[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel

Jan 06, 2012 04:31 PM
by M. Sufilight

Dear Govert and friends

My views are:

Yes. I tend to agree with most of what you wrote.

Govert wrote:
"So far I am not aware of anybody claiming to have seen K read HPB, which doesn't
mean he didn't. "

Neither am I. I am however quite sure about that he was presented with Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine and read a some pages of it, only some as far as I can tell, (I think it was Ernest Wood, who slipped it into his hand. - By my readings of the Akasha might be wrong, as usually. Smile. -Maybe a few letters or notes can be found on this - either among Ernest Woods papers or one of his closer friends at Adyar. But I am not sure, so take it with a grian of salt.) But I will also add, that it seems strange if he did not read some of it or was not aware of some of HPB's teachings -  at any time in his life when he wrote or said - the following words, which you also have seen before, at least some of the readers have:

"I never said: I am the World Teacher; but now that I feel I am one with my
Beloved, I say it."
Talk by Krishnamurti, August 2, 1927, quoted in Lutyens, p. 250.

Krishnamurti wrote in 1927:
"I know my destiny and my work. I know with certainty and knowledge of my own,
that I am blending into the consciousness of the one Teacher and that He will completely fill me."
Letter from Krishnamurti to Leadbeater February 9, 1927, quoted in Lutyens,
Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening, p. 241.

J. Krishnamurti said:
"I know that which I am; I know my purpose in life because I am 
Life itself without name, without limitation. And because I am Life I 
would urge you to worship that Life, not in this form that is 
Krishnamurti but the Life which dwells in each one of you. Put aside 
all the paraphernalia of beliefs, religions and ceremonies, and you 
will find the Truth."
(The seventh International Camp of the Order of the Star held at Ommen, Holland, August 6th, 1928)

"KRISHNAMURTI: Friend, who do you think I am? If I say I am the Christ, you will create another authority. If I say I am not, you will also create another authority. Do you think that Truth has anything to do with what you think I am? You are not concerned with the Truth, but you are concerned with the vessel that contains the Truth. You do not want to drink the waters, but you want to find out who fashioned the vessel which contains the waters. Friend, if I say to you that I am, and another says to you that I am not the Christ -where will you be? Put aside the label, for that has no value. Drink the water, if the water is clean. I say to you that I have that clean water; I have the balm that shall purify, that shall heal greatly; and you ask me: Who are you? I AM ALL THINGS, BECAUSE I AM LIFE."

And add this quote...

The clairvoyant theosophists Geoffrey Hodson said:
"These phenomena occurred during some few successive years, the events being
so marked that Krishnamurti himself thereafter changed the Objects of the Order
of the Star in the East from, in effect, "To prepare for the coming of the Lord" to
"To serve the World Teacher now that He is in our midst." I, myself, more than once
heard Krishnamurti affirm that the great Teacher was now here and that the "Coming"
had actually occurred."
(I have never seen a copy of these phamplets. A scanned copy online of bothe versions could be important to some seekers. They must be floating around somewhere.)

But maybe J. Krishnamurti later forgot og wanted to forget it all - and therefore was not an Arhat any longer - and .- therefore did not teach with a clear knowledge about the Law of Karma and its cycles with regard to his own role in the Theosophical Society and how people viewed him, when he lectured?

You cannot as far as I know - avoid being aware of the karmic cyles of the Theosophical Society - if you are lecturing on a high level of consciousness.
So maybe J. Krishnamurti, after all, just was an average philosopher. Like Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Alice A. Bailey, Guy Ballard, Claire Prophet etc. etc. I know that some persons have difficulties in seeing J. Krishnamurti creating a far greater impact than these persons in his life, even if it was comparatively long. - And since people know other persons on their fruits - I think this aught to be taken into account.


Krishnamurti's Notebook by Jiddu Krishnamurti

In June 1961 Krishnamurti began to keep a daily record of his perceptions and states of consciousness. Apart from about fourteen days he kept up this record for seven months. He wrote clearly, in pencil, and with virtually no erasures. The record starts abruptly and ends abruptly. Krishnamurti himself cannot say what prompted him to begin it. He had never kept such a record before, nor has he kept one since.
Krishnamurti's Notebook - Krishnamurti books online

Let each do their own math on the issue. 
All the above are just my views and what I offer at the momnet. I might be in error.
Today I find that J. Krishnamurti perhaps was one of the theosophists in the past who did most to make people aware of the problematic issues of sectarianism versus non-sectarianism.
It is however to be quite sad that he emphasised it in the manner he did - not seeming to be deeply aware of the science (not belief) of Subtle Mind Control within the science of Psychology.

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Govert Schuller 
  Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 9:27 PM
  Subject: RE: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel

  For several reasons it is very hard to assess the truth of K's statements
  about his own past. First, he claims to have forgotten much, if not most, of
  his pre-1929 life. So, if he makes a statement in 1932 about his formative
  years, such statements cannot be taken at face value. His statement that he
  didn't read anything by Blavatsky is not therefore necessarily true.
  Secondly, some of his friends and acquaintances are on record with their
  observations that K was actually perfectly capable of remembering his past.
  Therefore his statement that he didn't read anything by Blavatsky is not
  necessarily false either. Thirdly, K sometimes uses something particular
  from his own past to bolster a deeper thought, but whether his memory is
  true or not is not relevant to the possible truth of the deeper idea. In
  this case, whether he read HPB or not, is not relevant to his idea that one
  could live an enlightened life without Theosophy. The prudent way to find
  out if K ever read HPB would be to look for other person's testimony. So far
  I am not aware of anybody claiming to have seen K read HPB, which doesn't
  mean he didn't. The more important point is how much K's pre-1929 worldview
  was Theosophical. K claims that as a boy his mind was vacant and that no
  Theosophical or other ideas 'stuck' with him. But reading his early works it
  is quite clear that he was eloquently and enthusiastically expressing a
  whole slew of Theosophical ideas. Again, K is not a reliable guide to his
  own past. I think that all K's statements regarding his past have to be
  carefully contextualized and checked against the record, if possible, and if
  no record exists, then the truth-value of his statements have to be regarded
  as problematic. 

  From: [] On
  Behalf Of M. Sufilight
  Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:02 AM
  Subject: Re: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel

  Dear PB and friends

  My views are:

  J. Krishnamurti said that he never read Blavatsky's teachings in 1934 in the
  below article. And in fact he said that he was ignorant.


  Try the below article, where I have quoted a few excerpts...
  id=4435&w=Blavatsky> &chid=4435&w=Blavatsky

  Verbatim Reports of Talks and Answers to Questions by Krishnamurti Auckland,
  New Zealand 1934
  Talk to Theosophists, Auckland

  J. Krishnamurti answered the Questioner about H. P. Blavatsky:

  "Questioner: What is your attitude to the early teachings of Theosophy, the
  Blavatsky type? Do you consider we have deteriorated or advanced?
  Krishnamurti: I am afraid I do not know, because I do not know what Madame
  Blavatsky' s teachings are. Why should I? Why should you know of someone
  else's teachings? You know, there is only one truth, and therefore there is
  only one way, which is not distant from the truth; there is only one method
  to that truth, because the means are not distinct from the end.

  Now you who have studied Madame Blavatsky' s and the latest Theosophy, or
  whatever it is, why do you want to be students of books instead of students
  of life? Why do you set up leaders and ask whose teachings are better? Don't
  you see? Please, I am not being harsh, or anything of that kind. Don't you
  see? You are Christians; find out what is true and false in Christianity -
  and you will then find out what is true. Find out what is true and false in
  your environment with all its oppressions and cruelties, and then you will
  find out what is true. Why do you want philosophies? Because life is an ugly
  thing, and you hope to run away from it through philosophy. Life is so
  empty, dull, stupid, ignominious, and you want something to bring
  romanticism into your world, some hope, some lingering, haunting feeling;
  whereas, if you really faced the world as it is, and tackled it, you would
  find it something much more, infinitely greater than any philosophy, greater
  than any book in the world, greater than any teaching or greater than any

  We have really lost all sense of feeling, feeling for the oppressed, and
  feeling for the oppressor. You only feel when you are oppressed. So
  gradually we have intellectually explained away all our feelings, our
  sensitiveness, our delicate perceptions, until we are absolutely shallow;
  and to fill that shallowness, to enrich ourselves, we study books. I read
  all kinds of books, but never philosophies, thank goodness. You know, I have
  a kind of shrinking feeling - please, I put it mildly - when you say, ``I am
  a student of philosophy,'' a student of this, or that; never of everyday
  action, never really understanding things as they are. I assure you, for
  your happiness, for your own understanding, for the discovery of that
  eternal thing, you must really live; then you will find something which no
  word, no picture, no philosophy, no teacher can give."

  <--- and also earlier in the article the following --->

  "Questioner: If a person finds the Theosophical Society a channel through
  which he can express himself and be of service, why should he leave the

  Krishnamurti: First of all, let us find out if it is so. Don't say why he
  should or should not leave; let us go into the matter.

  What do you mean by a channel through which he can express himself? Don't
  you express yourself through business, through marriage? Do you or don't you
  express yourself when you are working every day for your livelihood, when
  you are bringing up children? And as it shows that you do not express
  yourself there, you want a society in which to express yourself. Is that not
  it? Please, I hope I am not giving some subtle meaning to all this. So you
  say, ``As I am not expressing myself in the world of action, in the everyday
  world, where it is impossible to express myself, therefore I use the Society
  to express myself.'' Is it so, or not? I mean, as far as I understand the

  How do you express yourself? Now, as it is, at the expense of others. When
  you talk about self-expression, it must be at the expense of others. Please,
  there is true expression, with which we will deal presently, but this idea
  of self-expression indicates that you have something to give, and therefore
  the Society must be created for your use. First of all, have you something
  to give? A painter, or a musician, or an engineer, or any of these fellows,
  if he is really creative, does not talk about self-expression; he is
  expressing it all the time; he is at it in the outside world, at home, or in
  a club. He does not want a particular society so that he can use that
  society for his self-expression. So when you say ``self-expression,'' you do
  not mean that you are using the Society for giving forth to the world a
  particular knowledge or something which you have. If you have something, you
  give it. You are not conscious of it. A flower is not conscious of its
  beauty. Its loveliness is ever present."

  - - -

  So I find it safe to conclude that J. Krishnamurti was not a Theosophist.
  Comparative studying was apperently not something he would recommend.


  Try also this are interested in the truth about the matter.

  J. Krishnamurti, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society by Radha Burnier
  (The Theosophist - 2005)
  (I disagree with her to a certain extend, and have written about it here on
  Theos-talk in 2009 -
  - Perhaps especially.....Theosophist Magazine September 1932-December 1932,
  p. 378-379 ---- That is why I tend to recommend - comparative studying of
  the Science of Psychology - and especially the psychological Science of
  Subtle Mind Control become a new Object of the Theosophical Society added to
  the comparative study object of the TS constitution. Preferably the -
  original - one.)

  As Blavatsky said with regard to the ORIGINAL PROGRAME of THE THEOSOPHICAL
  "Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way of
  thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the same
  magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual
  development and progress in Theosophical thought may be best achieved.
  "Self-culture" is for isolated Hatha Yogis [OR GURU's ARE A "CRUTCH"
  FOLLOWERS; M. Sufilight], independent of any Society and having to avoid
  association with human beings; and this is a triply distilled SELFISHNESS."

  To follow Krishnamurti's use of words a little...
  Loveliness is ever present in a Flower even if you do not see it.
  Even when you are igorant or clouded in your consciousness to the fact.
  The same with all other things. Loveliness all around you.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: paulobaptista_v 
  To: <> 
  Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:25 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel

  I have a couple of questions about Krishnamurti and Heindel that I would
  like to ask:

  1-I have read a biography about K written by Mary Lutyens. I don´t recall
  her mentioning Blavatsky. The question here is: did K ever read Isis, the
  SD, the "Key" or the "Voice of Silence"? Was he familiar with the history or
  with the literary output of the TS between 1875 and 1891?
  Could he have been traumatized with the "Avatar" novel to a point where he
  rejected those writings, without having the full knowledge of them?

  2-I have some of Max Heindel books, for example "The rosicrucian
  cosmo-conception", but never had the time to read them. I know that Heindel
  praised Blatavsky's work (but so did Alice Bailey) 
  I very much agree with the criticisms that Cleather and Crump made to
  Bailey's work, it certainly appears to exist a strong interference of
  christianity in her work and there are many differences in comparison with
  the teachings of HPB/Masters. What I ask is if we can establish some sort of
  parallel with Heindel's books, because in them we detect a very strong
  emphasis in that sort of language we usually find in the Christian World.
  For instance, Annet Rich, by Heindel's request, wrote a book called "Christ
  or Buddha?" where in the introduction she says that the most advanced
  religion is Christianity, the "most sublime form of worship".


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

  No virus found in this message.
  Checked by AVG -
  Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4724 - Release Date: 01/05/12

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


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

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application