Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00834)

Dear Morten,

Your conclusion is accurate that K was not overshadowed all he time between 1925 and 1934.

My provisional pinpointing of the overshadowing is December 28, 1925 till early 1927 with a possible high point at the 1926 Ommen summer gahtering. 

To be more exact, the overshadowings probably happened when he was speaking in public and possibly maybe also when adressing people in private about spiritual matters. And there might have been a fluctuation in intensity during talks with K starting as K, then M moving in and either going 'melded' and synchronized with K, or outright 'taking over' as happened on the very first overshadowing. At the end of the talk all would then be held, as Hodson clairvoyantly observed, in the meditative energy field that was created by the event and which was connected to M's presence. 

Thanks again for pointing out Scott's invaluable contribution to the whole issue.

Regarding the TS official stand on all of this: there is none. There are as many factions as there are views on this (and the term faction might be too strong). At this moment the 'faction' that is pro-K in a somewhat uncritical fashion is the one that is in power at Adyar. This fact will give rise to the idea that, though there is no official stand, there exists an un-official pro-K party-line. There are numerous psychological and historical dynamics that resulted in this present situation and there is nothing that will prevent it from changing over time in either the direction of a more intense Krishnamutification of the TS through a de-esotericised Bhaktic relation to K or its opposite when a more critical, esoteric Jnanic relation will develop. 

My hunch is that the present position will be dominant for quite a while as K is very well regarded in India as its own son and his foundations and schools are seemingly quite succesfull, and that this regard will work its way through the dominant section in the TS, the Indian. Though I do not know what discussions are going on in the Indian section regarding K, my other hunch is that not untill that section is seriously debating Scott's "The Initiate in the Dark Cycle" will there be any chance of an un-official policy change on the K-issue. 

And a clear neutral, agnostic official position by the next PTS will also be helpfull. Any move by the present administration in the direction of throwing the PTS into the lap of an overt Krishnamurtian with a weak grasp of Theosophy, as almost happened with the PTS promoting Prof. Krishna, will have to be opposed and protested by the minority faction which perceives the WT project as a debacle. 

Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 3:51 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World J Krishnamurti Videos on Youtube





  Dear friends and Govert

  My views are:

  Thank you for answering.

  To keep it short.

  Because of what I wrote in my previous mail in this thread, I will conclude, that J. Krishnamurti was not overshadowed all the time in the timeperiod 1925-1934. 

  I do not know much about what happened later in his life, on the overshadowing issue, but I cannot imagine a real World Teacher generating such a low level of impact. Even when he threw all books away, he later on in life had some serious talks with other authors later in his life, some of them he in fact went on the podium with at lectures. David Bohm was one of them. Yet his style of teaching resembles throughout most of his life post 1934, what Cyril Scott's Sir Thomas and JMH called pseudo-Adwaita teachings, which was directed at an audience on his own level, and not to the majority of the audience actually listening. He dissolved too much and was not able to teach beginners on their level, what they nedded.
  And HPB was better at that and she avoided the trap of public-infallibility-image out of time and place.

  Even so his teachings contain som important theosophical lesson, that is apart from his strange self-contradicting Zen-like sentences. - For instance is he saying that he is "Nobody" when asked. And at another place he is suddenly the World Teacher and knows all and everything. And earlier on he said that he was one with his beloved, and would never be shaken in that. And another place he says, that he do not even know about H. P. Blavatsky's teachings! (There are simply to many self-contradicting statements to seriously consider him a World Teacher and Maitreya later in his life.)

  So I agree very much with the view pictured in Cyril Scott's book "The Initiate In The Dark Cycle", p. 13-14, 30-33, and especially p. 56-60. ( http://home1.stofanet.dk/theos-octagon/The%20Initiate%20In%20The%20Dark%20Cycle.pdf )

  - - -

  I wonder what the official TS stance is on this?
  Are selfcontradictions the hallmark of TS teachings on the World Teacher level?

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 8:22 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World J Krishnamurti Videos on Youtube

  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]

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



  

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