Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00192)

Dear Govert

My views are:

The project was I perceive it was from the beginning a failure. The Law of Karma was and is real - even when it comes to wishful thinking.

A perfect Avatar would as I understand it NEVER allow it self to be chosen by C. W. Leadbeater who three years earlier was thrown out of the Masters more or less literal conerstone ( the Theosophical Society) for wisdom teachings of the the future - because of admitted immoral phaedophile behaviour or similar. Something like that would never happen in this cycle.

Yet, After some years in the 1920'ties as far as my own "readings" go, someone or "something" appeared a few times and in part overshadowed or sought to overshadow J. Krishnamurti. This appearence was quite extraordinary, and happended only for karmic reasons seeking to protect the theosophical teachings of all ages past - the organisation chosen - more or less litterally - as the cornerstone for the wisdom teachings.  In my own "readings" I count at least two or three occasions. At other times I bet that another kind of "overshadowing" was at play. But that is my view and my own "readings" in the layers of time.

Seeking to protect dis-organising would never be the Avatars teaching in that cycle.

Let us remember that W. Q. Judge called Annie Besants project, one directed by Dugpas.
W. Q. Judge was as we know a member who was original member and a genuine initiated and who meet the Masters. I am saying this with the view, that he also had some shortcomings. W. Q. Judge and some of his friends did a good job promoting theosophy in USA. No doubt there! - The idea of his succesion was and is a problem until this day. Using our sound reasonings, we will have to understand and agree upon, that Esoterical teachings not - necessarily operate through the idea of succession - immediately after a given teachers death.

If you ask me, J. Krishnamurtis helpers of a high level were not many as far as his proclaimed apostles are concerned. They never did much. Although Ernest Wood was a good man in many repsects. G. Hodson was very young back then in the 1920'ties and had later to crawl himself away and out of the cluthes of it all. Something he never really did quite succeed with.
Yet he succeded at least in part to promote theosophy, for instance through his litterary outputs.

Remember these are just my views.

Yet I agree entirely with the below words by Cyril Scott.
And I think you also do so to a high degree. And I am happy for that.

***********************************

Here is the quote from Cyril Scotts book where Sir Thomas is given the word:
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html

Here it is:
"
That Lunch was a memorable occasion. There were only four of us present-Sir Thomas, J.M.H., myself and one of the other men. The latter was a few minutes late, and came in when the rest of us were already seated. In his hand was Krishnamurti's Star Bulletin. He opened it, then handed it to Sir Thomas, indicating a certain passage. The old gentleman read it, vouchsafed no comment, beyond his usual non-committal "Tut, tut..." and passed it on to J.M.H., who glanced at it, smiled significantly at Sir Thomas, then put it aside. But I was not going to let such an opportunity slip. At last I might be in the position to hear something really authoritative on the vexed question of Krishnamurti.

"The Star Bulletin. ... I take it myself. But as you see" I added, smiling, "I still believe in Masters."

"I'm glad somebody does," Sir Thomas remarked with good-natured irony; "dear, dear, if Krishnamurti's ideas were universally 

 

135

accepted, some of us might as well take our departure to other planets."

I instantly pricked up my ears and glanced at J.M.H., who only said in an undertone: "Many a true word--'' leaving me mentally to complete the saying.

"Then I take it, Sir Thomas," I ventured to ask, "you don't altogether approve of Krishnamurti's methods?"

"Unfortunately he has no proper methods since he took the Arhat initiation, and ceased to be the medium for the Lord Maitreya.(1)  Better if he had retired from public life to meditate in seclusion, as Arhats did in bygone days."



"I'm a bit hazy about that Arhat initiation," I whispered to the man beside me.

"It's the one in which the Master withdraws all guidance from His pupil, who may have to negotiate the most difficult problems without being allowed to ask any questions." he

1 The Lord Maitreya is He who, every two thousand years, fulfils his office of World-Teacher by overshadowing a specially prepared medium in order to give forth a new Teaching suitable for the future development of mankind. The last time, two thousand years ago, Jesus became His medium and yielded himself up for the purpose at the age of thirty. A similar destiny was anticipated for Krishnamurti. 

136

explained; "he has to rely entirely on his own judgment, and if he makes mistakes, must bear the consequences."

"And so what did Krishnamurti do!" my host interpolated, obviously having heard. "Like the proverbial manservant who knows he's about to be given notice, he gave notice first. In other words, he cut himself adrift from the White Lodge, and repudiated all of us."

"And unfortunately," J. M. H, added, "he induced others far below him in spiritual evolution to do likewise. Also instead of giving forth the new Teaching so badly needed, he escaped from the responsibilities of his office as prophet and teacher by reverting to a past incarnation, and an ancient philosophy of his own race with which you are familiar, but which is useless for the Western World in the present Cycle."

"Then we were right!" I exclaimed. "It Is Advaita he is teaching?"

He nodded.

"But those to whom he speaks think they are receiving a new message, and as such it carries undue weight." Sir Thomas contributed. "The message he should have 

137

delivered, he has failed to deliver--or only partly delivered. Nothing about Art--no plans for the new sub-race--educational schemes dropped--and in place of all this: Advaita, a philosophy for chelas, and one of the most easily misunderstood paths to liberation."

"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.


http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
***********************************



And I will galdly challenge any J. Krishnamurtian to show us by examination and examples, where Sir Thomas perhaps was missing the target.

So far we only hear, that one is not allowed to criticize a teaching leading people unto a pathless path of a most often disasterous highway.



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 6:15 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World New Krishnamurti Blog


   

  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]