Re: theos-talk Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
Jan 12, 2012 05:16 PM
by Cass Silva
Perhaps I am mistaken, but mastering the lower ego is not the same as totally wiping it out, as K seemed to advocate. ÂExamples from the Masters suggest that lower self is subdued while in higher states of consciousness, but returns for day to day activity. ÂEven 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. Â I think to do so is living a life in denial. ÂMy lower self may at times be a pain in the arse but can't imagine living without it.
> From: Mark Jaqua <hozro@lpvZU-nkw-ZLA12iOYWaaU6N8FCOKMc6926vZhDa6M_kx2Hq-j6lq3GMzLi4OsEsJThEEIiG-Rg6DJs.yahoo.invalid>
>Sent: Friday, 13 January 2012 3:04 AM
>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.
>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]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application