Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00007)

Hi Katinka and all of you,

Again thanks for your kind answer.
This answer is on the Krishnamurti issue.
My previous answer was on the "difficulties disappear issue".

My views are only views:
I do not think that we talk about details in disagreement. It is more than
that.
One can disagree - and care at the same time...

The short conclusion I get is:
So publicly Krishnamurti denied the existence of the Masters and the Path.
And privately he is - assumed ? or known ? - to have agreed to the opposite
view ?
Is this your view and others view ?

So i ask, what do you think about this the following part of the text taken
from the same link
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
.

Is it true ?:

***Quote begins***
"Then are we to assume," I hazarded, "that Krishnamurti's mission has been a
complete failure!"

"Friend," said the old gentleman, "you ask many questions, to what use will
you put the answers if we give them to you?" It was on the tip of my tongue
to apologize, but instead I felt impelled to speak what was in my mind. "Sir
Thomas," I replied, "because of Krishnamurti, many people are in great
distress; if you'll be gracious enough to enlighten me a little, perhaps I
may be able to enlighten them."

"Good!" he exclaimed, "the motive is pure; your questions will be answered."

I began to express my gratitude, but he waved it aside with a kindly
gesture, and proceeded: "He who attempts to teach Advaita, and omits all
Sanscrit terms, courts failure. Sanscrit words engender an occult vibration



138

which is lost when translated. Western words not suitable to describe
subjective states of consciousness, because their associations are mainly
mundane." He paused a moment to continue his lunch, then added: "Well did
my Brother Koot Hoomi say that Krishnamurti had destroyed all the many
stairways to God, while his own remains incomplete."

"And would never be suitable for all types, in any case," J.M.H. put in.

"Also, being incomplete," the old gentleman took up the thread again, "it
may lead to dangers unforseen by those who attempt to climb it. Danger
Number One: Krishnamurti's casting aside of time-honoured definitions and
classifications leaves aspirant without true scale of values. Danger Number
Two: climbing his particular staircase necessitates constant meditation,
which in its turn necessitates constant protection from Guru--and Guru not
allowed by Krishnamurti." he concluded with a twinkle.

"But" I asked, "is the Guru's protection always necessary for meditation--I
mean even when its done in small doses?"

"0f course, a moderate degree may be practiced in safety without a Guru." J.
M. H.



139

replied, "but as Sir Thomas says, long continued meditation leads to states
of consciousness and excursions on to other planes where the Master's
guidance is absolutely indispensable. Another flaw in this pseudo Advaita
which Krishnamurti is giving out, is that he addresses the personality, the
physical-plane man, as if he were the Monad or at least the Ego. Of course
the Monad, the divine Spark, is the Absolute Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, and
hence eternally free, but that doesn't mean that the personality down here,
immersed in endless-seeming karmic difficulties, can share its
consciousness, or even that of the Ego--the link between the personality and
the Monad. Krishnamurti's Advaitism, which is not to be confounded with the
recognized form of that noble philosophy, will, I fear, lead his followers
nowhere except perhaps to hypocrisy and self-delusion." Sir Thomas nodded
assent." And while he has directed them to repudiate all Masters, he refuses
to act as Guru to them himself." The old gentleman was silent for a moment,
then shook his head mournfully. "Children crying in the night of spiritual
darkness, and



140

no one to comfort them. ... He who could help, won't, and we who might help,
can't, for Doubt has poisoned their belief in our very existence. No wonder
Koot Hoomi's face looks a little sad." He turned to the large dog which, all
this while, with remarkable canine self-control, had sat perfectly still,
gazing up at him; and as he patted him, he said. "My friend, if even the
King told you your master were superfluous, I don't think you'd believe him,
eh!"

The dog wagged his tail, and touchingly snuggled up against Sir Thomas's
knee."


***Quote ends***


A question more:
So did Krishnamurti cut himself of from the White Lodge - or did he not ?
I ask because i know, that some of the readers have studied the Krishnamurti
"path"
a whole lot. And I ask because I do care...
Let us remember, that the above quoted text was written years ago.



My view:
The masters exist. But they are not Masters as people often think about
them.
The Path towards enlightement exists, but it is not any ordinary Path for
sure.
The Path is even mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita...(- smile).
The need for a teacher is important to most students in the western world.
Krishnamurti did some good work when he became older. But his work
around the years 1929-1938 was not so good.



Feel free to comment or do your best...


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World direct insight (krishnamurti and the white
brotherhood)


> Hi Morten,
>
> Sorry to say - you aren't going to influence my study habits.
> If what you write doesn't come across clearly, then I and everybody
> else has the right to ask questions and otherwise respond. If you
> first say one thing and then the exact opposite, it is no wonder I
> don't know what you are saying anymore... Some reply in between the
> below anyhow.
>
> Katinka
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hi Katinka and all of you,
> >
> > My views are only views:
> > You do ask a lot. Allright then...
> > Your below email shows to me, that you did'nt quite digest
> > the email you responded to. That is my view.
> > You could consider this...on more than one level.
> -
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...>
> > > > So, in answer to 'what to do?', you should get used to
> > > > this idea. It is not the materials, the school, the
> individuals, or
> > > > anything else, which are confusing, making dissatisfied, or
> causing
> > > > uncertainty, but the clash between materials etc. and the
> > > > personality which feels itself threathened.
> > > > If you learn this, the difficulties disappear. This is because
> > > > the secondary peronsality learns that it is no longer in danger
> of
> > > > being punished or extinguished.
> > > Golly, is it that simple?
> > ***
> > Well - you know, that you will have to really - learn - it first -
> > do'nt you !
> > ***
> > One insight and all my trouble with
> > > learning (say learning math) will disappear? Wow. Wish it were
> > > actually true. Even Krishnamurti (who was a great advocate of
> direct
> > > insight) did not go as far as you do above.
> > ***
> > No one said that all your trouble would disappear.
> Katinka:
> You literally wrote: "the difficulties dissapear". which sounds to me
> like the same thing as trouble disapears. then you deny anybody (lett
> alone you yourself) said that. weird.
> > But, that the mentioned
> > trouble will do so, - if you truely do learn and absorb the above.
> > A question arises...
> > Was Krishnamurti not against an occult Brotherhood ?
> >
> http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_
> k.html
> Katinka:
> As to that it is easiest to refer to "the inner life of Krishnamurti"
> by Aryal Sanat who has investigated this issue and comes to the
> following conclusion (from the backflap, hoping that word is English)
> "But Krishnamurti (K) was a revolutionary in the deepest sense. For
> over sixty years he publicly eschewed belief systems and
> presuppositions of any sort, including the esoteric principles taught
> by Theosophists.
> But privately?
> Aryel Sanat's ... meticulous research reveals that, contrary to
> appearances, K's inner life was rich in esoteric happenings.
> Privately, he never denied the existence of perennial "Masters"; nor
> did he deny being a vehicle for the manifestation of the Lord
> Maitreya, or the Christ. In fact, according to K, these inner
> realities were present every day of his natural life and intimately
> related to his work. "
>
> The point of denying it seems mainly to have been that people made it
> concrete, simplified, devoid of "the sacred" or something. And I can
> quite understand it. I mean, look up the word Maitreya on the
> internet and see what you come up with. I dare you to find one quote
> that is deep enough to deserve the title maitreya as its author. The
> same for masters and the term white brotherhood, if you exclude the
> many references to that in the theosophical literature. People have
> been anxious to label their truths with high sounding names, and that
> attitude started even before Krishnamurti was being raised by
> theosophists, I think. Not sure, a historical survey on the spread of
> this terminology might be interesting. Anyhow - people around
> Krishnamurti were more interested in the label and the status
> attached to it, than they were to the message. Those who remember
> some of the stuff being written about that time, will know that the
> whole circus around him was appalling. People weren't even told to
> rely on themselves to know which initiation to take. The whole
> atmosphere was very far removed from the atmosphere one gets from
> reading for instance Damodar, by Sven Eek. (early version of that
> book is online).
>
> Also, western society wasn't prepared for the flood of guru's that
> has been opened. I mean, by all acounts, in India it was well known
> that not every person personating a guru, was to be relied upon, also
> a tradition of doubt was in place, and people often went from guru to
> guru. This is accepted practice in the Buddhist system as well. Which
> simply means one learns what one can and judges the truth of it for
> oneself. But ultimately the message was identical to the message in
> Light on the Path:
> "For within you is the light of the world -- the only light that can
> be shed upon the Path. If you are unable to perceive it within you,
> it is useless to look for it elsewhere. "
>
> Anyhow, why worry about the labels. Why worry about whether or not
> Krishnamurti denied the masters. He either had something important to
> say, or he didn't. In my opinion he did. So did the Mahatmas. Even
> the story Cyril Scott gave here shows that Krishnamurti talked about
> an important truth (or more than one). So what's the issue? They
> disagreed on details... or did they?
> Katinka
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>