Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy - Osho - Oshorajneesh.com

CHAPTER 14. ACTION, INACTION AND NON-ACTION
QUESTIONER: YOU COMPARE RAMAN WITH BUDDHA WHO HAPPENED IN THE DISTANT
PAST. WHY NOT COMPARE HIM WITH KRISHNAMURTI WHO IS SO CLOSE BY?
The question of being close or distant does not arise. Krishnamurti is exactly like Raman. I compare
Arvind with Raman and Buddha for a special reason. In the experience of truth, Krishnamurti is very
much like Raman, but he lags behind Arvind in knowledgeability. Of course, he is more articulate
and logical than Raman. And there is a great difference between Krishnamurti and Arvind in so far
as the use of logic and reason is concerned.
Arvind uses logic to reinforce his arguments; Krishnamurti uses logic to destroy logic; he makes full
use of reason in order to lead you beyond reason. But he is not much knowledgeable. That is why I
chose Buddha as an example; he compares well with Arvind in knowledge and with Raman in selfknowledge.
As far as Krishnamurti is concerned, he is like Raman in transcendental experience, but
he is not scholarly like Arvind.
There is yet another difference between Raman and Krishnamurti. While Raman’s statements
are very brief, Krishnamurti’s statements are voluminous. But in spite of their large volume,
Krishnamurti’s teachings can be condensed in a brief statement. For forty years Krishnamurti has
been repeating the same thing over and over again. His statements can be condensed to a postcard.
But because he uses reason in his statements, they grow in volume. Raman is precise and brief;
he avoids volume. You can say that the statements of both Krishnamurti and Raman are atomic,
but while Krishnamurti embellishes them with arguments, Raman does not. Raman speaks, like the
seers of the Upanishads, in aphorisms. The Upanishads just proclaim: the brahman, the supreme
is; they don’t bother to advance any argument in their support. They make bare statements that, ”It
is so” and ”It is not so.” Raman can be compared with the Upanishadic rishis.
Question 13
QUESTIONER: PLEASE TELL US SOMETHING ABOUT RAMAN’S AJATVAD OR THE
PRINCIPLE OF NO-BIRTH.
According to Raman and people like him, that which is has no beginning, it was never born, it
is unborn. The same thing has always been said in another way: that which is will never die, it
is deathless, it is immortal. There are hundreds of statements which proclaim the immortality of
Brahman, the ultimate, who is without beginning and without end. Only that which is never born can
be immortal, that which is beginningless. This is Raman’s way of describing the eternal.
Do you know when you were born? You don’t. Yes, there are records of your birth which others
have kept, and through them that you came to know that you were born on a certain date, month
and year. This is just information received from others. Apart from this information you have no way
to know that you were born. There is no intrinsic, inbuilt source of information within you which can
tell you about it; you have no evidence whatsoever to support the fact of your birth. The truth of your
innermost being is eternal, so the question of its birth does not arise. In fact, you were never born;
you are as eternal as eternity.
You say you will die someday, but how do you know it? Do you know what death is? Do you have
any experience of death? No, you will say you have seen others die, and so you infer that you too
Krishna: The Man and His Philosophy 281 Osho