Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00067)

Hi Morten,
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> 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 ?
Well, I don't know where he publicly denied there existence. He did 
repeatedly say it was unimportant, I think. 
For instance he says:
"What you think of the Master is not what it is. They personalized 
something immense into personalities." 
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/arch/krishnaj.htm
(talk 1980)
> 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 ?:
I think this whole story has the taste of what Krishnamurti disliked 
in how the myth of the masters has been treated (within and outside 
the Theosophical Movement) - merely having relations with masters who 
can't talk back, because the person involved is only seeing them 
clairvoyantly. So even if some real contact is at the base of such 
experiences, it is very possible, if not likely that the person 
reporting the conversation has heavily edited it, without the Masters 
being able to correct any misunderstandings.

As for Krishnamurti teaching Vedanta or any other old system, I will 
merely quote Jean Overton Fuller's recently published biography 
(which does an outstanding job of putting Krishnamurti into 
theosophical perspective)
(p. 277,278)
"What Krishnamurti teaches is obviously not Buddhism. Buddhism - that 
is, the Buddhism of the classic scriptures - takes as its starting 
point that existence is suffering and seeks a way out of it. The five 
senses, soliciting one's attention to the outer world, are to be 
denied, as fetters to be thrown off. In this it is not different to 
the Vedanta. Krishnamurti, on the other hand, sees the earth and the 
things that grow on it as good; there is no cause not to be happy on 
it. " She goes on in length about this and every other teaching one 
could try and pinpoint on Krishnamurti, as well as specifically 
targetting the text you are now quoting. The book can be ordered at 
the Theosophical Society in England. 
http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/

> A question more:
> So did Krishnamurti cut himself of from the White Lodge - or did he 
> not ?
I don't think so. He knew he was protected all his life and others 
testify to feeling a force about him. He talked about a "They" who 
cleaned his system during the process at various times in his life. 
What other beings than those we call the White Brotherhood would be 
capable of such work? It would have to be beings capable of great 
spiritual insight coupled with the ability to work on the physical 
level. In short: perfected human beings. In Blavatskyan terminology: 
masters. 

-
> My view:
> The masters exist. But they are not Masters as people often think
> about them.
agreed.
> The Path towards enlightement exists, but it is not any ordinary
> Path for sure.
agreed. Still, to think of it as a path, in the sense of next life I 
will learn this, that and the other, is a way of postponing observing 
now, learning now. And it was precisely that postponing that 
Krishnamurti did not want us to do. 
> The Path is even mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita...(- smile).
> The need for a teacher is important to most students in the western
> world.
Is it? What do we need a teacher for? Krishnamurti made it very clear 
that he did not want to be a spiritual or psychological authority. 
The clinging to somebody outside yourself is detrimental to spiritual 
progress. In fact, one of my favorite Blavatsky quotes supports this:
>>Coll. Wr. Vol. X, p. 96
It is this pernicious doctrine of ever relying upon extraneous help 
that leads to the collapse - physical, mental, moral, and spiritual - 
of well-meaning, but weak and unbalanced minds. It slays the patient 
of the mesmerizer and the mental healer, the neophyte of the 
sorcerer, and the dilettante of Reform. Neither success nor safety is 
to be found outside self-development. >>

> Krishnamurti did some good work when he became older. But his work
> around the years 1929-1938 was not so good.
Well, I don't agree with that. He continued repudiating the problem 
of psychological authority his whole life long - either that is a 
real issue, or it wasn't. Have you studied his teachings at all? How 
was his later teaching better than his earlier teaching? Personally I 
understand the earlier a lot better than the later. I suppose the 
later depth is just beyond me. 
He had to dissolve the order of the star - it is obvious. Also, with 
the conflicts that were going on, who would not have let their 
membership of the TS lapse? 

Katinka