Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00333)

Bjorn:
>Thoa:
>> I would also say that even K and M cannot be sure what the plan is. K and
>> M have said that they are also fallible. Perhaps Krisnamurti turning
>> against the guru-chela relationship is the plan. My only argument is that,
>> it happened, therefore it MUST be the plan.
>
>A pretty weak argument. Perhaps better not use it.. It looks like some
>version of fatalism. No, free will makes it possible to use ones powers to
>sabotage the plan. I am afraid that is what happened in this case.

The arrogance of free will makes it think that it actually has free will.
Choices are inherent in the System. The only thing that could possibly be
sabotaged is the lower system. We are relatively free but not absolutely
free.

How would turning against the Guru-Chela relationship destroy anything,
except the idea of the Guru-Chela relationship? The process of Guru-Chela
relationship involves the Chela projecting his/her inner light onto the
Guru. In this process, the Chela serves, respects, and meditates on the
Guru's form. The Guru, entrusted with the student's inner being, acts as a
reflector for the Chela, and eventually gives the student's inner being
back to the student once it is strongly formed. The problem that arises is
when the Guru, due to personal ego, thinks that the Chela is actually
worshipping the Guru, and either abuses the relationship or would not give
the Chela back his/her entrusted inner being. Why would anyone want to
lose the adoration and support by telling the supporter that s/he is strong
enough to go off on his/her own? Would Prophet, Sai Baba, or any others
say to their disciples, "Leave my ashram, do not support it any more. You
can go off into the world now, live as independent beings, and help others.
You do not need me anymore." Any church that would tell their followers
to go and support other churches to widen their horizon? Any Guru you can
recommend that would fit such an important bill?

Yes, Krisnamurti may be dualistic when he denies the Guruship that taught
him all that he knew. However, his refusal to tell the solution reflects
his idea of the uselessness of describing what cannot be described, and
that the only useful thing is to live the life, to be, instead of getting
caught in the concept. That is why his teachings are full of suggestions
on "being." Now, how would that ruin anything?

>I think he (Kuthumi) said, when talking about the chela in early stages,
>that he naturally would be "somewhat docile".
>
>So far, all I find through the theosophical search engine (are you all
>using it?):
>
>"....the stage of pupilage. Docile and obedient but never slaves during
>that time we must be; otherwise, and if we passed our time in arguing we
>never
>would learn anything at all."
>
>Letter no. 98

In Letter No. 35

"Asiatics are so poor, as a rule, and books are so inaccessible to them in
these degenerate days, that you can see plainly how different a plan of
intellectual culture-in preparation for practical experiments to unfold
psychic power in themselves-must be thought. In the olden time, this want
was supplied by the Guru, who guided the chela through the difficulties of
childhood and youth, and afforded him in oral teaching as much as, or more
than through books the food for mental and psychic growth. The want of
such a "guide, philosopher and friend," (and who so well deserves the
tripartite title?) can never be supplied, try as you may. All you can do
is prepare the intellect: the impulse toward "soul-culture" must be
furnished by the individual."

Note this statement: All you can do is prepare the intellect: the impulse
toward "soul-culture" must be furnished by the individual."

Isn't that exactly what Krisnamurti is doing? Kr will only point the way.
If a student goes against what Kr recommended, takes Kr as the Guru, and
does not go beyond the text of Kr's teaching, then the student is not
following Kr's philosophy. For myself, I read what he said, and I also go
beyond that by finding out more from within and without.

>You probably can
>wear
>most opponents down with your remarkable endurance though, but that is
>another story.

I exercise daily and type 70 wpm. :o)

I said:
>>>> For some others,
>>>>however, it was highly fulfilling, or else he would not have followers.
You said:
>> >There are many pretty strange gurus and leaders who have plenty of
>>followers,
>> >all the way to a Hitler and other Black magicians. Many of their followers
>> >would
>> >say that being such is "highly fulfilling", so that does not prove too much.
I said:
>> Well, what does Doss have to say about being compared to followers of
>> Hitler and Black magicians??? :o)
You said:
>I know you know that Doss was not compared in that way. But you chose to
>humor yourself out of a sticky position, right?

Ah, but it's serious humor, my friend. The logic is this. I was talking
about K's followers. You mentioned followers of Hitler and Black
magicians, in essence comparing K's followers to these followers. From
what I know, Doss is a follower of K. Hence, my last statement. Are you
saying that K's followers are as deluded and possibly as evil as Hitler's
follower? Are you saying that by following K, the student will be going
against the cosmic plan? I already said that the cosmic plan cannot be
influenced. Are you saying K is like Hiter and the Black Magicians? If
so, why?

>> The God is our creative self, our divine self.
>
>Aha! Now, is that YOU or K saying that? If it is K, I *really* would like
>to read some passages where he makes comments of that kind.

It is I saying that. K inferred it by his teachings that pointed to the
trust in our divine self. Even any true Guru would never tell you exactly
what anything is. The Guru should only be a reflector. As I said again, a
good student of K would use the teachings for the soul to reflect on, and
not use it as the solution. If a student cannot get beyond the
concreteness of the teaching, then perhaps it is the student's fault.

In writing the post regarding the circle, I think Stanza 3(8) also fits
neatly into our argument:

"Where was the germ and where was now darkness? Where is the spirit of the
flame that burns in thy lamp, Oh Lanoo? The germ is that, and that is
light; the white brilliant son of the dark hidden father."

This Stanza contains the question that is also the answer of where that
flame of consciousness burns. It burns within all of us. In each of us is
the same flame that is the Flame of the Universal Mind.

This means that we all have within ourselves the flame of Truth. It is up
to each of us to reflect on and sort out the truth from the false. The
Stanza, the sacred ancient text, is already telling us where to find the
truth. Any student of t/Theosophy and Krisnamurti should be able to
combine both teachings and understand what this means.

Thoa :o)