Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00829)

Dear Morten,

My apologies again for being 'sort of absent.' 

I'll try to make up and keep it short.

Four questions and answers are here the issue. I'll try to add provisional statements to the discussion based on my memory as detailed investigations still have to be undertaken. 

Q1&2: What were the fruits of the overshadowing?

A1&2: Profound and simple teachings on wisdom and life.

M1&2: Three or four problematic fruits: a) K's contradictions on Master-Chela relationship, b) conflict between CWL/AB neo-theosophy and K's self-reliance, c) K's contradictions on the value of books, and d) K's contradictions on belonging to a religion.

G1&2: The fruits you mentioned are not problematic in and by themselves, only when you compare them with his later teachings. Remember, the question was about the fruits of the overshadowing, not the problems one runs into when they are compared with later statements. 

=============

Q3: Was the WT project a complete failure? 

A3: Depends on one's metaphysical criteria. 

M3: Three possible interpretations of failure: a) It was a failure as all 'saviors in the flesh' are failures, b) not complete failure as some did learn something from it, c) failure as depicted by Cyril Scott: K's teachings might work for the initiated, but not for beginners (HPB is better at that).

G3: I'm pretty much with Scott here. Reminds me again of Jinarajadasa's observation during a South-America tour in the early 1930s, that when K would speak to an audience without any Theosophical introduction, most of what he said seemed to go straight over the audience's head, but if he would speak after some Theosophical basics were first explained, the audience would have a better foundation to understand him. (Research will have to be done about these groupings of Theosophy-Krishnamurti lectures. My questions would be if K was present at the introductory lectures and if he implicitly referred to them in his own talks and at what comparative level of intensity his Theosophy-bashing would be.)

==============

Q4: What were K's post-1934 teachings?

A4: K developed an "existential, non-esoteric teaching of liberation," which was mystical and not occult. Occult phenomena were not absent in his life, merely downplayed, even declared unimportant together with their possible explanations.

M4: K taught some important things, like the limitations of organizations, but that was not really new. 

G4: K taught a lot of important things, but these will have to be critically evaluated from within well-founded esoteric and philosophical frameworks of understanding. Issues here would be a) the structure and dynamics of the lower self, b) the logic of means and ends, especially related to the process of enlightenment, c) becoming a non-conflicted individual helping to solve humanity's problems, d) the art of listening and meditation and e) the nature of thought. 

A key component in this endeavour would be a basic understanding of phenomenology, but in the absence of Theosophists with such understanding to dialogue with, and my own still limited capacity to make an effective case on its behalf, this will unfortunately have to wait. 

Govert

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