Author Topic: UGK & Ramana  (Read 11310 times)

soham3

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • External world is shadow of what is inside you
    • View Profile
UGK & Ramana
« on: January 29, 2010, 08:55:04 PM »
U.G. Krishnamurti requested maharshi to enlighten him. Ramana said he is not sure whether UGK is a fit receptacle.
O Divine, lead me to dizzy heights of sublimity & loftiness

soham3

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • External world is shadow of what is inside you
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2010, 08:32:58 PM »
UGK is better than JK. JK was involved with ladies ( he impregnated Rosalind twice or so ). UGK was a family person and more honest & straightforward.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2010, 09:43:04 PM by soham3 »
O Divine, lead me to dizzy heights of sublimity & loftiness

Chuck Cliff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2010, 09:21:51 PM »
Ramana said he is not sure whether UGK is a fit receptacle.   I may remember incorrectly, but I think that UG Krishnamurti wrote that Ramana's reply was that yes he could give him enlightenment but would he (UG) be able to take it -- as far as I know it is only UG's witness we have to the incident, but it seems reasonable as the it obviously is a big joke on him if the other things he says are to be taken at more or less face value

JK was involved with ladies... so? Did he hide it, call it something else?  Otherwise what can one conclude from this -- ah! Papaji was not enlightened! (and perhaps he wasn't -- who can tell?).    ::)

All I know is that Ramana somehow communicated something priceless to me -- how to recognize the still-point, the secret heart.
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round, and a promise in the evening, when the sun goes down.

soham3

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • External world is shadow of what is inside you
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2010, 09:32:33 PM »
The following paragraph  is excerpted from the book ' Stripping the Gurus '  by Geoffrey D. Falk :-
 
 " In 1932, Krishnamurti and Rajagopal’s wife began an affair which would last for more than twenty-five years. The woman, Rosalind, became pregnant on several occasions, suffering miscarriages and at least two covert/illegal abortions. The oddity of that relationship is not lessened by Jiddu’s earlier regard for the same woman. For, both he and his brother believed that Rosalind was the reincarnation of their long-lost mother ... in spite of the fact that the latter had only died two years after Rosalind was born "
O Divine, lead me to dizzy heights of sublimity & loftiness

soham3

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • External world is shadow of what is inside you
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2010, 09:36:49 PM »

All I know is that Ramana somehow communicated something priceless to me -- how to recognize the still-point, the secret heart.


We have not heard of your spending time with Ramana. Will you please elaborate & elucidate ?
O Divine, lead me to dizzy heights of sublimity & loftiness

amiatall

  • Guest
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2010, 05:30:08 PM »
Again, it is ridiculous to speak about those who 'tought' the truth in a manner of personal affairs which is nothing than prarabdha exhausting itself.

I believe JK knew what he is talking about, and what he was talking about was realized deep within him.

When Nissargadatta visited UGK he left and when asked "what did you see?" he answered "I saw a man, it is more important what did YOU see?".
Same question was given to UGK about Nissargadatta and UGK answered word to word the same "I saw a man, it is more important what did YOU see?"



soham3

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • External world is shadow of what is inside you
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2010, 07:08:40 PM »

When Nissargadatta visited UGK he left and when asked "what did you see?" he answered "I saw a man, it is more important what did YOU see?".
Same question was given to UGK about Nissargadatta and UGK answered word to word the same "I saw a man, it is more important what did YOU see?"


We have not heard of a meeting between UGK and Maharaj.
O Divine, lead me to dizzy heights of sublimity & loftiness

amiatall

  • Guest
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2010, 09:33:25 PM »
so? does it mean it didn't happen?

It seems that Maurice Frydman knew U. G. and also knew that he and Maharaj had never met, and probably didn't know about each other. He wanted to test the theory that one jnani can spot another jnani by putting them both in the same room, with a few other people around as camouflage. He organised a function and invited both of them to attend. U. G. spent quite some time there, but Maharaj only came for a few minutes and then left.
After Maharaj had left Maurice went up to U. G. and said, 'Did you see that old man who came in for a few minutes. Did you notice anything special? What did you see?'
U. G. replied, 'I saw a man, Maurice, but the important thing is, what did you see?'
The next day Maurice went to see Maharaj and asked, 'Did you see that man I invited yesterday?' A brief description of what he looked like and where he was standing followed.
Then Maurice asked, 'What did you see?'
Maharaj replied, 'I saw a man Maurice, but the important thing is, what did you see?'

Chuck Cliff

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2010, 12:11:12 AM »
@Soham3 in post #6  -- Haven't most of the people here had something somehow communicated to them by Ramana?  He was not surprised when somebody 600 miles away recieved his teaching -- so, and I've mentioned this before, why should 6000 miles or 60 years make a difference?  Has anyone here learned anything by reading books about him?  I doubt it.  I read Osborne's biography at least 6 or 7 times to no more avail than a bit of inspiration -- then, last spring when I was at my rope's end, drowning, going down for the last time -- suddenly it became clear.  Not everything, no, but that little thing I needed.

As for this Falk fellow -- why do you put credence in his witness?  I went to his "stripping the gurus" site and although a number of those he "strips" deserve serious criticism as fakes, fools and/or hustlers, my impression is that he is a muckraker and scandalmonger  out to make bucks (that is my impression -- I may be quite wrong!).

If Maurice Frydman (thank you, Amitall!) says Mararaj and UG met in that fashion, I would figure that was what happened. 

On the other hand, why are we talking about this here on the "Teachings of Maharshi" board?
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round, and a promise in the evening, when the sun goes down.

soham3

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
  • External world is shadow of what is inside you
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2010, 04:29:17 AM »

As for this Falk fellow -- why do you put credence in his witness?  I went to his "stripping the gurus" site and although a number of those he "strips" deserve serious criticism as fakes, fools and/or hustlers, my impression is that he is a muckraker and scandalmonger  out to make bucks (that is my impression -- I may be quite wrong!).


Ramana has also been censured  by  Geoffrey D. Falk  in the book  "stripping the gurus"  for making statements  that a world exists inside the hill.
O Divine, lead me to dizzy heights of sublimity & loftiness

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2010, 11:16:05 AM »
When the world could stay within you, when you dream, why not the
world stay inside the Hill?  How to prove it?  Can Falk prove that he
is not a woman?  The proving the negative is more difficult and is almost impossible.  Proving the positive is through realization.

JK and UGK have been discussed enough in this Forum.  Both
were prattling without practice. 

Arunachala Siva.

Sadhak

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2010, 07:25:12 AM »
Our vasanas are funny things. In spite of repeated admonitions by Bhagawan not to speak ill of anybody we try to put down others not realizing that we are only harming ourselves. At least we could read Bhagawan's books a little more and be a bit more accurate about what he said. Coming to the question of UG, JK, and Bhagawan purely from the factual standpoint.

1. Bhagawan told UG that he could give the truth but asked whether UG could receive it.

2. JK was an altogether different phenomenon. In discussions with Frydman, Bhagawan has acclaimed that JK's teachings were "beyond expression" like the Buddha's. Frydman used to visit Bombay to meet JK with Bhagawan's consent.

3. Decades after meeting Bhagawan, UG met JK and asked the same question. JK answered that UG had no way of knowing it (the truth). Almost identical to Bhagawan's reply thirty years earlier.

Some here are wondering about reports of JK's relationship with some woman. Again, Bhagawan's basic message starts with "you are not the body". And more specifically about jnanis, Bhagawan repeatedly stated that the jnani is not bound by his physical activities.

Then again, our vasanas....


Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47915
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2010, 09:54:25 AM »
Dear Sadhak,

Thanks for more information.  But to say that a Jnani is beyond
the codes of this objective world is not correct.  For example:

1. Bhagavan has said that because you are an advaiti, you
cannot treat neighbour's wife as your wife, since there is
only one without a second.  This is the greatest mistake that
JK had done.  If he had really wanted to go to bed with any
woman, he could have got married or asked Rajagopal to divorce
his wife, so that he (JK) could have married Rosalind.  This did
not happen.

2. The example of Veda Parayana.  The custom was that non-
brahmins should not recite.  Once someone asked about it.
He said that non-brahmins cannot recite it but can listen to it.
Thus He followed the codes of objective world.

3.  There were separate rows for brahmins and non brahmins
in the Hall.  Bhagavan Ramana did not object to this.  He as
a common Guru and Jnani sat, at the diagonal facing both the
rows.

Arunachala Siva.         

Sadhak

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
    • View Profile
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2010, 11:54:57 AM »
Dear Subramanian,

Thanks for the examples. These however are relevant for most people, not jnanis. Bhagawan himself said so many times. Bhagawan spoke at different times both from the standpoint of jnanis and from the standpoint of others, and it is important to understand the context. Bhagawan himself certainly did not follow all codes and he was questioned about it by others who did not grasp this fact. He did not get any formal initiation, he allowed women in the ashram, he ate food prepared by non brahmins etc. In some instances he was forced to follow the rules of the ashram and he remarked that he felt like a prisoner. In the context of jnanis, we cannot dictate to them what they should do or not do and we certainly are in no position to judge them. Whether it is JK or Christ or Sankara or Krishna or numerous others there are reports (whether true or not) of their relationship with women. We cannot judge them based on our standards shaped by our own vasanas. One does not become a jnani so long as he feels 'I am the body'. Similarly, a jnani does not bother about what happens to the body since he has transcended it. The body will go through whatever has been determined by the body's prarabdha. The jnani knows that. No matter whether it is accepted by the society at large or not.






amiatall

  • Guest
Re: UGK & Ramana
« Reply #14 on: February 14, 2010, 05:43:59 PM »
That's true.
Maharaj too said to devotees to go listen JK often.
JK is such a phenomenon that speaks very clearly about these matters.
BUT there is one prerequisite to understand him.
One needs to learn to listen truly. Just listening itself reveals what he is saying. Listening means to forget the speaker as some personal-drama-memory and just listen like a baby listens to what is being said.
It was enough for me to listen to his few talks on youtube just to see what is this confusion about and i can tell with deep conviction - he knew what he was speaking about deeply. Very few understood him because of their own dogmas (like some buddhists were trying to show their knowledge by arguing with him instead of going with him into the matter) in their minds that's my conclusion and experience only.