Krisnamurti and nihilism
Apr 22, 1998 00:02 AM
by Thoa Thi-Kim Tran
>Thoa Tran 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?
>No proof at all. But I found Govert's recent posting om the subjct interesting.
I have an opinion on that, too. See my response to him.
>> Basically, K taught self-reliance.
>> Ultimately, the Guru and the Chela are both you.
>Yes, and the problem I see with K is that the self he is teaching us to rely on
>is not the higher self. And, Thoa, I say these things well knowing that I will
>not be able to prove to you that I am "right", so I am not even really
>do so. But my "reading" of K tells me that he has rebelled, not only
>Guru-chela relationship in the conventional sense, but also against his own
>higher Self. I find it interesting that he didn't talk about a Higher Self, or
>God-self or anything of that nature. Or did he?
As far as I can see, he never mentioned anything about Higher Self. That
doesn't mean he denied it. It's like the Buddhist argument over whether
Nirvana exists according to Buddhist teaching, or whether prayer in
Buddhism is necessary.
>> 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.
>No, you and I are evaluating them. And quite differently at that.
Yes, I thought that after I posted the statement.
>I find it VERY interesting and potentially significant that K did NOT talk
>trusting your divine self, or anything of that nature.
I don't really understand the difficulties people have with K's teachings.
True, he did not mention the divine self. But look at his teachings for
what it is. His teaching was meant to get one out of convoluted thinking,
which can easily happen in a group dedicated to a particular teaching, or
when one is involved in spiritual aspirations. Ironically, a K follower
also can narrowly focus on K's teaching and end up not allowing anything
else to come into his/her world. I don't take his words as law. I look at
the heart of his meanings, whether he meant it that way or not. The
meaning to me is one of independence and relationship. It's constantly
moving. You move in, you see, you interrelate, you step back, you see
again. It's old-fashioned common sense. I get involved in my thinking
quite often, but just as often, I step back and review my thinking. From
that, I take and leave, or just plain ole enjoy the day and forget about
>> Anybody who is narrowly focused on only one system is pretty dumb, IMO.
>Then you would think it to be pretty dumb to be a chela of one master and
>the path as he directs?
I think it is pretty dumb to blindly do so. In your post about your
personal growth, you have been through several experiences and find them
most lacking in some ways. You are in essence following your self (Guru)
in matching with what you need to learn. I don't really knock Gurus.
However, a Guru would have a problem with me, because I will maintain my
boundaries. If someone were to become my Guru, it would have to be done
without my awareness. That is, that someone would have to be as a close
friend or some other intense relationship, in which I'm not aware of the
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application