Re: Radha Burnier and John Algeo are wrong on Krishnamurti issue
May 24, 2008 04:07 PM
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
> Radha Burnier and John Algeo both have told people that Theosophy
> Krishnamurti's teaching are same. Unfortunately both of them are
> Krishnamurti himself called his teaching diametrically opposite of
> Theosophy. Here is the reference.
> (Ommen 29 Jul 1931) Krishnamurti said
> "Let us find out what you believe. I am afraid this will not be so
> pleasant + What I say is
> diametrically opposite to your beliefs + You [believe] that Truth
> outside all this chaos. I say
> Truth is found through all this alone + You [believe in] a series of
> incarnations [to acquire] more
> and more virtues + You set up an authority + You have created
> sects and creeds + Your
> whole system is based on a desire to preserve your ego ... This is
> what you believe in all its
> forms, crude or subtle + You have metaphysics, philosophies, ideals
> Your beliefs, your craving
> for continuance, your ideas of evolution, progress, paths, karma --
> all these are diametrically
> opposed to what I say. Please see the gravity of this. Do not try to
> compromise these beliefs with
> what I say. "
The Krishnamurti issue is a very complex one and by saying that A and
B are wrong it does not seem to help us to understand it better. This
is an issue that has polarized members of the TS for more than 80
years now. Whenever such polarization occurs some points of view
become imbued with a great deal of emotion that makes people see, in
some cases, what they want to see.
When I visited Australia and New Zealand as a guest speaker in 1994,
I became exposed to the kind of polarization I referred to above. Let
me give you two examples. In New Zealand, while staying in a
theosophical home, I accidentaly came across a piece of paper on
which it was written:
"I pledge to work for the Great White Brotherhood and for their last
Disciple, Geoffrey Hodson."
I was, naturally, quite astonished to read that because it was,
stating it in simple terms, an evidence of the existence of a cult
around Hodson among some members of the TS.
When my lecture tour took me to Australia and eventually to Perth, in
Western Australia, things got slighty, shall we say, much more
intense because the editor of the TS Branch newsletter in that city
published an editorial containing a rabid attack on Krishnamurti and
declaring in it that "Krishnamurti had failed as a soul". Needless to
say he received a number of letters to the editor protesting about
the contents of his editorial. The same opinion was voiced to me, in
a private conversation many years later in Sydney, by a long standing
TS member in Australia.
Now, I don't want to make this into a essay, but would like to put
before you two statements; one from HPB in "The Voice of the
Silelnce", and the other from Krishnamurti in a dialogue that took
place in Varanasi in 1974. Here they are:
The Self of matter and the SELF of Spirit can never meet.
One of the twain must disappear; there is no place for both.
("The Voice of the Silence", I:56)
Where you are, the other is not.
("Within the Mind ? On J. Krishnamurti", KFI, Madras, 1983, p. 13)
In spite of the difference in language, I consider that both HPB and
K are pointing out to the same underlying principle, namely, that as
long as consciousness is centered in the personal, memory-based, time-
bound, sense of self there cannot be the realization of that which
boundless, eternal and uncreated.
I have written an article exploring some similarities between her
teaching and K's and you may see when it is published. If it is not
published I could send you a copy of it.
By the way, although I do not necessarily agree with some of Govert's
views on this issue I think his is a important contribution to the
debate. I may have something more to say whenever time permits.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application