Osho and Krishnamurti
Krishnamurti wanted to meet Osho at a time when Osho was in Bombay, but he wanted him to go to his place. Osho said, "If he wants to meet me, he should come here. I don't want to meet him, so why should I go? I am even giving an appointment to him to meet me -- that is enough, more than that you cannot expect of me. Why should I go? I have nothing to learn." The person who had come to Osho was a close friend of Krishnamurti. He said, "But he is old and it looks mannerly -- you are young, you should go to him." Osho said, "You go back and you ask him -- does he believe in old age, young age? Does he believe that the young person should necessarily respect the older person? And tell him clearly that he wants to meet me, I don't have any desire to meet him. So he should come." But the ego... he never came, and since then he had been angry with Osho. But Osho didn't understand: if you want to meet him, then you have to come. And what did he wanted to meet Osho for? If he goes on condemning the idea of accepting somebody as your master -- then what did he want to meet him for? There cannot be any other reason than to learn something... or to teach something. And what has he been doing his whole life? Even at the age of ninety he was continuously traveling; sick, old, suffering from many diseases. For thirty years he had been suffering from headache. It is something unique. No enlightened person has suffered from headache. He may have suffered from everything else, but not from headache. His head is so relaxed, not a single thought moves there -- no traffic. Krishnamurti's headache showed that he was in the head, not in the heart. And all these years, what had he been doing? If he says that you should not learn from others because that makes you dependent, then he should stop speaking -- because that is nothing but teaching people, that is giving them ideas. And remember, clothes can be easily thrown away. Ideas cannot be thrown away so easily. They go deep into your mind. You can drop the clothes instantly, but can you drop your ideas instantly? And that's what he had been doing -- giving people ideas. And Osho was telling his people that he is just one amongst you, as ordinary as you are. Osho was not holier than you, not higher than you. And he was not giving you a doctrine to believe in. Osho was simply exposing his heart, how he came to know himself. Perhaps in some way it may be of help to you.
6 Kommentare |
0 Trackbacks
Alfie and Dan, two Cockney pub crawlers, were in their cups one afternoon when Alfie pointed to a woman sitting at the end of the bar. "Hey!" he said, That woman looks like Queen Elizabeth!"
"Nah," replied Dan. "What would the Queen be doing in a pub in hogtown?"
"I am telling you it is her," insisted Alfie. "Can't you see the resemblance?"
"Look, that ain't the Queen," said Dan. "And I am willing to bet five on it."
"You are on!" came the reply. "I will go ask her." He walked over to the woman sitting at the bar and said, "I beg your pardon, are you the Queen?"
"Get lost, you little runt," growled the woman, before I kick your ass across the room!"
He returned to his seat. "Well?" his friend asked.
"Well, she didn't say she was and she didn't say she wasn't."
geschrieben von Hans-Wolfgang — 20 Sep 2006, 12:31
ON THE BLISSFUL ISLANDS
ZARATHUSTRA HAS RETURNED TO THE MOUNTAINS WHERE HE LIVES A SOLITARY EXISTENCE FOR MANY YEARS -- UNTIL ONE MORNING HE HAS A DREAM.
FILLED WITH NEW RESOLVE AND AN OVERWHELMING DESIRE TO SHARE HIS WORDS WITH HIS FRIENDS, ZARATHUSTRA SPEAKS THUS: BEHOLD, WHAT ABUNDANCE IS AROUND US! AND IT IS FINE TO GAZE OUT UPON DISTANT SEAS FROM THE MIDST OF SUPERFLUITY.
ONCE YOU SAID `GOD' WHEN YOU GAZED UPON DISTANT SEAS; BUT NOW I HAVE TAUGHT YOU TO SAY `SUPERMAN'.
GOD IS A SUPPOSITION; BUT I WANT YOUR SUPPOSING TO REACH NO FURTHER THAN YOUR CREATING WILL.
COULD YOU CREATE A GOD? -- SO BE SILENT ABOUT ALL GODS! BUT YOU COULD SURELY CREATE THE SUPERMAN.
PERHAPS NOT YOU YOURSELVES, MY BROTHERS! BUT YOU COULD TRANSFORM YOURSELVES INTO FOREFATHERS AND ANCESTORS OF THE SUPERMAN: AND LET THIS BE YOUR FINEST CREATING!
GOD IS A SUPPOSITION: BUT I WANT YOUR SUPPOSING TO BE BOUNDED BY CONCEIVABILITY.
COULD YOU CONCEIVE A GOD? -- BUT MAY THE WILL TO TRUTH MEAN THIS TO YOU: THAT EVERYTHING SHALL BE TRANSFORMED INTO THE HUMANLY-CONCEIVABLE, THE HUMANLY-EVIDENT, THE HUMANLY-PALPABLE! YOU SHOULD FOLLOW YOUR OWN SENSES TO THE END!
AND YOU YOURSELVES SHOULD CREATE WHAT YOU HAVE HITHERTO CALLED THE WORLD: THE WORLD SHOULD BE FORMED IN YOUR IMAGE BY YOUR REASON, YOUR WILL, AND YOUR LOVE! AND TRULY, IT WILL BE TO YOUR HAPPINESS, YOU ENLIGHTENED MEN!...
BUT TO REVEAL MY HEART ENTIRELY TO YOU, FRIENDS: IF THERE WERE GODS, HOW COULD I ENDURE NOT TO BE A GOD! THEREFORE THERE ARE NO GODS.
I, INDEED, DREW THAT CONCLUSION; BUT NOW IT DRAWS ME.
GOD IS A SUPPOSITION: BUT WHO COULD IMBIBE ALL THE ANGUISH OF THIS SUPPOSITION WITHOUT DYING? SHALL THE CREATOR BE ROBBED OF HIS FAITH AND THE EAGLE OF HIS SOARING INTO THE HEIGHTS?...
I CALL IT EVIL AND MISANTHROPIC, ALL THIS TEACHING ABOUT THE ONE AND THE PERFECT AND THE UNMOVED AND THE SUFFICIENT AND THE INTRANSITORY....
BUT THE BEST IMAGES AND PARABLES SHOULD SPEAK OF TIME AND BECOMING: THEY SHOULD BE A EULOGY AND A JUSTIFICATION OF ALL TRANSITORINESS....
ALL FEELING SUFFERS IN ME AND IS IN PRISON: BUT MY WILLING ALWAYS COMES TO ME AS MY LIBERATOR AND BRINGER OF JOY.
WILLING LIBERATES: THAT IS THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF WILL AND FREEDOM.
... THUS ZARATHUSTRA TEACHES YOU.
geschrieben von Hans-Wolfgang — 20 Sep 2006, 12:26
Siddhartha Gautama became enlightened. The story goes that a Brahmin was passing by. He had never seen such a beautiful person. Something unearthly was surrounding Buddha sitting under his tree; he was luminous, a tremendous peace. The Brahmin could not go. He was in a hurry, he had to reach somewhere; but the silence of Buddha pulled him. He forgot where he was going, he forgot his motivation. Being close to this man who had attained to the state of no motivation, he was pulled into his whirlpool. Enchanted, he remained there, the story says, for hours. Then suddenly he became aware; what was he doing there? Then he suddenly became aware that he was going somewhere, but where? Then he asked, "Who am I" -- as if the whole identity, the whole past had somewhere disappeared. He could not bring who he was to his consciousness. Then he shook Buddha and he said, "What have you done to me? I have completely forgotten where I was going, and from where I was coming, and who I am. Now who am I going to ask? Who will answer this? And I am a stranger to this part of the country. You tell me what you have done!" Buddha opened his eyes and he said, "I have not done anything. I have stopped doing. Maybe because of it, maybe just being close to me... you don't be worried. You run away from me fast." The man said, "Before I go, one thing I have to ask: are you a God?" He had heard, he was a learned Brahmin. He had recited the Vedas every day as part of ritual, daily ritual. He had heard about Krishna and Ram, but they had remained just stories. For the first time somebody seemed to be there -- solid, real, earthly, and still divine: "Are you a God?" Buddha said, "No." The man said, "Are you a saint, an ARHAT?" -- because the man understood. In India Jains don't believe in God, so when somebody attains to the perfect, ultimate truth, he is called an arhat: one who has arrived; the sage, the saint. So first he asked, "Are you a God?" He asked a question in the terminology of the Hindus, and Buddha said, "No." Then he thought, "Maybe he belongs to the other tradition of the Indians, the tradition of the shramanas who don't believe in God." He asked, "Are you an arhat, a sage, a saint?" and Buddha said, "No." Then he was puzzled because these were the only two languages possible. Then he said, "Then who are you?" Buddha said, "I am aware." It is not very grammatical, but true. He said, "I am aware." He simply indicated the quality of his being at that moment -- awareness -- not God, not saint. Because when you say 'God', it seems something is static. When you say 'saint', it seems something is complete, static, has become a thing. Buddha said, "I am aware." Or, an even better translation: he said, "I am awareness" -- no identity, just a dynamic energy of being aware. In awareness, in such awareness there is no motivation; and if there is motivation, there is no awareness.
geschrieben von hans-wolfgang — 20 Sep 2006, 12:22
Osho was a great speaker and like most enlightened masters I've read, met and heard of, a living contradiction with no care for social or external considerations or for what anyone thought of him, living in the moment for the moment.
So I'm not surprised he would have said he wanted to meet Krishnamurti and then not done anything for it when the situation arised. Osho spits in and on every possible religion, philosophy and person that represents them. I don't believe it is out of disrespect, rather a wish of tearing apart the ideas that people have ABOUT all these subjects in order to provoke thought and most of all, reaction.
Only after reaction can one observe one's position and consider it's reality. This is where change is possible, before that, we are complacent in the comfort of reason and linear sense.
Peace,
Sud Ram
sudram.blogspot.com
geschrieben von Sud Ram — 07 Dez 2005, 16:43
"Rajneesh then once said that the
only possibly enlightened person he'd met, at least the only one he was
convinced was more enlightened than himself, was Krishnamurti. Well,
someone asked Krishnamurti about this, and K said that he wasn't
enlightened himself, but was just an ordinary man who could see
clearly, and that Rajneesh was a silly phony guru who was adding to all
the nonsense. Rajneesh then claimed that this is exactly what K would
have said were K truly enlightened."
geschrieben von Yaggie — 15 Sep 2005, 13:27
Nah
geschrieben von D — 14 Sep 2005, 19:53