[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Krisnamurti and nihilism

Apr 19, 1998 01:47 AM
by Thoa Thi-Kim Tran

>Perhaps I believe that we are more free than you do. I believe we can
>the evolving part of ourselves by consistantly making the wrong choices.

According to Theosophical teachings, the only way you can extinguish the
evolving part is by living for purely selfish and evil ends, living in ways
which separates yourself from others. What proof do you have that K's
teachings create that?

>> How would turning against the Guru-Chela relationship destroy anything,
>> except the idea of the Guru-Chela relationship?
>It can turn people away from the path for a mighty long time, yes, even
>forever, if you consider the possibility of the "second death".

That is YOUR opinion. The idea that turning against the need for the
Guru-Chela relationship will result in veering from the path, and the
possibility of the "second death", is not supported by any Theosophical
teachings. Theosophical teachings recommend the Guru-Chela relationship,
but the consequences of doing otherwise do not inevitably lead to
condemnation and "second death". Basically, K taught self-reliance.
Ultimately, the Guru and the Chela are both you.

>> 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.
>Well, that certainly is a problem when it occurs.

It is not only a problem. It can also totally destroy an individual's
belief and purpose. A person whose "Guru" failed him/her is in more danger
than a person who chose to be independent and search for him/herself. If I
cry, at least the tears are all mine and I take responsibility for them.
Only by taking responsibility can there be growth.

>> 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?
>But this is exactly what "good" Gurus have done for thousands of years.

If someone finds "good" Gurus, power to him/her. The trick is to find one.
IMO, it is not necessary to find one for spiritual growth.

>I see a deep seated psychological problem in him here. Some have suggested that
>the turning point came when he lost his dearest friend - Nitya. He had totally
>believed that the "Masters" would save him, but they didn't. Well, they turned
>their back on him (K) so he is turning his back on them.

Arrogance, deep-seated psychological problems, I don't care. His teachings
are there for me to take, leave, or modify. If they're valid for me, then
what does it matter? He's not my Guru. Neither is HPB, Leadbeater,
Besant, Bailey, Monty Python, etc. My discerning acceptance applies to
them, too.

>You mean he is preparing the intellect? For what? Soul-culture? He is preparing
>it for subtle rebellion, in my opinion.

What is wrong with subtle rebellion when tradition is not quite right?

>> I exercise daily and type 70 wpm. :o)
>What else can you tell me about yourself?

How can you express the glory of the sun through such pitiful concrete
instruments as words?

>Please look again. I did not say that K was like Hitler, etc. I just
>pointed out
>that your argument for the credibility of K, that many of his followers
>find his
>teachings "highly fulfilling" really doesn't say much, if anything. Any crazy
>guru out there will have "highly fulfilled" followers, if you ask them. SO what
>does it prove?

Oh, come on, K's teachings, Hitler's teachings, K's recommended actions,
Hitler's recommended actions, you still can't see the difference as to
which followers are deluded and evil, and which ones aren't? Okay, "highly
fulfilled" doesn't say much since people will follow whoever according to
their tendencies for good or evil. Let's just say that I find K's
teachings to be valuable and Hitler's to be evil. The value of the
teachings speak for themselves.

>But did he say that? Did he talk about trusting your divine self? Or have you
>concluded that that was what he meant?

You've studied K, I've studied K. The above is my conclusion based on the
fact of his recommended actions even though he did not explicitly say it
that way.

>>Any student of t/Theosophy and Krisnamurti should be able to
>> combine both teachings and understand what this means.
>Combining both would be a lot better than following K only.

Anybody who is narrowly focused on only one system is pretty dumb, IMO. I
don't care what that person's IQ is. I may only know a little, but I'm
trying to learn more.

Thoa :o)

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application