I understand him perfectly. With all of his insane clowning, contradictions and lying, he was teaching something very important.

As far as enlightened men are concerned, tradition says you cannot judge what they do. This is because they are motivated by past karma, by past causes that work on the body/mind. Also, you are ALREADY god even now. Everyone is. AND, every person is already enlightened even though they do not REALIZE it. So, what can you do that is not god? What can you do of a supposed free will? What can you do to stop being god?

Rajneesh was teaching a wonderful lesson about leaning on and taking leaders seriously. I guess you don't see the joke.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:15 am

Unwise,

I see the Joke of Osho. What makes it so funny is how unintentional it was.

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:26 am

I once saw an interview with Rajneesh by news hounds. They were trying to embarrass him with some 'dirt.'

News Guy: "Why do you have so many expensive cars?"

R: "I have lots of friends and they like to buy me gifts."

NG: "You must have some very rich friends. Why do they buy you Rolls Royces?"

R: "Because it's a very nice car."

NG: "Oh yes, it's a very nice car. Why do you have 50 of them?"

R: "I don't have 50 of them."

NG: "Oh, yes you do!!! We took the time to count them out front and there are 50 there. What do you say about that?"

R: "I don't have 50; I have 60. They are not all out front."

(very small smile on his face)

See, if you don't think he understood. Well, you don't get it. He was the greatest comedian of this age.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:25 am

Unwise wrote:

I wasn't there. This is often why I make fun of history and amazing claims about Hitler and so on. How do you know, were you there?

K was a blowhard. Not enlightened. Osho used to send people over to make fun of him. Concise? Are you kidding? Look how all his bullshit just keeps coming.

He was set up by a corporation - the Theosophical society - to write books and con white folks. His concept is a sort of stylized writing of social commentary that sounds like something, but was really bullshit. People loved it. He had a serious look on his face and pretended to be a simple guy (he was really fucking his matron on the side). He didn't laugh or smile, so white folks thought his shit was deep. Very similar to the QVC.

Even if Rajneesh did all of the above, he was clearly enlightened and far beyond your judgments and understanding. I understand him perfectly. With all of his insane clowning, contradictions and lying, he was teaching something very important.

unwise, If you read through the above post, do you notice any inconsistencies and contradictions?

What is the reason behind your strong defense of Rajneesh's life? Are you attached to him as an ideal in the same way a teenager is attached to the lead singer of a rock band?

Isnâ€™t this just celebrity worship? Do you look up to him because you desire to live his lifestyle? Are you secretly harboring fantasies of achieving a similar lifestyle as this burnout rock guru?

Perhaps I'm incorrect Unwise, but these are questions to ponder nevertheless.

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 6:23 am

You like Steve Colbert? I try to watch him every night. I love him. So, CP, don't you have a sense of humor?

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:42 pm

Yes, one couldnt live without a sense of humor, life would not be bearable, however there needs to be a balance between humor and seriousness.

Many times humor arises out of an intense seriousness, it is an unintentional byproduct of intense exploration.

Humor should not be primary, and one shouldnt necessarily be content with the maturity of their humor because if one's seriousness is lacking then ones humor will be lacking as well.

But if you are using this worldly thread to relax and be vulgar as hell, get it all out, don't mind me, I'm indifferent.

Here allow me to join you unwise...

CP pulls out his penis and urinates on picture of Osho in the below link:

http://www.oshogulaab.com/images/indexoshogulaabcom.JPG

ah, it feels fucking good doesnt it Unwise? its gratifying isnt it buddy?

One has to wonder what is mature humor vs immature humor?

This is a question that I have kept alive for some time now.

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:57 pm

I like your idea connecting seriousness with humor. I think you are quite correct. There are those paradoxes and dichotomies again. A very serious man is also the best buffoon and visa versa. You have made a good point.

Similarly, Rajneesh could be very serious and wrote maybe 100 books of some of the most in-depth and profound thought available today. His knowledge of every spiritual tradition was phenomenal. Almost every page of any book he wrote contains some original, profound thought. Surely the man was a true genius. And this is also why he was the greatest buffoon who even made fun of himself.

Now, a different matter....You have accused me of vulgarity. Where am I being vulgar?

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 9:22 pm

Unwise wrote:

Now, a different matter....You have accused me of vulgarity. Where am I being vulgar?

I dont know Unwise, one may suggest that boastfully confessing the fact that you enjoy driving motorcycles really fast could be considered lacking in taste and refinement.

that would be like me dedicating a post to boastfully braging about how I enjoy fucking prostitutes in the ass, I don't really see the point myself.

but perhaps I'm overeacting and being melodramatic here.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:47 pm

unwise wrote: Similarly, Rajneesh could be very serious and wrote maybe 100 books of some of the most in-depth and profound thought available today. His knowledge of every spiritual tradition was phenomenal. Almost every page of any book he wrote contains some original, profound thought. Surely the man was a true genius. And this is also why he was the greatest buffoon who even made fun of himself.

I have at least once an hour some original profound thought that would put any audience in awe, if they would had the proper expectation of reading or hearing a wise teacher of course.

Rajneesh is an interesting character and there's a breath of fresh air, an intense insight and intellect in many of his writings that worked very well for me long time ago. I think I started reading Nietzsche because of some reference Rajneesh gave! Now I regard much of the Bhagwan universe as too childish, as playing with matches.
Still, Osho combined his intellect (he was initially a well known philosophy professor) with some very strong charisma, created or not by his devout followers. Hard to say.

An interesting viewpoint can be found here at rajneesh.info (link edited), written by one of Rajneesh his former disciples, Christopher Calder. Specially the following analysis seems quite valid, when ego is defined in the Freudian sense of course and enlightenment is defined as including temporal states and phases of development toward Buddha.

(...) I could see his ego in action, calculating and manipulating. Once you see something that clearly no rationalizations can cover up the basic truth.

Rajneesh was magnificently enlightened but he was also profoundly egotistical.

For ordinary humans the ego is the center of awareness and the Void is perceived only at the periphery. People look at a picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and they see the Void as an outside object, not as a personal identity. When you become enlightened, either temporarily in a satori or permanently as a Buddha, the situation is reversed. Now the Void is your center of awareness and the ego is at the periphery. Ego does not die, it just no longer takes the center stage of your attention.

(...)

Enlightened humans do not feel their more diffuse ego and thus they feel as free as space (the Void) itself. In actuality ego is still present and working, just as our autonomic nervous system keeps on working whether we are aware of its function or not. You do not have to consciously tell your heart to beat 70 times a minute because it will keep on beating regardless of your awareness. The brain function that controls heart rate is automatic (autonomic) and does not need our consciousness to make it work.

Some enlightened human animals have become fooled by the phenomenon of ego displacement and thought they no longer had any personal selfishness that could cause trouble. Meher Baba spent much of his life bragging about how great he was, yet at his center he felt perfectly egoless. In truth he was very egoistic and should have realized that even enlightenment is no excuse for bragging.

The same fundamental misjudgment plagued Acharya Rajneesh. He became fooled into thinking that he was above arrogance, but that was simply not the case. The ego is an integral part of the structure of the human brain. It is not simply psychological, but neurological and hard wired into our neural pathways (see the scientific study of 'self''). The self-survival, self-defense mechanism we call 'ego' cannot be destroyed unless the physical body dies.

Even enlightened humans have to mind their manners and realize that the Atman is the wondrous phenomenon they should promote, not their own fallible and temporary personalities. Ramana Maharshi had the right approach in this regard, and that is one reason he is still beloved by all. Ramana Maharshi promoted the Atman, the universal cosmic consciousness, but never his own mortal body and mind.

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:53 am

CP:

that would be like me dedicating a post to boastfully braging about how I enjoy fucking prostitutes in the ass, I don't really see the point myself.

Your posting a picture of Rajneesh and saying you were urinating on it was pretty vulgar and childish. It rules you out as a mature person available for discussion. Now, the reason I posted my pics and talked about my normal activities and interests was because Mr. Quinn said it was important that I do so. So I did. I think there is some difference between saying I enjoy motorcycle riding and boasting about fucking a prostitute in the butt hole.

DJR:

I could see his ego in action, calculating and manipulating. Once you see something that clearly no rationalizations can cover up the basic truth.

Rajneesh was magnificently enlightened but he was also profoundly egotistical.

For ordinary humans the ego is the center of awareness and the Void is perceived only at the periphery. People look at a picture taken by the Hubble Space Telescope and they see the Void as an outside object, not as a personal identity. When you become enlightened, either temporarily in a satori or permanently as a Buddha, the situation is reversed. Now the Void is your center of awareness and the ego is at the periphery. Ego does not die, it just no longer takes the center stage of your attention.

Yes, this is what I am always saying. The ego is a useful hand. Necessary. It never goes away. The enlightened man plays with it and sees it for what it is. The unenlightened man is committed to it as his soul existence - like a bad actor on a stage who is so committed to his role that he goes home and tries to remain Caesar. His acting is cheesy - over the top, laughable.

People hang out with an enlightened man and see that he may drink beer, or take drugs, or smoke, or laugh at dirty jokes, or avoids pain and has preferences and enjoys things. Because people are convinced that piety is a sign of enlightenment and that the ego MUST go away, they say, "Ah, fuck, I used to think this asshole was enlightened, now I see he's just an asshole." But they are mistaken.

The same fundamental misjudgment plagued Acharya Rajneesh. He became fooled into thinking that he was above arrogance, but that was simply not the case. The ego is an integral part of the structure of the human brain. It is not simply psychological, but neurological and hard wired into our neural pathways (see the scientific study of 'self''). The self-survival, self-defense mechanism we call 'ego' cannot be destroyed unless the physical body dies.

Even enlightened humans have to mind their manners and realize that the Atman is the wondrous phenomenon they should promote, not their own fallible and temporary personalities. Ramana Maharshi had the right approach in this regard, and that is one reason he is still beloved by all. Ramana Maharshi promoted the Atman, the universal cosmic consciousness, but never his own mortal body and mind.

This person's analysis is pretty sharp, but he misses a fine point here. He thinks Rajneesh was promoting his ego while Ramana was promoting Atman. He recognizes both were profoundly enlightened, but that Rajneesh was still fooled by the ego tricks. My view on this is that enlightenment can hit people at various levels of experience and spiritual 'age.' Ramana was an old spirit who had no more karmic propensity to foolishness and sexual games. Rajneesh had plenty of karma that was chained to him. In his honesty he did not hide it, but flaunted it, saying, "Look, I am acting like an idiot, but I am still enlightened. This ought to give you hope. Let's not pretend."

It is also my own situation so I know it well.

Like I say, you cannot know an enlightened man by his actions, but by his profound understanding of others. His easy and natural conversation with Atman, Purusha and reality. His comprehension of psychology. His authoritative way of speaking of scripture and life. His lack of reliance on scripture or outside authority. His boldness and sheer ballsiness. His lack of all doubt. His dazzling use and love of paradox, his acceptance of duality. Even his mundane advice.

Cory Duchesne · Post by **Cory Duchesne** » Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:48 am

Here is real humor:

After his arrest, Rajneesh was interviewed in jail and began the interview by crying in a shrill voice about his less than royal accommodations in the slammer. His high pitched whining was so weird and annoying that a late night comedy show used the footage sarcastically as a joke about "God" complaining.

Unwise, do you think Osho's high pitchd whinning and crying was done to make people laugh? I don't. I think the second half of Osho's life was a tragedy - a big disastrous accident. I dont think he was too happy - which explains his constant intoxication via nitrous oxide.

I'd like to know what comedy show that was - I bet the skit is hilarious.

The Simpsons produced a wonderfully funny spoof of Rajneesh, depicting a white gloved guru driving his Rolls Royce down a dusty commune road as his disciples felt joy at eating his road dust. In the cartoon, the great guru tried to escape the commune with bags of cash in a homemade peddle driven flying machine.

Simpsons has done some of the most hilarious stuff.

Unwise,

To laugh AT osho via satirical imaginitive skits is to have a good sense of humor.

To laugh WITH osho via vicariously living through his self indulgence is to be immature and stupid.

Osho's life was a tragedy, and if one is to turn his life into a comedy, one should find oneself laughing AT osho - not with him.

Diebert van Rhijn · Post by **Diebert van Rhijn** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:07 am

Hello Unterwater,

unwise wrote:DJR:

First of all: you quoted Christopher Calder. Credit were credit is due. And not many people would use the J when typing my initials.

Yes, this is what I am always saying. The ego is a useful hand. Necessary. It never goes away. The enlightened man plays with it and sees it for what it is. The unenlightened man is committed to it as his soul existence - like a bad actor on a stage who is so committed to his role that he goes home and tries to remain Caesar. His acting is cheesy - over the top, laughable.

I believe that to be a possible outcome for people who end up being stuck somehow in the first stage(s) or bodhisattva bhumi. The personality has been uprooted but the great pleasure and powers that can come with this (one has an advantage over many others now) forms a swamp to really get lost in. It can become like having banned one unclean spirit, cleaned up the house and now seven fresh ones moving in more terrible than the original one (paraphrazing Matthew 12 here: "and the last state of that man is worse than the first").

People hang out with an enlightened man and see that he may drink beer, or take drugs, or smoke, or laugh at dirty jokes, or avoids pain and has preferences and enjoys things. Because people are convinced that piety is a sign of enlightenment and that the ego MUST go away, they say, "Ah, fuck, I used to think this asshole was enlightened, now I see he's just an asshole." But they are mistaken.

They might not realize this asshole has started on a journey they don't understand but they might be right to assume he accomplished not much yet. Even ignorant people can make this simple and correct deduction at times.

He recognizes both were profoundly enlightened, but that Rajneesh was still fooled by the ego tricks. My view on this is that enlightenment can hit people at various levels of experience and spiritual 'age.'

What is this 'spiritual age' and what's an old spirit? You mean Ramana was wiser or not? Which standard are you measuring with here? Wouldn't you like to advance in spiritual age as well? Have you given up on it?

It is also my own situation so I know it well.

There seem to be similarities. Like Osho you are also rationalizing and hiding faulty understanding behind a mask that only pretends to be transparent and not-caring. Osho became like a one-eyed king in an ashram of the blind and needy. Too easy.

Like I say, you cannot know an enlightened man by his actions, but by his profound understanding of others. His easy and natural conversation with Atman, Purusha and reality. His comprehension of psychology. His authoritative way of speaking of scripture and life. His lack of reliance on scripture or outside authority. His boldness and sheer ballsiness. His lack of all doubt. His dazzling use and love of paradox, his acceptance of duality. Even his mundane advice.

This is also where you can know a fool by, because these are the things ego can perfectly hide behind. Imagine an ego that has grown beyond questioning! It will even dazzle the ones close enough, they'll crave for a piece of it. People tend to back away from the ones without ego - too alien.

unwise · Post by **unwise** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 1:15 pm

DVR:

First of all: you quoted Christopher Calder. Credit were credit is due

Are you talking to me? I have no idea who Christopher Calder is so how can I quote him?

What is this 'spiritual age' and what's an old spirit? You mean Ramana was wiser or not? Which standard are you measuring with here? Wouldn't you like to advance in spiritual age as well? Have you given up on it?

Experience and wisdom is a natural consequence of age. Since there is reincarnation, the spiritual age of people differs. People acquire nothing of themselves. Also, the trajectory of life can be completely different from one enlightened person compared to another. Ramana is of the mild type and Rajneesh was of the fiery type. Makes no difference.