Re: Radha Burnier and John Algeo are wrong on Krishnamurti issue
May 25, 2008 05:51 AM
--- In email@example.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
> I point I was telling is Krishnamurti himself rejected Theosophical
> ideas like evolution, karma, Masters etc. So, I wanted to point out
> that Theosophy and Krishnamurti's views are not same. In fact he
> and again denied similarity between Theosophy and his teaching. He
> urged not to mix these two and not to reconcile these two. Efforts
> current leaders to reconcile Theosophy and K's teaching are not
> approved by K. He did not want them to reconcile. He made that point
> clear again and again.
> If there was a cult around Hodson or not has nothing to do about the
> point I was trying to convey.
My point about Hodson was to try and show that there was - and there
is - great polarisation within the TS on this issue. Also by equating
Theosophy only with its doctrinal aspect we do not do much justice to
its mystical or transcendental dimensions. For example, when HPB says
in "The Key to Theosophy" that Theosophy is synonymous with
Everlasting Truth, do you think she was referring to it as a
teaching? I have read that passage many times and every time I read
it again it seems to me that she is referring to a Wisdom beyond
intellectual formulation - something which is at the very core of
existence. Perhaps Krishnamurti was drawing attention to something
> I am not surprised if followers of Krishnamurti protest against the
> editorial calling Krishnamurti a failed soul.
> I speak what I think is truth. I don't care whether others like that
> truth or they don't like that.
I read the letters which were published in the subsequent edition of
the Lodge newsletter. Most of the people who wrote letters were not
Krishnamurti followers at all. They were TS members who protested at
the editor's extremist point of view. There is a difference between
making a comment or a criticism and attacking someone personally.
> > 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)
> Krishnamurti here again talks vague, without making clear what he
> refers by "you" and "other" It is your imagination that other is
> matter and you is Spirit. K has not clearly said anything about it.
> People try to attach lofty meaning to K's vague utterances.
Please understand that I am not trying to convince you of anything.
But just as an exercise in comparison, consider the statements below
and see if they don't have a degree of resonance with K's statement
"For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will
lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it." (Luke, 9:24)
"All of us have to get rid of our own Ego, the illusory apparent
self, to recognize our true self in a transcendental divine life."
(from the Mahachohan, "Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom", first
"The first object of the T.S. is philanthropy. The true Theosophist
is a philanthropist ? `not for himself but for the world he lives'."
(K.H. in "Letters from the Masters of the Wisdom", first series)
"Let them know at once and remember always, that true Occultism or
Theosophy is the "Great Renunciation of SELF", unconditionally and
absolutely, in thought as in action. It is ALTRUISM, and it throws
him who practises it out of calculation of the ranks of the living
altogether." (HPB in "Practical Occultism")
"My Brother ? I have been on a long journey after supreme knowledge,
I took a long time to rest. Then, upon coming back, I had to give all
my time to duty, and all my thoughts to the Great Problem. It is all
over now: the New Year's festivities are at an end and I am "Self"
once more. But what is Self? Only a passing guest, whose concerns are
all like a mirage of the great desert. . . ."
(K.H. in "Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett")
The word "altruism" has a very interesting etymology. It comes from
the Latin word "alter", 'other'. Therefore, concern for others,
relationship, service, compassion are indeed central to Theosophy as
Divine Wisdom. HPB made this exceedingly clear in "The Voice of the
Silelnce" where she distinguishes the 'Doctrine of the Eye' and
the 'Doctrine of the Heart'.
> > In spite of the difference in language, I consider that both HPB
> > K are pointing out to the same underlying principle, namely, that
> > long as consciousness is centered in the personal, memory-based,
> > bound, sense of self there cannot be the realization of that
> > boundless, eternal and uncreated.
> There are few similarities between Theosophy and Krishnamurti. But
> there are huge differences on other important matters. So calling
> same is wrong. People live and Australia and people live in India.
> Would you say that because of this similarity both Australia and
> are same ?
I am aware of the differences, but as I said above, there are
resonances in core, fundamental princples. I was born in Brazil,
lived in India and now I live in Australia. These three are very
different countries, with different cultures, but I can say this,
based on my own experience: the human landscape is essentially the
same. I could see that very clearly when I attended a cremation in
Adyar around 1992. It was my expectation that because Indians were
quite familiar with ideas like reincarnation and karma that their
attitude towards the death of a loved one would be different. Yet,
the depth of grief and suffering that I saw reminded me of some
funerals I had attended in Brazil. Lord Buddha was absolutely right:
suffering is one of the fundamental truths of life and it pervades
human consciousness as a whole. In India as well as in Australia, I
saw much of the same human reality as I had seen in Brazil: our very
common difficulty in struggling with relationships, losses,
uncertainty and, last but not the least, our own sense of self-
> > 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
> > published I could send you a copy of it.
> You can send me a copy. But I know what similarities you will be
> showing and I already said that there are some similarities. But the
> problem is there are many other big differences. If you want to
> understand this subject well, my suggestion is you concentrate on
> differences between Theosophy and K's teaching. That will tell you
> many things. You may write article telling differences between K's
> teaching and Theosophy.
I could do that but I don't want to steal the limelight from you. :)
(Just kidding.) But before I proceed I need to ask you something.
Have you ever read the (in)famous Ommen pronoucements of August 1925
by Dr Besant, Arundale, Rukmini Devi and several others? If you
haven't I would like to respectfully suggest that you do because I
would like to hear your views on those public pronouncements. They
marked a turning point for Krishnamurti, and some who have examined
that part of the TS history have suggested that the TS as a whole was
fast becoming a cult. (By the way, there are sections of the press in
Australia which still regard the TS as a part of the 'World Teacher
By rejecting all those fantastic, almost hallucinogenic statements, K
forced the TS, both as an organisation as well as a human
collectivity, to look itself in the face. It is true that his actions
were traumatic to the organisation: the Society lost more than 15,000
members in little more than two years, there was enormous bad press
for a number of years. And yet, after the dust settled it continued
its work and attracted many more thousands to the teachings of
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application