Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00131)

In a message dated 4/8/00 6:13:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.net 
writes:

<< About Krishnamurti.  He had the strength to get out of the situation and 
realizing
 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
 THEOSOPHY. >>

Dear Dallas,
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 
it.
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.
Aryel

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.