| 
Part IX : World Tour - Death of the mystic J. Krishnamurti, Osho's
tribute
J Krishnamurti died last Monday, In Ojai, California. In the
past you have spoken of him as another enlightened being. Would
you please comment on his death?
The death of an enlightened being like J. Krishnamurti is nothing
to be sad about, it is something to be celebrated with songs and
dances. It is a moment of rejoicing.
His death is not a death. He knows his immortality. His death
is only the death of the body. But J. Krishnamurti will go on
living in the universal consciousness, forever and forever. socrat08
Just three days before J. Krishnamurti died, one of my friends
was with him; and he reported to me that his words to him were
very strange. Krishnamurti was very sad and he simply said one
thing: "I have wasted my life. People were listening to me
as if I am an entertainment."
The mystic is a revolution; he is not entertainment.
If you hear him, if you allow him, if you open your doors to
him, he is pure fire. He will burn all that is rubbish in you,
all that is old in you, and he will purify you into a new human
being. It is risky to allow fire into your being—rather
than opening the doors, you immediately close all the doors.
But entertainment is another thing. It does not change you.
It does not make you more conscious; on the contrary, it helps
you to remain unconscious for two, three hours, so that you can
forget all your worries, concerns, anxieties—so that you
can get lost in the entertainment. You can note it: as man has
passed through the centuries, he has managed to create more and
more entertainments, because he needs more and more to be unconscious.
He is afraid of being conscious, because being conscious means
to go through a metamorphosis. zara207
I was more shocked by the news than by the death. A man like
J. Krishnamurti dies, and the papers don't have space to devote
to that man who for ninety years continuously has been helping
humanity to be more intelligent, to be more mature. Nobody has
worked so hard and so long. Just a small news article, unnoticeable—and
if a politician sneezes it makes headlines. socrat16
What is your connection with Krishnamurti?
It is a real mystery. I have loved him since I have known him,
and he has been very loving towards me. But we have never met;
hence the relationship, the connection is something beyond words.
We have not seen each other ever, but yet…perhaps we have
been the two persons closest to each other in the whole world.
We had a tremendous communion that needs no language, that need
not be of physical presence….
You are asking me about my connection with him. It was the deepest
possible connection—which needs no physical contact, which
needs no linguistic communication. Not only that, once in a while
I used to criticize him, he used to criticize me, and we enjoyed
each other's criticism—knowing perfectly well that the other
does not mean it. Now that he is dead, I will miss him because
I will not be able to criticize him; it won't be right. It was
such a joy to criticize him. He was the most intelligent man of
this century, but he was not understood by people.
He has died, and it seems the world goes on its way without
even looking back for a single moment that the most intelligent
man is no longer there. It will be difficult to find that sharpness
and that intelligence again in centuries. But people are such
sleep walkers, they have not taken much note. In newspapers, just
in small corners where nobody reads, his death is declared. And
it seems that a ninety-year-old man who has been continuously
speaking for almost seventy years, moving around the world, trying
to help people to get unconditioned, trying to help people to
become free—nobody seems even to pay a tribute to the man
who has worked the hardest in the whole of history for man's freedom,
for man's dignity.
I don't feel sorry for his death. His death is beautiful; he
has attained all that life is capable to give. But I certainly
feel sorry for the whole world. It goes on missing its greatest
flights of consciousnesses, its highest peaks, its brightest stars.
It is too much concerned with trivia.
I feel such a deep affinity with Krishnamurti that even to talk
of connection is not right; connection is possible only between
two things which are separate. I feel almost a oneness with him.
In spite of all his criticisms, in spite of all my criticisms—which
were just joking with the old man, provoking the old man…and
he was very easily provoked….
Krishnamurti's teaching is beautiful, but too serious. And my
experience and feeling is that his seventy years went to waste
because he was serious. So only people who were long-faced and
miserable and serious types collected around him; he was a collector
of corpses, and as he became older, those corpses also became
older.
I know people who have been listening to him for almost their
whole lives; they are as old as he himself was. They are still
alive. I know one woman who is ninety-five, and I know many other
people. One thing I have seen in all of them, which is common,
is that they are too serious.
Life needs a little playfulness, a little humor, a little laughter.
Only on that point am I in absolute disagreement with him; otherwise,
he was a genius. He has penetrated as deeply as possible into
every dimension of man's spirituality, but it is all like a desert,
tiring. I would like you back in the garden of Eden, innocent,
not serious, but like small children playing. This whole existence
is playful. This whole existence is full of humor; you just need
the sense of humor and you will be surprised….
Existence is hilarious. Everything is in a dancing mood, you
just have to be in the same mood to understand it.
I am not sorry that J. Krishnamurti is dead; there was nothing
more for him to attain. I am sorry that his teaching did not reach
the human heart because it was too dry, juiceless, with no humor,
no laughter.
But you will be surprised to know—whatever he was saying
was against religions, was against politics, was against the status
quo, was against the whole past, yet nobody was condemning him
for the simple reason that he was ineffective. There was no reason
to take note of him….
Krishnamurti failed because he could not touch the human heart;
he could only reach the human head. The heart needs some different
approaches. This is where I have differed with him all my life:
unless the human heart is reached, you can go on repeating parrot-like,
beautiful words—they don't mean anything. Whatever Krishnamurti
was saying is true, but he could not manage to relate it to your
heart. In other words, what I am saying is that J. Krishnamurti
was a great philosopher but he could not become a master. He could
not help people, prepare people for a new life, a new orientation.
But still I love him, because amongst the philosophers he comes
the closest to the mystic way of life. He himself avoided the
mystic way, bypassed it, and that is the reason for his failure.
But he is the only one amongst the modern contemporary thinkers
who comes very close, almost on the boundary line of mysticism,
and stops there. Perhaps he's afraid that if he talks about mysticism
people will start falling into old patterns, old traditions, old
philosophies of mysticism. That fear prevents him from entering.
But that fear also prevents other people from entering into the
mysteries of life….
I have met thousands of Krishnamurti people—because anybody
who has been interested in Krishnamurti sooner or later is bound
to find his way towards me, because where Krishnamurti leaves
them, I can take their hand and lead them into the innermost shrine
of truth. You can say my connection with Krishnamurti is that
Krishnamurti has prepared the ground for me. He has prepared people
intellectually for me; now it is my work to take those people
deeper than intellect, to the heart; and deeper than the heart,
to the being.
Our work is one. Krishnamurti is dead, but his work will not be
dead until I am dead. His work will continue. socrat25
|
