Krishna Vision

Osho, something was left unsaid about Sri Aurobindo’s vision of Krishna. In Ahmedabad you said that his Krishna-vision could largely be a mental projection. So is Aurobindo’s Krishna-vision only a mental projection, or could it also be a mystic realization? A second question: If Arjuna is only a mere instrument, then he becomes just a machine. What happens to his individuality?

Aurobindo’s manner of saying is Hegelian. Like Hegel he is a system-maker. He says very little, uses big words, long words, takes very long detours. Expression must, of course, be intellectual; but when it is expression of realization, at the same time it keeps pointing beyond itself—it brings the news that the man has known something beyond words. But if everything fits within words, such news does not come. And after reading all of Aurobindo, the taste left in the mouth is only of words. Not a trace of the taste of experience is left. Sometimes a person may not speak at all, and his very presence can leave the taste of realization in your mouth. Sometimes someone may speak a lot, and yet only the taste of words remains; no taste of experience can remain. Expression will be intellectual, but when it is expression of realization it simultaneously transcends…

Questioner: a part of our previous question remains unanswered: it is about shree arvind seeing visions of krishna. You had once said at ahmedabad that such visions are mostly nothing more than mental projections. Is it a mental projection or a real mystical experience in the case of arvind?

Whoever says he has encountered Krishna in his physical form is a victim of mental projection; he is projecting his own mental images on the vast screen of universal consciousness and viewing the objective reality. It is like a movie projector projects fast moving pictures on all empty screen; there is really nothing on the screen except shadows. Such visions are not a spiritual experience, they are wholly psychic. They are, however, very gratifying; a Krishna devotee is bound to be overjoyed to see visions of one he has been desiring to see all his life. But remember, it is only a kind of happiness, not bliss. Nor can you call it an experience of truth. I don't mean to cay that Arvind's experience is not real, but he describes it in the way of a scholar, an intellectual. And this makes the experience appear to be one of mental…

Osho, Aurobindo had a vision of Krishna. He also came into contact with Yogi Lele. And as for the Pondicherry experiment, won’t it be future generations who decide about it? What is your view of Alice Bailey, who says she receives messages? Who gives these messages? How? Do you too have any connection with such a master or guru?

Such talk has one great advantage: as long as I have not died, you cannot defeat me; after I die, whom will you defeat? While Aurobindo lived, the argument stood. How could you prove it wrong? And when he died, whom could you go and argue with? The wonder is not that he died. For twenty-four hours after his death the woman called “Mother” in that ashram refused to admit that he could die. She insisted he had gone into deep samadhi. For three days they tried to preserve the body, in the hope—because there is an old belief here—that a yogi’s body does not disintegrate after death. But after three days, when the body began to stink, there was great difficulty; they had to bury it quickly. For if the news spread—given that this country prides itself on discernment and does not call just anyone a yogi—they would say,…

Questioner: arvind had seen visions of krishna and been in contact with yogi lele. Is it that a final judgement on the experiments conducted at pondicherry will be made by future generations? What do you think of alice bailey who claims to receive messages? Where do the messages come from? And how? Do you too have such esoteric contacts with some masters?

Arvind sees visions of Krishna inside a prison, in the walls of the prison, in the prisoners' faces and in himself. But who is the one who knows that he sees visions of Krishna? If there is a knower then it is surely his own mental projection. If someone says he sees Krishna, it means the one who sees is not Krishna; he is bound to be different from Krishna. The oceanic, universal form of Krishna is something entirely different from Krishna the man who happened some five thousand years ago. But his universal form, which is universal subconsciousness, is eternal. And one who encounters the universal consciousness ceases to be an ego; he disappears as he is and turns into that universal intelligence itself. You can call it by the name of Krishna, Christ, or Buddha, or whatever you like. Names don't matter; the choice of name depends on…