You are on page 1of 12

21 thoughts on Aurobindo Krishnamurti and

Ramana Maharshi Osho


1.

Krishsays:
December 2, 2009 at 9:08 am
Osho is sheer delight to read. and this is the first series of Hindi lectures where he
gave sannyas too. Very good translation from Hindi to English.

Like

Reply

2.

baawrasays:
December 2, 2009 at 10:37 pm
PremG thanks for beatiful question and answer series. I think above post is half as
there is no reply from osho about Chaitanyas concept of achintya bhedabhedvad.
Pl. post it if u can.
thanks and love.
Baawra.

Like

Reply

1.

premGsays:
June 27, 2013 at 3:39 pm
You can download the entire book at: http://www.oshoworld.com/ebooks/search.asp?search=krishna&select_search=search_title

Like

Reply

3.

Loup Kibilokisays:
December 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm
All Arvinds (Aurobindo) talk of supraconsciousness and the supramental is within
the confines of the rational mind. He never goes beyond reason. Even when he
speaks about the transcendence of reason, he uses rationalistic concepts. Arvind is
a rationalist. Everything he says and the words and concepts he uses to say it
belong to the grammar of rationalism
LOL.
Arvind must be roaring in laughters reading Osho

Like

Reply

1.

Think Againsays:
September 13, 2012 at 9:26 am

Perhaps. But Osho was right in that god does not (or at least has not) descended
just for the asking at least for most of us. There seems to be some work to be done
transformation, whatever. Just try it yourself now. Doesnt work.
On the other hand, god has to descend at some point as our finite selves cannot
live long enough to reach the infinite. Perhaps we can instead to to 0 which is much
closer.
Dont know about god only descending on individuals. Could be that he might
descent on a society after all societies are in different levels of development, and
if there are collective conciousnesses, they should be evolving / developing too? But
that might just bring god to the society not individuals after all when a person
is enlighened, the parts of his body may not be seperately enlightened too
Dont really know just thoughts

Like

Reply

2.

David Watermeyersays:
December 5, 2015 at 6:13 pm
But this statement too is purely rational. Rationality is the default state when it
come to any form of verbal expression. How on earth could Osho possibly know the
inner experience of Arvind? He simply couldnt have so its all guesswork. Ladies
and gentleman you have only yourself as a reference point. One day you just have
to accept this.

Like

Reply

1.

Loup Kibilokisays:
December 5, 2015 at 10:36 pm
Much common sense in that. Oshos use of language, human rationality and
iteration structure of syntax, etc., to convey his expression, is at the same level of
usual language and makes his own argument against Aurobindo implode by itself
at each sentence. The point is Im very surprised Osho seems not to realise that.
More surprised, in fact, that he doesnt sense, at least, or indeed *perceive* that
Aurobindo is a yogui. I do, and Im certainly not a master (and certainly do not
prented to be, either). I do perceive the Mother and Aurobindo almost daily since
the 1970s in my own mind and psyche. And the descent of the Shakti, almost daily.
Etc. Thousands, like me, know those things intimately, as per personal concrete
experience. And not Osho ? Hum .. The least I can say is that it looks quite
surprising and strange to me.

Like

4.

kishoresays:
December 5, 2010 at 9:46 am
hai dear,
all the forms of knowledge is same.there can be a variation as much or less
in knowledge.there is no ramana,osho,j.k,aurobindo.everything is purepure
consious.nothing else.me who write you who read also.

Like

Reply

1.

Zeavolasays:
July 13, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Thank you Kishore to remind us that everything is the same, all this knowledge is
the same

Like

Reply

5.

P. Haridassays:
January 23, 2012 at 9:09 am
There is nothing new said by any one.only truth, that is, conciousness, remains.
Call it Brahma, Bhooma, atma, or what you will.

Like

Reply

6.

soniabellanisays:
September 29, 2012 at 10:36 am
Reblogged this on My Blog.

Like

Reply

1.

Haridas Menonsays:

May 5, 2014 at 2:29 am


I think it is personally of no consequence what the likes of Aurbindo and Osho
thought. I am only concerned about what Ramana and JK tried to convey to us.

Like

Reply

7.

jmacsays:
October 1, 2012 at 4:24 pm
nothing like a few rat turds to spoil a good pot of soup.

Like

Reply

8.

Ganesansays:
October 24, 2013 at 7:25 am
Oshos assessment of the philosophy of Aurobindo, as being the outcome of his
Western schooling, being influenced by the logic of Aristotle, is correct. After a
complete reading of his magnum opus, the Life Divine, one doesnt find any
liberating knowledge in it. Aurobindo was very much obsessed with the idea of the
Supramental descending on the Earth, for which he had been laboriously working,
being immersed in a continuous trance to achieve it. It is surprising that Aurobino,
while decrying Advaita, should have chosen to be immersed in a continuous trance,
an act incompatible with his conclusion that the waking state is real, whereas,
Ramana, being in accord with the teachings of Advaita, didnt give importance to
such trances, having been available for the public to see him at any point of time,

which was not the case with Aurobindo, since he could be seen by the people only
on select days his birthday being one. Aurobindo, mischaracterised the Advaita
teachings of Sankara as one of a world- negating view, whereas, according to true
Advaita, it is not as if the world didnt exist, but the truth being that the world
doesnt have an independent ontological status, but has its existence only by virtue
of the unbroken Light of Brhaman from which viewpoint alone the three states of
waking, dream, and deep sleep dont have any intrinsic reality apart from the
common platform of Turiya, the fourth state. Hence Advaita has in it a holistic
truth being neither idealism nor realism, but constituting the whole. Whereas,
while Ramana didnt find any need to transform the world, which doesnt exist in
the light of his understanding of the truth of the Unborn, he gave a liberating
knowledge to humanity through his teaching of inner quest, self- investigation,
which consists in not paying attention to the thoughts alien to ones being, such
thoughts arising. only after the first, fundamental thought of I , arising, but to turn
back the mind to the heart through the, Who Am I , enquiry. Osho is correct, when
he says that self-knowledge is not something collective, but is available to only
those who want it. Further, there doesnt seem to be any difference between the
teachings of Ramana and J.Krishnamurt, since the teachings of both are based on
the irrefragable truth of the individual consciousness being an illusion, the only
difference being, as Osho would have it, that whereas Krishnamurt used reason to
destroy logic, Ramana, from the very beginning, denied the validity of logic as a fit
instrument in knowing oneself. Ramana abided in the highest state of Sahaja
Samadhi, refusing to play the role of a guru, not emphasising the role of scriptures
in the scheme of self discovery. Yet another important point is that Aurobino had
spiritual ambitions, which Ramana didnt have. Perhaps, the excellent writings of
Aurobino are owing to has having been stuck up with that kundalini business,
which is being exploited by many of the Western soi- distant gurus, charging
money from the public to have their Chakras of the Kundalini being heightened.
Another aspect, to be emphasised, is the fact that Aurobindo was somewhat
secretive, whereas in Ramanas teachings there are no secrets, Ramana being an

open book available to all, being fit to be read by anybody, not containing the
puerile distinctions of caste, community, race, intellectual or nonintellectual, since
the Self is the true substratum of the entire phenomena.

Like

Reply

1.

Haridas Menonsays:
October 26, 2013 at 2:26 am
yes I agree but your view that Ramana and Jiddu are in essence the same is not
altogether true.though there are more areas fundamental similarities than
differences. it all depends on your perspective. for me, Ramana Maharshi
represented all that is good in all systems but basically taught the supreme
importance of mouna and saranagati. jiddu is a rationalist par excellence though
he combines a strange mysticism with his urgent exhortations to bring about a
mutation in the human psyche that alone can save the human race from selfdestruction some of his insights are just incomparable
.

Like

Reply

1.

David Watermeyersays:
December 5, 2015 at 6:23 pm
I like your way of thinking. Most likely cause its similar to mine! If we are both
right a heck of a lot of work needs to be done to save the earth from being destroyed
by human hubris. All good things.

Like

2.

Rameshsays:
September 23, 2015 at 6:55 am
Excellent summary

Liked by 1 person

Reply

9.

Ganesansays:
October 26, 2013 at 6:31 am
There is no fundamental difference between the teachings of JK and Bhagavan
Ramana, to the extent of my reading, and of course as a result of attempts made to
find oneself through the Vichara Marga of Bhagavan Ramana leading to the
extinction of I, thought, and the choiceless awareness way of understanding the
psychological memories with a coordinator concocted by thought to provide
stability for itself, such a centre being found to be unreal, only the bundle of
memories existing there being no substantial I, as taught by JK, since both the
teachings contain the common denominator of thought, that is the individual I, a
psychological, but unreal construct, being understood to be a mere mental
fabrication, as taught by JK, and the fact of the I thought being the base of all other
thoughts, and one, instead of proceeding along the ways of thought alien, but
turning back such thoughts to the Heart, finding the consummation of the fact of
pure I bereft of adjuncts being revealed, the method taught by Bhagavan Ramana.
Of course, Ramana doesnt ramble around expounding the mystery of thought,
dismissing the validity of thought .as a fit instrument in the scheme of self
discovery in the very first instance by pointing out the fact of our true Self always

shining timelessly, and that if one but were to pay attention to the origin of
thought, the I thought, one will surely land up in the pure Self, which is not
something new, but the ever existing reality, the pseudo I thought having so long
pretended to be our true Self coming to a grinding halt, Ramana stating the analogy
of the stick used in the funeral pyre that itself getting extinguished in that fire. In
yet an apparently different way JK wants us to be aware of the What is
choicelessly, that is not aiming for the What should be such a duality not existing
according to JK. Both Bhagavan and JK present, in their unique original way, the
fact of duality as being unreal, excepting the fact of mere semantics alone being
different; and that if one with a steadfast, austere mind conducts the enquiry, both
the ways would be found to be identical in that both the way and the goal are one
and the same. The other difference between Bhagavan and JK is that Bhagavan is a
mere Presence, whereas JK is a teacher, presenting, what he conveys to present in a
logical, rational, scientific way, but destroying that logic, whereas Ramana never
takes recourse to logic, but in the very first instance hits the bulls eye in presenting
the truth of nonduality. The only other difference in the methodologies adopted by
the two is that whereas Ramana is metaphysical in his approach, JK, on the other
hand is more psychological and existential in his approach, the consummation of
the teachings of both Bhagavan and JK ending up in inner Silence. Ramana
reminds us of mythological riishys, that the fact of what has been stated in
mythology is not a myth, but a truth, that having been demonstrated in the life of
Bhagavan, he being a renunciate both inwardly and outwardly being an
Athivarnasramy, that is the one who has transcended all the well recognised four
ashramas. Bhagavan is much greater than all the Avatars that have so far
incarnated in the earthly plane. No one else has so eloquently spoken of Advita,
more so have lived in Advaita, the Advaitic truth of the Ajada, having been proved
by his life.

Like

Reply

10.

phen375says:
May 1, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Right here is the perfect website for everyone who really wants to find out about
this
topic. You understand a whole lot its almost hard to
argue with you (not that I really will need toHaHa).
You definitely put a brand new spin on a topic that has been discussed for a long
time. Great stuff, just great!

Like

Reply

1.

gsankarramansays:
May 3, 2014 at 2:36 am
Aurobindos dichotomization of creation admitting of its perception smacks of
duality as against Ramanas position of creation as no more than the concoction by
the mind, in the absolute state there being neither the creation, nor the creator, all
being only pure awareness, according to Ramana.
Sent from my iPad
>

Like

Reply

11.

rohit rahulsays:
May 4, 2014 at 8:46 am
jis tarah dwapar mein sri krishna ko samajhna asan nahi tha usi prakar kalyuga
mein sri aurobindo ko samajhna muskil hai.unki ki gayi karyo ki jab koi alochna
karta hai to mujhe lagta hai ki ya to us aadmi ne ya to sri aurobindo ki book nahi
padhi hai,ya padha hai to samjha nahi hai.please padhe aur bina ahankar ke
samajhne ka prayas kare.

Like

Reply