theos-talk.com

[MASTER INDEX] [DATE INDEX] [THREAD INDEX] [SUBJECT INDEX] [AUTHOR INDEX]

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

Krishnamurti, Theosophy, and the Esoteric

Jul 12, 2001 04:41 AM
by ramadoss




Here is an interesting post from another maillist.

When I read the post I was reminded of Gauthama Buddha's answer when asked about how the universe was created.

In dealing with theosophy, you have various beliefs -- those who espouse the "hidden" objectives, and those who believe in the overriding importance of the psychic techniques and practices over the main thrust why theosophy was presented to the world in 1875 in addition to the belief in the practice of the hierarchical systems operating in a democratic environment it is time to ponder and examine why one sees a lack of vitality seen in the early days.

Time to think!!!

mkr

mkr


X-Sender: pants@pobox.clarkson.edu
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:10:55 -0400
To: listening-l@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
From: Somendra Pant <pants@clarkson.edu>
Subject: Krishnamurti, Theosophy, and the Esoteric
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: listening-l-owner@zrz.TU-Berlin.DE
Precedence: bulk
X-UIDL: f023fd8ab08ddd30a3f03224eb240809

A few years before his death (in 1984), a colleague at Rishi Valley asked K about all that has been written about him and his various experiences in various books on him. He did not deny any of that (his various "experiences", Lord Maitreya, etc.) but merely said: "Madam, that is not important." That statement is consistent with what he said on other occasions to others as well.

Mary Lutyens books were written with K's own approval, as was Pupul Jayakar's. Excepting the very last of the Lutyens books, all others were in print before Krishnamurti died and he did not discount or deny any of the material written about him.

Even in his discussions with physicist Bohm, he alludes to an after-life, "the stream" that goes on after the physical death of a person (Richard was kind enough to provide references).
So, it may not be accurate to classify what Krishnamurti said as his "Theosphy" and "post-Theosophy" days. Post-theosophy Krishnamurti /did not/ deny the occurrence of all that happened in his Thosophy period. All that he said was: "that is not important." [A]

Another thing that can be accurately said about "post-Theosophy" Krishnamurti is that he should not be taken as an authority and merely following him (as those who did in his "Order of the Star" odyssey) will not "set people free." [B]

This break from Krishnamurti's "Theosophy" days is very clearly recorded in his "Truth is a Pathless Land", the spirit of which he echoed for the next many decades, right up to his death. For example, when I asked him what he meant by "observer is the observed", his reply was: "find out".
Other than [A] and [B], all other conjectures about what "Theosophisy" and "Post-Theosophy" Krishnamurti are just that: conjectures.

Did Pupul Jayakar and Mary Lutyens bring their own biases and conditioning to the book? In terms of their writing style, sure. As far as facts narrated in those books (excepting the last of the Lutyen book that was published after K's death), Krishnamurti was not only aware of what was written, he approved the publication thereof.

Someone may not agree with what is written in those books: but that is an all together different matter.
Hope this post helps in the largely conjectural debate that we saw on this forum recently (and one that keeps cropping up here from time to time) about what about K is authentic and what is not.

Thanks for reading it.

SP





[Back to Top]


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