Critique of Ravi Ravindra's Ideas, Tabloid Book About Krishnamurti

Critique of Ravi Ravindra's Ideas, Tabloid Book About Krishnamurti

by Reza Ganjavi 

Ravi Ravindra: "I am self centered occupied driven by fears and desires – that’s where I am... In my experience usually I’m in a lot of darkness occasionally there’s some clarity . I’m not wholly self-centered. 1 in a 100 occasions I’m selfless." !!!

SEE END OF THIS PAGE FOR THE ORIGINAL LETTER I WROTE TO RAVI RAVINDRA THAT CALLED OUT HIS PREPOSTEROUS GARBAGE TABLOID "BOOK"

• Update from a Trustee of the Indian Foundation (KFI) and close friend of Krishnamurti:  "I do think that Ravi Ravindra has no right to speak on K after the condescending manner in which he wrote about K (I can't remember the name of the book [two birds on one tree]) immediately after K's death."

• Update from a lady from India: "Look what Ravi Ravindra is doing (link to his garbage talk). Trying to eat Krishnamurti under the garb of tradition maintaining status quo. When krishnaji alive he don't make too much fuss now he is not there he is talking ambiguous talk."

• See my notes about promotion of Ravindra's garbage book by Friedrich Grohe's Gang: https://www.rezamusic.com/writings/on-j-krishnamurtis-work/the-fifth-foundation

• See my review of Ravi's garbage book Two Birds On One Tree in my 2008 circular: https://www.rezamusic.com/writings/on-j-krishnamurtis-work/notes-related-to-the-work-around-j-krishnamurti-2008

~~~~~~~~

DEC 1997

Short comments on Ravi Ravindra’s book: Two birds on one tree. See full comments I wrote in 1995.

Some of the problematic pages: 23, 25, 26, 27, 49, 51, 52, 69, 73, 77.

Essentially the book contains cheap conclusions about a man whom the author says he never understood (page 49), who sometimes hides behind the vale of traditionalism. He strives to find contradiction in JK which in itself is a vain attempt (I am not saying contradictions do not exist). He links back much of K’s behavior and attitudes to his conditioning as a child e.g. that he “frequently and without relevance” singled out Christians and Brahmins (false). He says JK had a “superficial personality born of conditioning”. That he wanted women around who were “pure virgins” who were permitted to only act as a mother in public (how much more gossipy can you get?). There are many other such examples but talking further about this rubbish is a waste of time.

REZA GANJAVI

~~~

Two emaills I wrote to KFA Trustees after they invited Ravi Ravindra to give a talk and posted a link to his pathetic book (or should I say Tabloid).

As a result of these KFA re-sent their mass mail deleting the link to his book. 

EMAIL 1

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Why is the KFA publicizing Ravi Ravindra's K-bashing book?

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 04:55:32 +0100

Dear Trustees of the KFA

I noticed that not only you have scheduled Ravi Ravindra to speak at the foundation but you've sent out a link to his most horrible book to your mailing list. What is happening to the KFA?!? Have the people who've sent this link actually read the book? This is one of the worst books ever written about K which not only exhibits the confusion and cluelessness of the author, but tries to justify it by attempting to discredit K, and in not such an elegant way. Though not quite as malicious as Radha Sloss, this book is not much better when it comes to logical inconsistency

Ravindra argues that K is a failure because Ravindra didn't understand him. It's easy to disseminate confusion -- there's a big market for it. And some people love him because  it comforts their confusion. Many people love anybody who discredits K because "if K is so bad, then I don't have to bother about the challenges he puts forth". That's why the myth of "nobody got it" is so popular (you can see discussion on that and Ravindra's book in the "circulars" section of "psychology/philosophy" section of my site www.rezamusic.com

I have nothing against Mr. Ravindra personally, and I know he's a friend of Mark, but saw him talk a few years ago and his talk was as boring as his book -- it echoed the same confusion and attitude -- that K's challenges are not applicable -- that comes across in his book.

But people do occasionally change, so maybe Mr. Ravindra has changed and suddenly has found clarity in what K says (I doubt it but it's theoretically possible). Maybe the talk at KFA will be great. But to publicize his dreadful book is really an insult to K.

Don't forget that K almost dissolved at least one of these foundations and you know his attitude towards organizations in general, so while you're doing a lot of good work, please don't over-do it. Inviting Ravindra to speak and publicizing his book does not appear to be within your charter of "preserve and disseminate".

All good wishes

Reza Ganjavi

<phone>

EMAIL 2

email 2

[slightly edited for web publication]

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Excerpts from Ravi Ravindra's book

Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 18:03:50 +0100

A couple of you wrote back. I will take the liberty to respond to the group:

The person who put the link to the book is not to blame. He merely trusted that a speaker who wrote a book about K wrote a decent book not a piece of trash. I think the issue is deeper -- it's about doing too much perhaps. I think the foundation has a lot more life than before and there are a bunch of new good people on the board and it's obvious things are moving in a good direction. However, as stated in the last email, I think you ought to keep in mind K's attitude towards organizations, and the original charter of the foundation. Otherwise you run into the danger of doing things with good intentions which end of being counter-productive.

As for details about the book and the author, I can only share with you my opinion with some examples (listed below). Ravi seems a mediocre mind with good academic qualifications (but as my mom says, you can also load up a lot of books on a mule). He was apparently swayed by Radha Sloss and thought of making some money by writing that trash (around the same time). He admits to not having understood or applied much of what K says, so he bashes K in return (pretty common and typical response: if you discredit K, you don't need to bother with the challenges).

He is not anti-K. He's just mediocre. He has academic qualifications and he gets invited to speak and he does it -- the last talk I saw was boring as hell and Dr. Krishna who was there challenged him on some points and Ravi just got stuck. He seems to fit the profile of those Mary Lutynes refers to as having been too close to the sun and therefore burned (instead of warmed :)

He was close to K (as he says) and didn't understand much (as he admits). But he's not the only one. There are many who just don't seem to grasp the immensity of what K's talking about, apparently because they don't or can't apply it. The reason why they can't apply it can be explored in an essay which is beyond the scope of this email :)

And it appears, according to my understanding of certain historical events K may have felt that people around him had understood him less than others. This is a fact that to this date can be seen. Reason for it, could be that they concentrated too much on the person -- something that K warned about.

In the spirit of Sloss the book, at times, apparently tries to discredit K. I don't mind people stating facts or opinions about K but when they get into gossipy conclusions that just don't add up, it's a problem. That was Sloss's style too and I had correspondence with her and she ultimately had no answer to:the question of how she effectively concluded that 2 + 2 is 5. That's exactly what she does. She says because of A and B therefore C.

Ravindra's arguments are not any better, and much less elegant. They're "cheap shots" at K.

The foundation was well aware of this yet, I guess to do something, invited him to come to town. And are we paying for his trip? What a waste of money!

Maybe at the talk someone can take a few quotations from his book and call him up on it and ask him to clarify his comment about the virgins -- is K's desire to have young virgins around due to his not having a mother complex or due to his sexual desire or something special about the Process that required virgins?

I wrote to Ravi on October  21 1995 and copied KFA. Never heard back. At least Sloss wrote back :)

Ravi's arguments include:

- "K always wanted women-specially youthful and pure virgins" to be around him during his process, and that since he lost his mother at an early age "he sought and found women who would mother him". These argument appearing in the same paragraph imply something that Ravi does not make so clear.

- Ravi comments on Sloss's book, saying K was not forthright and consistent in his word and deed which is not true at all. It is a fact that K told some of his close friends about the affair, but he didn't announce it in public talks, neither did he ever say, don't have sex, neither made any contradictory "moral proclamations" that Ravi accuses him of making. One's sexuality is one's own business. But Ravi takes his cheap shot anyway because bashing K relieves him of having to take on the challenges K puts forth (my interpretation based on having heard the arguments of so many K bashers).

- Ravi's reference to support his book's theme that K is inconsistent is none but Radha Sloss. How credible of a source, and for a respectable academic like Ravi !!

- Looking for consistency is a trap. Ravi should know this given his academic background. Is the universe consistent? We observe cosmic objects crashing into each other and yet we observe great order. Ravi would never write a book about these "two birds on one tree" which is the whole theme of his pathetic book: to discredit K which is the same as flattering him, same movement: put him on the pedestal, which he does, and then shoot him down. K warned about this but who was there to listen? I guess people close to him were too caught in his magnetism to

pay attention, study, what he had to say.

- Ravi seems to sympathize with Sloss who boldly asserts that K encourage people to follow him, that he had some sort of a complex that he needed attention so he spoke to large audience to get attention and other such ridiculous ideas. Ravi seems to have ignored so incredibly many times that K spoke about the subject of true meaning of discipline and not wanting followers.

- Ravi wrote in the book: "though no doubt I too had added to K's sorrow by not understanding". At least he has the courage to admit his lack of understanding. It's ok to not understand something, but why write a book about it? And why would the foundation promote this book?

- Here's another fun quote from his comic book:: "in his talks he frequently and often without relevance to the topic at hand returned to harangues against the Brahmins and the Christians, the only two religious groups with whom he had any prolonged contact during his theosophical phase..."   Ya, K talked without relevance just to bash Brahmins and Christians (Not!!). Brilliant argument Ravi !!

We can never rule out that he might have changed.

Kind Regards

Reza Ganjavi

FROM A CLOSE FRIEND OF KRISHNAMURTI

Dear Reza,

Sorry for not responding earlier to your earlier email. The school is closed and we are in Bombay, with its many distraction.  

Let me begin by  emphatically stating that for me K is a coherent and independent thinker, and that the teachings that emerged have their genesis in his own being. His insights are neither borrowed nor derived from the esoteric framework of Theosophy.  Hence the injunction, 'Be a light unto yourself.' For Theosophy human beings are not autonomous; they are subservient to the masters' directions.  Hence its authoritarian and hierarchical structures.  One can trance the emergence of K's teaching form 1922 onward: the difficult struggle with Theosophical conditioning,  its  graduated path marked by initiations, is poignantly displayed in that piece 'The Path'.   Sometime in 1930 he sheds the idea of a permanent self (the Indian Atman) that has been dinned into him since 1910 (see At the Feet of the Master) - the famous 1929 statement is tinged with the belief. Finally, when Mrs Besant warned him not to step outside the Theosophical audiences, he came up with his core statement, 'You are the world'.  Between 1930 and 1933, K began to fade, and was replaced by 'the speaker'. 

I do think that Ravi Ravindra has no right to speak on K after the condescending manner in which he wrote about K (I can't remember the name of the book) immediately after K's death.  I would be grateful, and this is a request, that you don't quote this particular view of mine.

I am not attending the International Meetings at Ojai later this month, so will unfortunately miss the chance of talking with you.  We can however correspond and exchange views; my own background is in philosophy and history,  if that perspective interests you we could have an interesting conversation.  

This brings you my best wishes, 

AMAZON REVIEW BY REZA GANJAVI

Amazon Review

6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

Book given 1.0 out of 5 stars

Book written to justify author's ignorance, November 28, 2007

By

Reza Ganjavi "www.rezamusic.com" - See all my reviews

(REAL NAME)

This review is from: Krishnamurti: Two Birds on One Tree (Paperback)

In this work Mr. Ravindra tries to justify his self-admitted lack of understanding of J. Krishnamurti by taking numerous stabs at him and trying to discredit him. A waste of money, don't buy it.

Another reviewer puts it well:

"At the end if it, Ravi Ravindra, who is trained as a physicist, questions if J.Krishnamurti was not a freak, as the Ravindra tells us honestly that he seems to feel incapable of living a life without a center, or perhaps also because he never saw anybody around Krishnamurti that was centerless or without selfishness."

That forms the centre of Ravindra's motives: deep inside he seems to think K was a failure. Yes, he must feel the immensity of the challenges K poses and not being able to grasp it because the ego is too strong, he concludes K was a failure. But he doesn't do that elegantly, he tries to do that by discrediting K, using cheap gossip and shaky logic. But just because someone failed to understand and apply K doesn't mean K's teachings can not be tested, applied, grasped, or discarded on their own without focusing on the teacher.

The reviewer further writes:

"he ends investigation and seem to have thrown in the towel, but that also demands a lot of courage,even if some will see this a an incapacity to learn."

Yes, but Ravindra gives talks and writes books to spread his confusion. As long as there is a market, there is a product. So gullible people love to listen to people like Ravindra. His confusion comforts theirs, and justifies their not wanting to take on potentially life changing challenges like, is it possible to live without fear or inner conflict?

COMMENTS

" I remember agreeing with your original criticism of Ravi Ravindra's book some years ago but would have to read it again now if I wanted to make further comments."

"Great letter to KFA. Brilliant analysis of R's statements. I heard Ravi last year at Krotona. Each time he mentionned K, I disagreed with him. He just picks up a sentence here and there, and takes it apart. Not very scientific. Great lack of understanding. Zero insight! Best,"

"I met the guy years ago, didn't like him the minute I met him, I had this strange feeling about him, sleazy is the word to describe him . . . bravo <>  thank you for your energy and insight, thank you for challenging the foundation and helping it keep on course."

RG:

Many thanks for your comments.

The points in the mail were twofold:

1) why is the foundation promoting his book (they had a link to it) -- after my mail to them they removed the link and re-sent their mailing. So people's dogmatic idea that people outside foundation should not comment on the work of the foundation were proven wrong - such comments are helpful at times.

2) why is he invited to speak given this horrible book? It's just my opinion that he was very disrespectful to K in this book and apparently rode on the back of Radha's success to make some money (he uses her as reference), and years later, now that there's a market for speaking about him, he's doing that. He shouldn't be speaking about K because of his admissions in the book and in his talk I last saw.

I will notate these points in the file in case it makes my intentions for writing it more clear. I was not trying to defend K per-se but I found contradictions in what his foundation is doing. Ravi would have never had the nerve to publish that book while K was alive. So in effect, he was very disrespectful of K in what he published -- now going around talking with respect about K while that disrespectful book is still being marketed (by the poor chap's own foundation) just doesn't seem right, IMO :)

QUOTE

This quote is very telling: the professor projecting his ignorance on others. He's simply wrong.

"Whenever people have turned, even momentarily, inward, and have had a look, they can see – I’d be happy if you do it right now, to turn inwardly and just see, a few fleeting moments of observation will show you – that internally there's almost a constant state of apprehension or anxiety or worry, as if this is the psychological analog of the Brownian motion in matter." Ravi Ravindra

LETTERS TO KFA AND OTHER MATERIAL

Dear Trustees of the KFA

I noticed that not only you have scheduled Ravi Ravindra to speak at the foundation but you've sent out a link to his most horrible book to your mailing list. What is happening to the KFA?!? Have the people who've sent this link actually read the book? [Later I heard from the person who had included the link that he had not read the book]. This is one of the worst books ever written about K which not only exhibits the confusion and cluelessness of the author, but tries to justify it by attempting to discredit K, and in not such an elegant way. Though not quite as malicious as Radha Sloss, this book is not much better when it comes to logical inconsistency

Ravindra argues that K is a failure because Ravindra didn't understand him. It's easy to disseminate confusion -- there's a big market for it. And some people love him because  it comforts their confusion. Many people love anybody who discredits K because "if K is so bad, then I don't have to bother about the challenges he puts forth". That's why the myth of "nobody got it" is so popular (you can see discussion on that and Ravindra's book in the "circulars" section of "psychology/philosophy" section of my site www.rezamusic.com)

I have nothing against Mr. Ravindra personally, and I know he's a friend of Mark, but saw him talk a few years ago and his talk was as boring as his book -- it echoed the same confusion and attitude that K's challenges are not practical – that also comes across in his book.

But people do occasionally change, so maybe Mr. Ravindra has changed and suddenly has found clarity in what K says (I doubt it but it's theoretically possible). Maybe the talk at KFA will be great. But to publicize his dreadful book is really an insult to K.

Don't forget that K almost dissolved at least one of these foundations and you know his attitude towards organizations in general, so while you're doing a lot of good work, please don't over-do it. Inviting Ravindra to speak and publicizing his book does not appear to be within your charter of "preserve and disseminate".

All good wishes

Reza Ganjavi

SECOND EMAIL TO KFA

The person who put the link to the book is not to blame. He merely trusted that a speaker who wrote a book about K wrote a decent book not a piece of trash. I think the issue is deeper -- it's about doing too much perhaps. I think the foundation has a lot more life than before and there are a bunch of new good people on the board and it's obvious things are moving in a good direction. However, as stated in the last email, I think we ought to keep in mind K's attitude towards organizations, and the original charter of the foundation. Otherwise we run into the danger of doing things with good intentions which end of being counter-productive.

As for details about the book and the author, I can only share with you my opinion with some examples (listed below). Ravi seems a mediocre mind with good academic qualifications (but as my mom says, you can also load up a lot of books on a mule). He was apparently swayed by Radha Sloss and thought of making some money by writing that trash (around the same time). He admits to not having understood or applied much of what K says, so he bashes K in return (pretty common and typical response: if you discredit K, you don't need to bother with the challenges).

He is not anti-K. He's just mediocre. He has academic qualifications and he gets invited to speak and he does it -- the last talk I saw was boring as hell and Dr. Krishna who was there challenged him on some points and Ravi just got stuck. He seems to fit the profile of those Mary Lutynes refers to as having been too close to the sun and therefore burned (instead of warmed :)

He was close to K (as he says) and didn't understand much (as he admits). But he's not the only one. There are many who just don't seem to grasp the immensity of what K's talking about, apparently because they don't or can't apply it. The reason why they can't apply it can be explored in an essay which is beyond the scope of this email :)

And it appears, according to my understanding of certain historical events K may have felt that people around him had understood him less than others. This is a fact that to this date can be seen. Reason for it, could be that they concentrated too much on the person -- something that K warned about.

In the spirit of Sloss the book tries to discredit K by stating, for example, that K needed to have virgin girls around. I don't mind people stating facts or opinions about K but when they get into gossipy conclusions that just don't add up, it's a problem. That was Sloss's style too and I had correspondence with her and she ultimately had no answer to:

the question of how she effectively concluded that 2 + 2 is 5. That's exactly what she does. She says because of A and B therefore C.

Ravindra's arguments are not any better, and much less elegant. They're "cheap shots" at K.

The foundation was well aware of this yet, I guess to do something, invited him to come to town. And are we paying for his trip? What a waste of money!

Maybe at the talk someone can take a few quotations from his book and call him up on it and ask him to clarify his comment about the virgins -- is K's desire to have young virgins around due to his not having a mother complex or due to his sexual desire? He bundles these two concepts together to take his cheap shot at K but he's not being clear what he means, because he can't; he's just making this up.

I wrote to Ravi on October  21 1995 and copied KFA. Never heard back. At least Sloss wrote back :)

Ravi's cheap arguments include:

- "K always wanted women-specially youthful and pure virgins" to be around him and he hid this desire under the image (Ravi's image of K) that since he lost his mother at an early age "he sought and found women who would mother him". The argument is not exactly clear. He says K wanted mother figures, but then he takes his cheap shot that he wanted young virgins around not for motherly purpose but obviously for what Ravi cheaply implies, for sexual gratification (maybe a projection of Ravi's own desires? :-)

- Ravi comments on Sloss's book, saying K was not forthright and consistent in his word and deed which is not true at all. It is a fact that K told some of his close friends about the affair, but he didn't announce it in public talks, neither did he ever say, don't have sex, neither made any contradictory "moral proclamations" that Ravi accuses him of making. One's sexuality is one's own business. But Ravi takes his cheap shot anyway because bashing K relieves him of having to take on the challenges K puts forth (my interpretation based on having heard the arguments of so many K bashers).

- Ravi's reference to support his book's theme that K is inconsistent is none but Radha Sloss. How credible of a source, and for a respectable academic like Ravi !!

- Looking for consistency is a trap. Ravi should know this given his academic background. Is the universe consistent? We observe cosmic objects crashing into each other and yet we observe great order. Ravi would never write a book about these "two birds on one tree" which is the whole theme of his pathetic book: to discredit K which is the same as flattering him, same movement: put him on the pedestal, which he does, and then shoot him down. K warned about this but who was there to listen? I guess people close to him were too caught in his magnetism to pay attention, study, what he had to say.

- Ravi seems to sympathize with Sloss who boldly asserts that K encourage people to follow him, that he had some sort of a complex that he needed attention so he spoke to large audience to get attention and other such ridiculous ideas. Ravi seems to have ignored so incredibly many times that K spoke about the subject of true meaning of discipline and not wanting followers.

- Ravi wrote in the book: "though no doubt I too had added to K's sorrow by not understanding". At least he has the courage to admit his lack of understanding. It's ok to not understand something, but why write a book about it? And why would the foundation promote this book?

Here's another fun quote from his comic book:: "in his talks he frequently and often without relevance to the topic at hand returned to harangues against the Brahmins and the Christians, the only two religious groups with whom he had any prolonged contact during his theosophical phase..."

Ya, K talked without relevance just to bash Brahmins and Christians (Not!!). Brilliant argument Ravi !!

We can never rule out that he might have changed.

Kind Regards

Reza Ganjavi

IMPRESSIONS AFTER HEARING HIS TALK

Not surprisingly, Mr. Ravindra went on to quote the Gita and other Hindu scriptures, a subject he’s good at, and other statements which to me sounded like nonsense, e.g. “One of the strongest human needs other than the usual, food, shelter, etc., is the need for approval”. He views “observer & observed” as a slogan (which is so if you have no clue what it means!).

The “slogan-mongering” he refers to just supports his own past statements that he has not understood K. So it all sounds like slogans :-) – there are so many examples – his talk was full of such notions.

It’s perfectly alright when someone doesn’t get it – but to blame K for it is the sad part. And that’s what he does. He tried to discredit K in his talk at the foundation. Nice job people!

In their intro they said: “invited various people who are very familiar with the teachings … to share with us their insight and understanding.” Which insight? (LOL). This is pretty hilarious. His main qualification as related to K seemed to be “being a true friend”. With friends like that, who needs an enemy. Again, I don’t blame Mr. Ravindra – it was KFA who brought  him there.

EXTRACT FROM LETTER TO AN AUTHOR FRIEND

6 may 2012

Dear <>

It was nice seeing you on the webcast.

It was painful to hear about this myth creeping up again. It's amazing how it keeps going around and it's totally untrue. I've written several articles on it which you can find in the writings section / K circulars - of my site www.rezamusic.com

It was even more painful to hear that you quoted Ravi Ravindra as an authority. It doesn't matter if he's a academic and the 2 books you mentioned that he's written about K - at least one of them is most horrible (I've written a respond to it that I can send you). The guy even admits to not having understood K.  He is exactly the kind of person K was talking about when he talked about people not getting it -- I've spoken to all the people who were there when he said that.

But this myth is so popular because people are lazy - because they don't want to bother with this work and so they put him on a pedestal and shoot him down and relieve themselves from having to taken on the challenge. Today at an earlier webcast of KFA this other guy was going on and on along the same lines -- that K lived his teachings because he had no job - he didn't have to work -- come on !!

…

Anyway, the appropriate response to this myth is that "it's not true". He was talking about people who were very close to him -- and you can see that. Ravi is one example :) there are others -- completely missed the boat…

HERE'S THE ORIGINAL LETTER I SENT TO RAVINDRA IN 1995!! The night I sent it something strange and very good happened. It felt K was please :-) 

 Ravi Ravindra

Seeing the picture below which was posted on a friend's timeline as a public picture prompted me to write this. I found the picture to be scary though he's laughing while hugging the friend (excerpt below).

Ravi Ravindra is reportedly a pleasant man on a personal level (I met him briefly so I can't judge) but admitted when I saw him speak that he has no clue what Krishnamurti talked about -- yet, Krishnamurti Foundation America (KFA) asks him to come again and again to speak there. His last talk was related to Patanjali - in another talk of his I heard in its entirety, which was extremely boring and un-insightful, he was talking about things K steered cleared of and warned about (nonsense concepts like higher and lower self, soul journey, etc.)...

He wrote a trash book some years ago about K with terribly weak arguments which was more telling about Ravi than K.

He is qualified as an academic and I'm not questioning that but about K, I don't think anybody who admits to not have understood K (and obviously so) should go around spreading confusion and DILUTING K which is something K made clear he didn't want.

But K also seemed very concerned about organizations in general and that generally they can get corrupt and/or corrupt what they're representing. We've seen what's come of his organization -- which he didn't want to have anyway but was talked out of. He had no problem doing so. He had done it as a young man when he dissolved the Order of the Star of the East and gave back all the donated money to walk alone. Some years after his death a circus is built around his work by his foundation. If he were a guru we'd just expect that. The painful part is he warned about it. Do they care about this? People like Jaap Sluijter, Mark Lee, Rabindra Singh? They might but I doubt it.