Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00033)

mkr wrote:

>HPB was very clear about the messenger to be expected this century. From
>what I have read, Krishnamurti fits the scenario except that he did not
>pursue the plan that was expected of him by Annie Besant and Leadbeater.

I agree. Annie Besant referred explicitly to HPB's plan in the 'Key' when
she promoted K.

>With all the hype and the tremendous influence that Annie Besant had and
>also the very close relationship Krishnaji had with her -- he always
>referred her as mother -- he came out with the startling stand that "Truth
>is a Pathless Land" and no organization or no system can take one to Truth.
>He stuck to it rest of his life with no wavering or modification.

IMO K somehow goofed and developed a teaching repudiating almost everything
theosophical. Meanwhile the only way to underdstand him rightly and explain
some of the phenomena surrounding him is through theosophy.

>Considering the huge number of people who have been affected by
>Krishnamurti, there is a very good possibility he may fit the profile.
>
>Having said all this, no one can be sure. May be a 1,000 years from now, if
>no one knows about Krishnamurti or his writings/speeches, then we can
>dismiss him. If on the other hand his philosophy flourishes at that time,
>then it would be a corrobortive information.

I think that K's teachings are so well construed and compelling that it will
start a whole new civilization. I think it already has started and it will
probably last for far more than 1000 years. This does not mean that that
will corroborate his teaching. His teachings will have to go through a
certain esoteric correction before they will produce an environment where
Esoteric Philosophy and the 'Secret Doctrine' will have their rightful
place.

>However there are many who do not think that he does not fit the profile.
>So this argument may go on for many years to come.

When I did my reasearch on the different perceptions of K I was amazed by
the amount of different positions developed regarding K. The 'party line'
in the TS and the editorial line in 'The Theosophist' seems to be that K
was the expected teacher and that he has fulfilled his part convincingly.
Only dissent comes from John Algeo stating that he could not know whether K
is the teacher or not. This seems to be a most sensible position for the TS
itself, because any definitife position regarding K will lead to dogmatism
one way or the other.

Govert