Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00090)

Reacting to some of the issues which came up:

1) Regarding the quotes from K teaching some things I do not agree with:
These quotes are footnotes from the following sentence:

"For example, Blavatsky stresses that one cannot pass over even one step on
the path to higher consciousness, yet Krishnamurti summarily rejects not
only a path of graduated levels in attaining truth, but also the very
existence of a higher self to unite with. Furthermore, Blavatsky makes it
clear that a Guru plays an essential part in one’s mastery of higher
consciousness, while Krishnamurti repudiates the role of a spiritual
teacher."

For the whole text with endnotes see:

http://pages.prodigy.net/schuller/onk.htm

2) I wrote:

>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.

Mr. A.M. Bain asks:

Asking, as I must, the inevitable awkward question, who is going to
undertake this "certain esoteric correction"?

I respond:

That will be up to theosophists who would agree with the thought that there
is something to be corrected in K's teachings. I am aware that some or many
theosophists see K's teachings as being in complete harmony with theosophy
or at least coming from the same source. I found some texts of HPB which
give grounds to question that position. For example:

"An Avatara is a descent of a God into an illusive form; a Jivanmukta, who
may have passed through numberless incarnations and may have accumulated
merit in them, certainly does not become a Nirvani because of that merit,
but only because of the Karma generated by it, which leads and guides him in
the direction of the Guru who will initiate him into the mystery of Nirvana
and who alone can help him reach his abode.” (BCW, 14, 374)

So can you reach Nirvana then without a Guru?

I think what K did was to universalize his experience of the Arhat
initiation, where apparently the Guru withdraws his support and you have to
deal with certain tests completely on your own. According to Scott K failed
this initiation. Whether he knew this or not I do not know. He went on with
a development more to his own liking, which resulted in a total
independence from the Masters, gradual initiations and anything else occult. This state
of mind, which for him felt as liberated, he made into a standard for his
philosophy, ignoring the possibility that it was only a phase of a graduated
process.

Govert