Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00090)

Hi Katinka and all of you,

I think I will stop here.
To me - my presentation of the case has showed, that Krishanmurti at least
wasn't
a World Teacher creating synthesis.
He did make mistakes. In a certain sense he damaged the Theosophical cause
somewhat - in the sense, that he prevented (in the years around 1929-1938
period) some of his followers from progressing spiritually - and this so
much, that his teaching did'nt outweigh this.
He called the Masters of Theosophy an "illusion" publicly, but privately
accepted their
existence - or at least, what HE called his Masters. (Was this good ? I will
question that.)

His teaching from the mentioned timeperiod was only suited for his
followers. And even today some of his followers aught to do something else -
so to learn MORE THAN ONE mode of teaching.

That said -Krishnamurti indeed did something good. He raised the awareness
towards Theosophy - whether willingly or not. And he raised the awareness
towards spirituality in general. His - baraka or spiritual emanations - was
generating something good all in all as a whole before he departured
physically.

My views is: The book written by Cyril Scott, which this series of emails
are
concerned with - do not always use the dead-letter mode of reading.
So when a Master is said to be a little sad - "Koot Hoomi's face looks a
little sad", then
one aught to read between the lines - and not take it in litterally.
But of course Katinka know that.
There is an excerpt from the mentioned book here
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
(These pages are especially important: p. 138-141).


And let us not forget the content of my two previous emails:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12567 (Thu Jul 10, 2003 )
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12569 (Thu Jul 10, 2003 )



Feel free to make your own conclusions...


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 2:08 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: (krishnamurti and the white brotherhood)


> Hi Morten,
>
> Let me start by saying that I share some of your ambiguity. It is
> quite clear (though not mentioned by you below) that Krishnamurti
> himself acted as a sort of guru towards his disciples. The clue is I
> think in how he defined the term guru.
>
> A guru for him is somebody who becomes an authority. Or in other
> words: a guru is somebody who diminishes the independence of the
> student. The student becomes dependent on the words of the guru, more
> than on the truth he finds for himself.
>
> A real guru would never make a disciple dependent. There are quite a
> few quotes from theosophical literature for instance which show that
> in their guru-chela relationship, the guru is actively looking for
> independence and sound judgement in the chela (or disciple).
> Occultism is in this sense defined (IMO) as a process of increasing
> independence. Only when that independence has been thoroughly proven
> (probation at various levels), does a 'master' occasionally give the
> student a hint or in exceptional cases: an order (and let's face it,
> the whole theosophical experiment was an exceptional case).
>
> The problem is, that for most of us it is way to comfortable to give
> authority to somebody other than ourselves. I have recently written
> about how this happened to me in relation to the 'Bowen Notes', as
> well as sent quotes which show HPB didn't want to be treated like
> that. But we have a tendency to prefer the certainty of somebody
> elses words, opinions and experiences, over our own uncertainties and
> limited knowledge. Krishnamurti had seen this process in his own life
> and in the TS (Adyar) - and saw it as so fundamentally dangerous that
> he spent his life to a large extent warning against it (though his
> teachings include far more than this).
>
> So for me personally it comes down to this (though I am not sure
> Krishnamurti would have agreed):
>
> - There are people among us, hidden or visible, who understand more
> and have their priorities better aligned than we do. Theosophists
> call these people 'masters'. In other traditions they are called
> guru's, teachers, priests, etc.
> - There are people among us pretending to belong to the former group.
> They are also often called master, guru, teacher or priest. Let's add
> rabbi in the mix, just for completeness sake (joking). Unfortunately,
> in our quest for some psychological security as well as recognition
> of the 'spiritual' in our lives, we often get stuck with the second
> class of person, thinking they belong to the first.
> - Krishnamurti belonged to the first group, and warned about the
> second. He also pointed to the psychological mechanisms that make us
> dependent on people, whether they are in the first or the second
> group. He wanted to set us free of habits, authority, the past and
> other psychological fetters.
>
> As for the protection he received: He refused to pull up the curtain,
> as he put it. So that my speculation that those protecting him were
> our "masters" (NOT in the sense of teachers for him though) is
> precisely that: speculation. I really don't know enough to specify
> further.
>
> But I think most of us here know enough of life to know that many
> things are possible that we wouldn't have thought of. One of the
> attractions of theosophy is (as I frequently find through the
> feedback I get over my website) its acceptance of mystery and its
> explaining of some of those mysteries. Krishnamurti accepted some of
> those mysteries, though he refused to explain them. Sort of like the
> Buddha in the famous story where a patient asks the doctor: how does
> an arrow fly through the air? How come it can hit me? And the doctor
> says: do you want me to heal you from the wound the arrow caused, or
> do you want me to explain how you got hurt? I can't do both (my
> version). Krishnamurti choose not to explain but to heal, so to
> speak. Like the Buddha his motivation was to help us deal with and
> get rid of suffering.
>
> I am sure this doesn't answer your questions, but it really is all I
> have to say on the subject for the moment.
>
> I add a few more comments below.
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hi Katinka and all of you,
> -
> > 2. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
> >
> > "Krishnamurti's casting aside of time-honoured definitions and
> > classifications leaves [the] aspirant without true scale of
> values. " ???
> > If not, why not ?
> >
> > (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
>
> Well, the answer to that is pretty straight forward. Even Blavatsky
> said something to the effect of: even for the advanced seer it is
> difficult to judge the level of a vision. The people around
> Leadbeater and Besant had started labeling themselves and each other
> to such an extent that it became quite a problem. There was gossip
> about things like: have you gotten the Arhat-initiation yet? The kind
> of thing that as Krishnamurti complained, is sacred. This sort of
> stuff should not be shouted about. In fact, you may know that the ES-
> instructions include the prohibition to talk about the level you
> think you've attained. There is a prohibition to mention the favours
> the Mahatmas have given an individual. All this was installed
> precisely because of the psychological menaces involved: status being
> attached to these things. Pride becoming involved in these things
> (and pride is the worst sin, and the hardest to get rid of, as I'm
> sure I'm not the only one to know).
>
> Though there are probably levels of insight - talking about them in
> the way that was done back then, is simply going to pull everyone
> down, instead of helping people up.
> > 3. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
> > "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." ???
> > If not, why not ?
> Golly.
> He talked about consciousness. He talked about the content of the
> brain. I haven't seen in Blavatsky's work one way of distinguishing
> between the higher and the lower self. So how do we know which of
> these Krishnamurti was talking about? I would like to see an actual
> Krishnamurti quote which shows him worshipping the lower self. He
> certainly didn't worship the mind. He repeatedly showed the
> limitations of thought. Which sort of makes him point to Buddhi,
> doesn't it? And this is precisely where my comparison to the one
> clear line in Blavatsky on this is valid:
> "The mind is the slayer of the real". Krishnamurti's teachings were
> all about that one sentence. (though he developes it out into a whole
> way of looking that includes things about habits (also lower self)
> and such. ) Only those who don't understand Krishnamurti would say he
> talks about the lower self, I think. Still, if you can find me a
> quote that shows it, I may know a bit more where this is coming from.
> The text you quote, conveniently doesn't quote Krishnamurti at all.
> It is quite easy to say "so and so proposes this and that" when you
> aren't going to quote so and so to that effect. In short: the article
> you quote is mere gossip. Even if it is put in the mouths of Mahatmas.
>
> > (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
> >
> >
> > 4. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
> >
> > "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.)... -
> That is true. He refuses to be a guru in the definition I gave in the
> beginning here. Which is consistent with what he taught.
> > "Children crying in the night of spiritual darkness, and 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." ???
>
> Now, a an actual mahatma being sad at not being acknowledged...
> Golly, how immature. The mahatmas were not too happy about being
> talked about, as that created a psychological fog, which prevented
> them from working effectively. The real mahatmas were quite glad to
> work in obscurity. So these are clearly fakes.
>
> > If not, why not ?
>
> Psychological dependence.
>
> > The proper word to use in the last above quote would be "spiritual
> Teacher
> > and friend" and
> > not "Guru" because this word is misunderstood by many.
> > (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
>
> Well, Krishnamurti acted as a friend and spiritual teacher to many.
> He just refused to give people psychological comfort (except
> sometimes in personal conversations)
>
> > 5. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
> >
> > "Krishnamurti is endowed with Parsifal-like simplicity. Because he
> has
> > reached a certain state of consciousness and evolution, in his
> modesty he
> > fails to see that others have not reached it likewise. Therefore he
> > prescribes for others what is only suitable for himself." ???
> > If not, why not ?
>
> Your question doesn't make sense to me. Nor does your repeated
> sentence:
> > (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
> make sense to me.
>
> >
> > 6. My view:
> > The result was then, near the years 1929-1938, that a greater
> number of
> > previuos theosophists was (publicly) given NO PATH, NO TEACHER to
> follow,
> > and that the MASTERS was according to Krishnamurti as he said -
> "to me this
> > assumption is based upon an illusion" (Star Bulletin,september1931).
>
> So it was - at that time. You really should study that period a bit.
> The image as given of the Masters by the people around leadbeater and
> besant (and they too, though the worst perversions were by others)
> was nothing like the one we can have now with all the Mahatma Letters
> available.
> The image was perverted. And as Krishamurti wasn't interested in
> helping people create more accurate thought forms (=illusions), he
> simply denied it, instead of going to the trouble of saying: this
> part is true, this part is nonesense, and you really should stress
> that more.
> > I would have been better if Krishnamurti then - at that time -
> would have
> > taught the interested followers, so that they had benefitted from
> his
> > teaching.
>
> Sure - let us tell somebody else: you should have taught this, that
> and the other. If you can't trust a high initiate to make out for
> himself what other people need to learn, than what use is it for such
> an iniate to come among us. It takes a high initiate to teach
> something new. The new is usually not going to be comfortable.
> Krishnamurti's teachings weren't comfortable.
>
> > Some of us can easily benefit from his teaching. But others cannot.
> > And a great number of his followers was prevented progressing.
> So you think.
> > Krishnamurti dissolved to much - and created nothing for the future
> to those
> > who needed it at that moment in time.
>
> So you think. You weren't there. And psychological comfort isn't the
> same as spiritual truth.
>
> > He in fact damaged Theosophy because of that !
>
> I don't agree. Truth can't be damaged. The effect of his teachings on
> the TS adyar has been to focuss it on finding wisdom, instead of
> focussing on phenomena like clairvoyance, etc.
>
> > Annie Besant and especially C. W. Leadbeater also created problems,
> but that
> > is another issue...
>
> It really isn't another issue. He was responding to the situation as
> it was at that time (as you keep reminding me). And the same
> authority bound attitude lived on (and to a large extent lives on) in
> the other theosophical organisations. Besant is in fact the one
> theosophical writer I find before Krishnamurti, who reitterates again
> and again: don't take my word for it, find out for yourself. I give
> merely my point of view. One doesn't find De Purucker for instance
> saying stuff like that. One does, funnily enough find Blavatsky
> saying stuff like that. Cynically I do wonder who was the truer
> student of Blavatsky. The one who took the same attitude as the
> teacher or the one who meticulously threaded out the details in her
> teachings? But this is obviously a digression. You were attacking
> Krishnamurti, I end up defending Besant.
>
> Katinka
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>