Theos-Talk Archives (February 2011 Message tt00007)

Dear Govert

My views are:

You quoted:
"he was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself had only reached through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces apportioned to him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age. "

The question that come to my mind is whether Krishnamurti really assumed this or just communicated as if people could understand it - and thereby - perhaps deliberately tagetting only a certain audience?
I find that he at least, later in his life it seems to me, that he did not assume it.
However, many beginner seekers lost a lot in the years just after 1929 because of the angle of communication of more or less pseudo-Adwaita teachings he choose. That is what I get out of it all.

When considering Krishnamurti's teachings, I did not find a multi-cultural angle on comparative studying, and not a teachings on the problems with Mind Control (coercive techniques) despite this science was in its infancy already in the 1920-ties, and no importance given on what other teachers of the past have said, no importance given to myths and legends and allegorical thinking - and their capabilities to convey higher levels of knowledge (not after 1929 or so), and no importance given to extra sensory perception and the dangers of meditation, and primary emphasis on the use of a terminology which is dry and which lack words talking to the heart compared talking to the mind. Yet he could be affectionate form time time, as we can see on record film-clips. - But maybe I have not been digging hard enough into his strange formulations?



M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:34 PM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: The Messiah and Pope crutch...and its Descendants- smile


    
  Sadhak asked:

  "Do these folks have a memo to this effect from Maitreya as well?!"

  To which I can answer: Yes, they do!

  See:

  Chapter IX in Through the Eyes of the Masters: Meditations and Portraits (London: Routledge, 1932, 2nd Ed. 1936, 3rd Ed. 1947) by David Anrias [Brian Ross], pp. 65-69. 

  http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/scott_anrias/maitreya_da.html

  You who have studied the horoscope of Krishnamurti know that he is incapable of compromising with the past; also that he was reinforced in his seemingly destructive work by those great Devas of the Air, who, under direction of the Lords of Karma, are helping Man to polarize himself towards spiritual rather than material conquests.
  In order to co-operate more completely with the Devas, Krishnamurti took initiations along their line of evolution. The essential nature of these Devas, used as agents of the Great Law, being perforce impersonal and detached, it came by degrees to influence his whole point of view, making him appear unsympathetic and even inhuman. Furthermore, since he had attained these initiations in the causal body by a positive effort of consciousness, it became all but impossible for him to be used any longer as my medium.

  Every astrological sign has its limitations, and that of the Aquarian is the tendency to become too introspective and self-sufficient, thereby losing contact with other types of men and their lines of development. Thus although Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent thought, he was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself had only reached through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces apportioned to him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sadhak1008 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:10 PM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: The Messiah and Pope crutch...and its Descendants- smile

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >

  > I find it interesting because oriental languages (especially Sanskrit and Tibetan) are far better in revealing subjective expressions - especially philosophical ones according to many who have learned these languages. And the heavy use of western expressions which now fills volumes of volumes on the bookshelves in various so-called theosophical groups - must therefore certainly lack something vital.

  For what it is worth, in the case of Master KH, instructions were given soon after discovery that the boy Krishnamurti must be well versed in English first and foremost, then other languages like French. Sanskrit was deliberately avoided, IMO, precisely because of the enromous amounts of gobbledygook built up over centuries which makes it easy for every street corner teacher to come up with his own translation/interpretation.

  > "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. Better if he had retired from public life to meditate in
  > seclusion, as Arhats did 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 question," he explained; "

  Very happy to learn that the Lord Maitreya himself had given such a detailed explanation about why/how he stopped using Krishnamurti as a 'medium'. Do these folks have a memo to this effect from Maitreya as well?!

  > "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."

  Ah,knew this was coming. It always does. Repudiated all of US. The important US! If only he had not done that, WE would hail him as the pristine World Teacher!

  >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

  So the NEW teaching was already known to these people ( then how was it going to be NEW) and they figured out (by repudiating US) he was not giving the new teaching. Great stuff, this.

  > 58
  > flaw in this pseudo-Advaita which Krishnamurti is giving out,> 

  Sheesh! The least these people could have done before sticking their collective feet in their mouth was to listen to a great Advaita master like Ramana Maharshi. He found the same Krishnamurti teachings to be beyond his expression. Seems for most of these characters in this article, it was way beyond their comprehension.

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



  

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