Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00684)

Dear Anand, 

The fact that there are people not understanding K does not mean there isn't anything understandable. The deficiency, if I may say so, is their capacity to understand, not necessarily K's capacity to explain, though he might have done a better job. 

K's statement at the end of his life that nobody understood him has to be interpreted as conveying his (incorrect) observation that nobody understood him well enough to pass through his proposed revolution in consciousness. Plenty of people understood him intellectually, or sufficient enough to do some experimenting in the laboratory of their own consciousness. 

(I say 'incorrect' as I do belief that the recently passed away Indian teacher Vimala Thakar did go through K's revolution, but K dismissed her as her interpretation of how she did so would fundamentally challenge K's non-guru-guru status as she made very clear that he was somehow involved in her transformational event.)

I do agree that the K-foundations went overboard in publishing his teachings, evenwhile dragging their feet with publishing K's early complete works.

K's influence might be such that out of the wreckage of our present globalized Greco-Judeo-Christian cicvilization a new one will arise--in the same way that ours came out of the Greco-Roman civilization--and it will be based on the complex conglomerate of K's teachings, history, echoing charisma and emerging schools and communities around them. These communities probably will have the wherewithall to survive the next cycle in the Kali Yuga, the post-globalistic dark ages. Theosophists might find themselves as surviving 'Gnostics,' and depending on their view of K will be tolerated, or not, by the new civilization. Other esoteric groups, like the Ascended Master groups, will have to go underground as I would not trust any purist Krishnamurtian with politico-theological power. 

The alternative is still the spread of Theosophy and their extension in Ascended Master teachings as the only hope and vehicle to replace the current dominant minority of the global power elite with a new creative avant-garde of lightbearers and esotericists of diverse stripes. We have till the end of this century, which is not very long, as I understood the following from HPB:

"Error, in every shape, encircles mankind, trying to smother in her deadly coils every aspiration towards truth and light. But Error is powerful only on the surface, prevented as she is by Occult Nature from going any deeper; for the same Occult Nature encircles the whole globe, in every direction, leaving not even the darkest corner unvisited. And, whether by phenomenon or miracle, by spirit-hook or bishop's crook, Occultism must win the day, before the present era reaches "®ani's (Saturn's) triple septenary" of the Western Cycle in Europe, in other words-before the end of the twenty-first century "A.D." "


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 1:28 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World J. Krishnamurti's RAMBLING


  Dear Govert,
  It is a well known fact that J. Krishnamurti's teaching is not understood by many. Ever since he started teaching independently, there were large number of people who admitted they don't understand what he says. 
  J. Krishnamurti before dying said that not one person understood his teaching. So if you are claiming you understand his teaching, perhaps it could be wrong. 
  After listening to JK many people went to Annie Besant and said they did not understand JK's teaching. Annie's advised them just to listen (I think she expected improvement in K's teaching later). I can write long essay from my experiences with people how people did not understand K's teaching and how many of them admitted they did not understand.
  There are some statements of K which are very clear about his rejection of Masters, path, evolution, spiritual organizations and rejection of learning from books. And I commented on that. 
  But there are many speeches of JK which are simply ramblings. In fact I never came across a person who could give me as many points from JK's teaching which could justify filling of 80 books, that are being printed by Krishnamurti Foundation. As this is very important point, I am writing again.
  I NEVER CAME ACROSS A PERSON WHO COULD GIVE ME AS MANY POINTS FROM JK'S TEACHING WHICH COULD JUSTIFY FILLING OF 80 BOOKS. 
  I found that Krishnamurti foundation spends much on advertizing. I saw advertisements of JK's books so many times on internet. That makes me think whether JK's influence is because of great marketing skill or because of the merit of his teaching. He, of course, has great advantage in marketing because TS called him World Teacher, The Christ.
  Best
  Anand Gholap

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
  >
  > Not so, Anand. Formwise his speeches are well crafted as K developed his skill over many, many years. He knew how to make his points most of the time in a quite lucid way and actually passed on some, as Hodson also observed, 'flashes of transcendental insights.' 
  > 
  > There are only rare passages where I found that his talks fell apart in what could be called a 'rambling,' especially when he leaves his discourse on psychology and meditation and tries his hand at more strictly philosophical themes like when he equates thought with matter or tries to develop an epistemology. To me it's clear that, fortunately or not, he had no training at that level and didn't have a clear sense of the boundery between the field where he could exert some authority and where he was on thin ice.
  > 
  > Imo K was trained in both inner and outer levels to be the WT and that project could only be pulled off if he had build up throughout his past lives a tacit, innate capacity to speak to large crowds. He did so from an early age and gained more precision and lucidity along the way. So, K's highly developed skill to expound on complicated spiritual matters is for me another indication that the WT project was genuine. 
  > 
  > Now, contentwise it's a whole different matter as I do not agree with most of his assumptions and the elaborate explications of them. I know you don't agree with him either, but it looks that you might be confusing perceived un-truths with ramblings. If they were really ramblings than that would imply there wouldn't be anything to agree or disagree with as one could not even understand K's discourse in the first place. And that's certainly not the case. 
  > 
  > BTW, calling K a satanist is not really helping the cause of a carefull Theosophical deconstruction of K's life and teachings either. Au contraire, you're muddying the discussion with an unsupported and unsuportable slander. Not helpful, nor very Theosophical. We're here to help each other sort out the truth, not to pronounce anathemas. 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: Anand 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:55 AM
  > Subject: Theos-World J. Krishnamurti's RAMBLING
  > 
  > 
  > Precise word for J. Krishnamurti's speeches is RAMBLING. 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



  

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