Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00450)

At 05:28 PM 11/30/97 -0500, Bart Lidofsky wrote:
>Rodolfo Don wrote:
>> The reason why some people (and organizations) don't consider K. as a
>> messanger of truth, I covered that in previous posts: it's simply prejudice
>> or conditionings.
>
> Or, perhaps, that Krishnamurti was NOT a messenger of truth. Or perhaps
>that he did not say anything sufficiently important or new to be worth
>consideration. Or perhaps that he, himself did not consider himself to
>be such.
>
> From what I have been told, K. was far more impressive in person than
>he was in writings. I have seen videotapes of interviews and talks with
>him (they run every Thursday morning on New York public access cable),
>and, while I do think that he said good and important things, do not
>consider him to be on the caliber of a Buddha, a Moses, a Jesus, a
>Lao-Tse, a Confucius, a Mohammed, or even a Descartes. Possibly on the
>level of a Spinoza.
==

It is very difficult to judge anyone in a short time frame. Even Jesus was
killed by the people of his time.

If we are able to review the situation say 1,000 years from now, and no one
knows at that time about a man called K, then it is a real evidence that
whatever K tried to do had no longing effect on people. But if at that
time, the common man, woman and child remember K along with others such as
Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Lao-Tse, Confucius, Mohammed etc., then we can
conclude that K did have some impact on the humanity.

In the meanwhile, I think if anything K has said or written has helped one,
then it is of value to that person and that is all that is very important.

mkr