Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00147)

Bjorn wrote:

<< I find him nihilistic and destructive. My search has always been for
"meaning",
 even from the time when I was a staunch atheist. I read one book by K in my
 early twenties and found that it had an "interesting" effect on my
 consciousness, precisely because of its nihilistic qualities. Yes, he may
help
 throw out some idols from people's minds, but he ultimately replaces them
with
 the idol of the intellect in a very pernicious and almost "invisible" form.
>>

 << Many years after I first made contact with K's writings I watched a video
where
 he gave a "lecture". My experience was one of emptiness, but not in the sense
of
 empty space filled with spiritual light and consciousness. Rather he appeared
to
 me to be a "Buddha in theory only". >>

 << It leads easily to a subtle nihilism, but can be very liberating in a
positive
 way also, if endued with a passion for life, and surrender of the ego
(lower). >>

 << It is the lack of meaning and its nihilistic essence that makes it hard to
 understand. Basically there is nothing there to understand, which ultimately
 gets frustrating, and, rightfully so. >>

Bjorn, I agree with your analysis. I don't go away from Krishnamurti's
writings with a feeling of spiritual fulfillment or joy (ananda). Perhaps it's
the nihilism of which you speak. I had the opportunity of hearing him three
times, once at Carnagie Hall and twice at the Kennedy Center in Washington.
Many came out of the lectures, gushing about how wonderful he was but when
asked about what he said, they couldn't tell you.

The Theosophical Society helped him build up a world-wide name recognition so
he always had ready-made audiences. Many came to see him because he was, in a
sense, an historical figure which is why I attended three of his talks, not
because I was enamored of his philosophy. Apparently he performed good works
(seva) by establishing schools and homes for the needy which is fine. Nobody
is disputing his charitable activities. But philosophically, I feel he's
simply out in left field. His approach is the via negativa which is a "turn
off" for many. Many pro-K theosophists would excuse his incomprehensibility by
saying that he was always on the Buddhic level and, therefore, he had
difficulty bringing his ideas "through" to us morons on the lower planes.

If one can't express ideas clearly, then why teach? I have no trouble
understanding Ramakrishna, Vivekananda or even Sri Aurobindo, who was
certainly no intellectual lightweight.

I'm merely expressing my opinions here in a free internet forum, all you K
fans, so don't be offended.

Lmhem111