Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00066)

Govert writes:
       >Agreeing with the above possibility you then state that "He [[K]]was two people,
but each was aware and acknowledging of the other." I'm curious on what
reasoning or evidence you would base that on. <

       Nothing for sure, just my opinion.  It could be wrong.  Before I got more fully involved with Theosophy I was a member of a group (1975-84) in which the Teacher (Richard Rose, TAT Foundation - RR gone now and no longer any Farm-Ashram) Recommended celibacy to those most serious - so I had good opportunity to witness psychological effects in both myself and others.  Rose said that people sometimes get "dissassociated" from it, splitting themselves in two parts, more or less, the lower not necessarily out of control, but still a significant split.  Maybe it is not even pathological necessarily, and par for the course.  Buddhist monks might have something good to add along these lines.  Rose's definition of celibacy was "no conscious sexual action."  Thanks for the additional information on K.

Cass writes: 
      >Perhaps I am mistaken, but mastering the lower ego is not the same as totally wiping it out, as K seemed to advocate. Examples from the Masters suggest that lower self is subdued while in higher states of consciousness, but returns for day to day activity. Even Gautama under the Buddhi Tree returned. I cannot comprehend living in the now, the every day is a new day approach, would work for me. I think to do so is living a life in denial. My lower self may at times be a pain in the arse but can't imagine living without it.
>Cass

   Nothing I'd basically disagree with here, except that the worse parts of the lower self and one's own personal worse skandhas and tendencies one would aim to "kill off," by kicking them out of the house more or less, but the lower self is definitely "you" and you cannot do without it, but transform it/yourself eventually.

--------------------

>4b. Re: Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
    Posted by: "Govert Schuller" schuller@vNdBoel3nBVeZH1wiRJAT2mxPxyqQkkprTIVClbiTeYfZhD6YF0R2qN5nmCPh8DPh1oJvopCdHWNcscuXG4.yahoo.invalid govert_alpheus
    Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 12:53 pm ((PST))

>Just a little correction on who wrote that K was "schizophrenic" and why. It
is Annie Besant's biographer Arthur Nethercot who saw K as "a sort of
schizophrenic," but tempers that a little by saying "or at least a man of a
now permanently divided dual personality." He wrote this in 1963 unaware of
the K-Rosalind affair and was actually referring to the fact that K had
gotten almost complete control over his mind and could dissociate himself
from his troublesome past of becoming radically independent of the people he
was initially  very dependent upon. Santuccii's assessment of K's character
was that he was trapped by the high expectations of the TS, his followers
and "even his own teachings," forcing him to lead a double life with a
public persona at odds with his private persona. 

>Agreeing with the above possibility you then state that "He was two people,
but each was aware and acknowledging of the other." I'm curious on what
reasoning or evidence you would base that on. 

>My own assessment at this moment is that K knew perfectly well what he was
doing and that his different personae (masks) were directed by one non-dual
personality, which kept his different roles relatively compartmented. In
this view K will have to be held accountable for his intentional deceptions
and manipulations and not let off the hook because of some aberrant mental
state. On the other side his flawed character was not an impediment for him
to go into very high states of bliss and inspired talks. It is possible to
see that at certain moments K acted quite ego-less, but that in different
settings his ego got temporarily re-constituted when contradictory desires
and their related fears kicked in and he was self-consciously aware of
particular choices and dilemmas. 

>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: theos-talk Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations

>Comments below Govert & Cass quotes:

>K's friend and discussion partner David Bohm was indeed dismayed about that
when he found out [[about K's long-term romance]].... 
>It's an open question whether K was hypocritical in this regard. He did not
openly advocate celibacy, but rather questioned the way the ego makes sex
into something problematic. Privately he apparently advocated celibacy as a
condition to intensify one's energy in order to transform.... [Govert] 

>I disagree, I believe their teachings are very much related in terms of
lower manas. JK's teachings, i.e. beyond the lower manas can be fraught with
psychological dangers for those who are not mentally prepared, i.e. if one
totally removes or suppresses lower manas one could be left in a
psychological abyss without the comfort and security of the "I". IMO, K's
path (Advaita based) i.e. living in the now or living without memory could
lead to mental instability. I imagine his dilemma or cross was that in order
to remain true to his own path he was in constant conflict with it. His
path, is the path of one - not many, yet he wrote for the many.
>Cass
--------------
>James Santucci in his "Theosophical History," vol. 3, nos. 7-8 long Review
of "Lives in the Shadow" calls Krishnamurti a "Schizophrenic" because of
this love-affair in distinction to K's apparent public stance. I think it
definitely is a split in the wholeness of the personality, but not so severe
as schizophrenia or multiple personality. He was two people, but each was
aware and acknowledging of the other. I think such a thing happens endlessly
in hidden occult history. An aspirant believes in asceticism, and never
changes his belief, but admits (or doesn't admit) he is not strong enough,
and a split in psychological integrity results. Why is this? One might say
it is the skandhas one is born with - which is what you really are as an
individual - and the spiritual path is changing these skandhas from the
lower to the higher. If the higher mind is strong, and also the lower
skandhas too strong to "kill" off with integrity, then a split results as
the person aspires for his self-styled chelahood. One can get into a
"psychological abyss without the comfort and security of the 'I'", by
splitting off this lower part and trying to just live in the higher parts
which one intellectually approves of - because by some mysterious means
acknowledging this lower part is the key to one's inner self, one's
"subconscious," and contact with one's own source, and the only genuine
sanity. Blavatsky says somewhere to be "true to oneself," and one's
individuality or the "self" to be true to, is 90% this lower self we are
un-self-conscious of (or not really "lower" always, but deeper and unknown,
perhaps the "buddhi", the antaskarana) which we have accumulated and
developed over the last unmpteen-million years.
>- jake j. 

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

________________________________________________________________________
4c. Re: Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
    Posted by: "Cass Silva" silva_cass@OPob-yQiqdtirDydFsHbvIDIGZ6uv1S6P-X1z2DaGBx-q4oQ0BvS3Q0lhfmiZaz4zU7G6JyvzM8nZJis.yahoo.invalid silva_cass
    Date: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:16 pm ((PST))

>Perhaps I am mistaken, but mastering the lower ego is not the same as totally wiping it out, as K seemed to advocate. Examples from the Masters suggest that lower self is subdued while in higher states of consciousness, but returns for day to day activity. Even Gautama under the Buddhi Tree returned. I cannot comprehend living in the now, the every day is a new day approach, would work for me. I think to do so is living a life in denial. My lower self may at times be a pain in the arse but can't imagine living without it.
>Cass
------------------------

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