Theos-World Re: Aryel Sanat, The Inner Life of Krishnamurti
Apr 27, 2000 06:56 AM
In a message dated 4/8/00 6:13:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, email@example.com
<< About Krishnamurti. He had the strength to get out of the situation and
that he had been given by L and AB a "position" that was untrue
(in the eyes of the TS members) he had the honesty to reject it.
He then spent the rest of his life trying to preach openness, and
truth OUTSIDE the TS -- which by then had veered way off the
course and far away from true THEOSOPHY. Many old members of the
TS and their children respect K's honesty and evident integrity.
Unfortunately he did not lend his energies to spreading
Your language is oracular, when you say that K "rejected [the] position given
[to him] by L[eadbeater] and A[nnie] B[esant]."
First off, in my book I give overwhelming evidence to the effect that K NEVER
rejected his being the vehicle for the World Teacher. I must emphasize this
is not my opinion, but is strictly what he actually said. I also discuss
whether he could have been hallucinating, self-deceived, deceiving, & similar
possible explanations, & come up empty with these kinds of explanations, for
reasons clearly outlined in the book. The only explanation for the very
strange inner life K had -- until 1986, when he died, as documented in the
book -- is that he did have a very intimate relationship with the perennial
teachers who started the theosophical movement and the perennial renaissance,
especially with the Lord Maitreya, whom (again, as I document with specific
references) K said was the one teaching, not Krishnamurti the person. So
it's not clear what you mean by K "rejecting" a "position." In the only
truly relevant sense, K NEVER rejected his "position," as you quaintly call
About your claim that this "position" was "given" to K by CWL & AB, I have
seen no evidence whatsoever. This is just your own personal opinion, not
borne out by any facts I know of -- again, as documented fully in the book.
I agree with you that the TS "had by then [c. 1920s] veered way off the
course and far away from true THEOSOPHY." But it is also true that ALL
theosophical groups have "veered off from true THEOSOPHY." Of EVERYONE
connected with the theosophical movement (including ALL the spin-off
movements, authors, & teachers, "theosophical" & otherwise), the only one I'm
aware of who taught THEOSOPHY pure & simple, without any IRRELEVANT &
sometimes DANGEROUS trappings, was J. Krishnamurti. It is only in his work
that there is an unqualified intolerance for anything short of transformation
(what used to be called "initiation" in "the old days" of the perennial
philosophy). Every single other source mentioned above has concentrated on
presenting the ancient wisdom as if it consisted of metaphysics and of
systems-methods to achieve "enlightenment"; some have also touched on
mythical elements of the ancient wisdom. However, according to HPB and her
teachers, metaphysics, myth, and anything else that is not first informed by
initiation, by transformation, is not THEOSOPHICAL. I have shown this in
"TRANSFORMATION: VITAL TEACHING OF HP BLAVATSKY'S SECRET DOCTRINE," a paper
presented to the Third Symposium of HPB's Secret Doctrine, held in May 1998
in Oklahoma City.
So when you say about K that "Unfortunately he did not lend his energies to
spreading THEOSOPHY," you say something that is, again, not borne out by the
facts & the evidence. It is strictly your own personal opinion, which
happens to contradict squarely what HPB & her teachers said.
This discussion goes to the very core of what THEOSOPHY actually is, & not
only about K's place in all this, so I really look forward to your comments.
-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- firstname.lastname@example.org
Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to email@example.com.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application