Krishnamurti, Theosophy, and the Esoteric
- Here is an interesting post from another maillist.
When I read the post I was reminded of Gauthama Buddha's answer when asked
about how the universe was created.
In dealing with theosophy, you have various beliefs -- those who espouse
the "hidden" objectives, and those who believe in the overriding importance
of the psychic techniques and practices over the main thrust why theosophy
was presented to the world in 1875 in addition to the belief in the
practice of the hierarchical systems operating in a democratic environment
it is time to ponder and examine why one sees a lack of vitality seen in
the early days.
Time to think!!!
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 04:10:55 -0400
From: Somendra Pant <pants@...>
Subject: Krishnamurti, Theosophy, and the Esoteric
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
A few years before his death (in 1984), a colleague at Rishi Valley asked K
about all that has been written about him and his various experiences in
various books on him. He did not deny any of that (his various
"experiences", Lord Maitreya, etc.) but merely said: "Madam, that is not
important." That statement is consistent with what he said on other
occasions to others as well.
Mary Lutyens books were written with K's own approval, as was Pupul
Jayakar's. Excepting the very last of the Lutyens books, all others were in
print before Krishnamurti died and he did not discount or deny any of the
material written about him.
Even in his discussions with physicist Bohm, he alludes to an after-life,
"the stream" that goes on after the physical death of a person (Richard was
kind enough to provide references).
So, it may not be accurate to classify what Krishnamurti said as his
"Theosphy" and "post-Theosophy" days. Post-theosophy Krishnamurti /did not/
deny the occurrence of all that happened in his Thosophy period. All that
he said was: "that is not important." [A]
Another thing that can be accurately said about "post-Theosophy"
Krishnamurti is that he should not be taken as an authority and merely
following him (as those who did in his "Order of the Star" odyssey) will
not "set people free." [B]
This break from Krishnamurti's "Theosophy" days is very clearly recorded in
his "Truth is a Pathless Land", the spirit of which he echoed for the next
many decades, right up to his death. For example, when I asked him what he
meant by "observer is the observed", his reply was: "find out".
Other than [A] and [B], all other conjectures about what "Theosophisy" and
"Post-Theosophy" Krishnamurti are just that: conjectures.
Did Pupul Jayakar and Mary Lutyens bring their own biases and conditioning
to the book? In terms of their writing style, sure. As far as facts
narrated in those books (excepting the last of the Lutyen book that was
published after K's death), Krishnamurti was not only aware of what was
written, he approved the publication thereof.
Someone may not agree with what is written in those books: but that is an
all together different matter.
Hope this post helps in the largely conjectural debate that we saw on this
forum recently (and one that keeps cropping up here from time to time)
about what about K is authentic and what is not.
Thanks for reading it.