Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00113)

Govert,

You are the first person I ever remember agreeing with my thought regarding
the races. I realize the paper is not too clear, because there are many
sides to the concept that were not discussed. Thank you for speaking out
and being the first to add validity to my thinking. I fear others just
listen politely and then choose to ignore the idea entirely.

I would like to comment on your passage below:

>>From my "Krishnamurti and the World Teacher Project: Some Theosophical
>Perceptions."
>
>"Krishnamurti revealed to Mary Zimbalist another intriguing indication of
>his self-perception when he discussed with her in May 1975 his forthcoming
>biography by Mary Lutyens. She had asked him why the Masters, if they
>existed, had spoken in the old days, but not recently. “There is no need
>for them now the Lord is here” was Krishnamurti's reply.

In my mind, I could account for this differently. As dearly as I love the
thought of the Masters and value their presence in our life on earth today,
I do not think it possible that our evolutions continue alongside each
other infinitely. If they are present during man's ascension and at key
points in the creation of our human world (a mystery), then it is possible
that some day in the future (at the end of the seventh race) we will have
to depart from the masters. I only recently have considered this thought
and don't like it very much, but the only thing better than having their
assistance and life energies around is the thought of joining with the
"sun," the solar logos, Ishvara, and having a more direct contact with the
"life" of our solar system. I sense that even during the fourth race this
direct contact with the solar logos is very strong, due to the fact that
there is a constant presence of a dual nature in man's ascent and descent -
how would a duality be present during the "most material" of the races? The
only conclusion I have is that man is both the "good and the bad," but that
he is so under the direction of the solar logos and as a manifestation of
the life of the solar logos.

Mary Lutyens did
>not think it was a serious remark, because of the tone of his voice. The
>same idea appeared, this time apparently in a serious way, in a dialogue
>between Krishnamurti and some persons at Brockwood Park, England, in the
>autumn of 1975, when the subject of his biography came up: “there is the
>idea that when he [the Bodhisattva] manifests all the others [the Masters]
>keep quiet.” Is Krishnamurti referring to himself?

I don't know how to consider the Bodhisattva, except that in the creation
of the world, the Buddha projects forth an essence that is then transformed
into a living Bodhisattva and I'd have to look for a quote on this matter.
Even the attempt at union with the spirit of our earth is a noble endeavor.
In my "private consideration" of I AM Temple teachings, I ponder whether
the essence they call Victory is not the kumara of the Earth. It is
considered that this Victory is a resident of Venus. I think it would be
very joyful to unite with the energy of earth in such a way that we felt we
were blessing a planetary manifestation of another planet. The kumara here
which would be responsible for directing earth's energy to other planets in
a serial fashion to the way seven sacred planets affect us. Our earth is
certainly, in return, a sacred planet to seven periods of the evolutions of
the other planets.

When reading the whole
>dialogue that specific question arises irresistibly. The just-quoted
>sentence was preceded by an elaboration of the idea of the Bodhisattva:
>“There is a very ancient tradition about the Bodhisattva that there is a
>state of consciousness, let me put it that way, which is the essence of
>compassion. And when the world is in chaos that essence of compassion
>manifests itself. That is the whole idea behind the Avatar and the
>Bodhisattva. And there are various gradations, initiations, various Masters
>and so on...” I think Krishnamurti does refer to himself, but he is not
>doing so explicitly, because for him it was “irrelevant,” though not
>irrelevant enough not to mention it."
>
>Govert

Is it possible to consider the Bodhisattva to be our earth or our sun in
your mind?