Theos-Talk Archives (November 1997 Message tt00453)

>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
>
>
==

doss,

It seems that there is political correctedness in the pursue of truth.

Rudy