Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00368)

Thoa wrote:

>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?

Again I like to refer to a quote from HPB. This time I wil try to sumerize
and paraphrase it and put it against K's view.

HPB: For the mind to contact Atma it has to tread a path or climb a ladder
on which one first has to go through Buddhi-Manas, which can not be skipped.
If you want to skip it you'll get disconnected, which will lead to second
death.

K: For the mind to be directed by intelligence it has to get rid of the ego
by way of a radical inner timeless revolution. There is no path, buddhi nor
atma, which are all products of thought and tradition and will lead you
nowhere.

I have no problem with interpreting K in such a way that it will harmonize
with HPB. For example one could make the point that there is a gradual
process involved in understanding K, where one goes from intellectual
understanding to intuitive understanding to transformative understanding to
a certain illumination and maybe, if one was lucky (or unlucky) like Vimala
Thakar, K might have initiated you into his realm of enlightenment. K, and
any purist student of his teachings with him, would deny the possibility of
this gradual process and denounce such thinking as mind-games of the ego. A
theosophist might find some appeal in this reasoning and as such he would do
nothing less than execute a certain esoteric correction of K's teachings,
which might guarantee the safety of his soul. The soul of a purist follower
of K would be in greater jeopardy, because he would try to execute K's
revolution while denying the reality of his Buddhi principle, which would
cause its disconnection. So, as a theosophist I am very concerned and hope
that one day K will come back to correct his teachings and balance his Mt.
Everest of Karma. Meanwhile, instead of a theosophization of Krisnamurti's
teachings, I see a subtle Krishnamurtization of theosophy happening. And
with it comes the aforementioned danger to the soul.

Govert

P.S. This is the quote:

H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, pp. 413-414:

“In order not to confuse the mind of the western student with the abstruse
difficulties of Indian metaphysics, let him view the lower manas, or mind,
as the personal ego[personal self] during the waking state, and as
Antahkarana only during those moments when it aspires towards its higher Ego
[higher self], and thus becomes the medium of communication between the two.
It is for this reason called the ‘Path.’... Seeing that the faculty and
function of Antahkarana is as necessary as the medium of the ear for
hearing, or that of the eye for seeing; then so long as the feeling of
ahamkāra, that is, of the personal "I" or selfishness, is not entirely
crushed out in man, and the lower mind not entirely merged into and become
one with the higher Buddhi-Manas [higher self], it stands to reason that to
destroy Atahkarana is like destroying a bridge over an impassable chasm; The
traveler can never reach the goal on the other shore. And there lies the
difference between the exoteric and the esoteric teaching. The former makes
the Vedānta state that so long as mind (the lower) clings through
Antahkarana to Spirit (Buddha-Manas) [higher self] it is impossible for it
to acquire true Spiritual Wisdom, Jnyāna, and that this can only be attained
by seeking to come en rapport with the Universal Soul (Atmā) [the divine
self]; that, in fact, it is by ignoring the higher Mind [higher self]
altogether that one reaches Rāja Yoga. We say it is not so. No single rung
of the ladder leading to knowledge can be skipped. No personality can ever
reach or bring itself into communication with Atmā, except through
Buddhi-Manas; to try to become a Jivanmukta or a Mahātmā, before one has
become an adept or even a Naljor (a sinless man) is like trying to reach to
Ceylon from India without crossing the sea. Therefore we are told that if
we destroy Antahkarana before the personal [personal self] is absolutely
under the control of the impersonal Ego [the higher self], we risk to lose
the latter and be severed for ever from it, unless indeed we hasten to
re-establish the communication by a supreme and final effort. It is only
when we are indissolubly linked with the essence of the divine Mind [higher
self] that we have to destroy Antahkarana.”