Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00004)

Hi Morten,

Sorry to say - you aren't going to influence my study habits. 
If what you write doesn't come across clearly, then I and everybody 
else has the right to ask questions and otherwise respond. If you 
first say one thing and then the exact opposite, it is no wonder I 
don't know what you are saying anymore... Some reply in between the 
below anyhow. 

Katinka 
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
theosophy@a...> wrote:
> Hi Katinka and all of you,
> 
> My views are only views:
> You do ask a lot. Allright then...
> Your below email shows to me, that you did'nt quite digest
> the email you responded to. That is my view.
> You could consider this...on more than one level.
-
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...>
> > > So, in answer to 'what to do?', you should get used to
> > > this idea. It is not the materials, the school, the 
individuals, or
> > > anything else, which are confusing, making dissatisfied, or 
causing
> > > uncertainty, but the clash between materials etc. and the
> > > personality which feels itself threathened.
> > > If you learn this, the difficulties disappear. This is because
> > > the secondary peronsality learns that it is no longer in danger 
of
> > > being punished or extinguished.
> > Golly, is it that simple?
> ***
> Well - you know, that you will have to really - learn - it first -
> do'nt you !
> ***
> One insight and all my trouble with
> > learning (say learning math) will disappear? Wow. Wish it were
> > actually true. Even Krishnamurti (who was a great advocate of 
direct
> > insight) did not go as far as you do above.
> ***
> No one said that all your trouble would disappear. 
Katinka:
You literally wrote: "the difficulties dissapear". which sounds to me 
like the same thing as trouble disapears. then you deny anybody (lett 
alone you yourself) said that. weird. 
> But, that the mentioned
> trouble will do so, - if you truely do learn and absorb the above.
> A question arises...
> Was Krishnamurti not against an occult Brotherhood ?
> 
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_
k.html
Katinka:
As to that it is easiest to refer to "the inner life of Krishnamurti" 
by Aryal Sanat who has investigated this issue and comes to the 
following conclusion (from the backflap, hoping that word is English)
"But Krishnamurti (K) was a revolutionary in the deepest sense. For 
over sixty years he publicly eschewed belief systems and 
presuppositions of any sort, including the esoteric principles taught 
by Theosophists.
But privately?
Aryel Sanat's ... meticulous research reveals that, contrary to 
appearances, K's inner life was rich in esoteric happenings. 
Privately, he never denied the existence of perennial "Masters"; nor 
did he deny being a vehicle for the manifestation of the Lord 
Maitreya, or the Christ. In fact, according to K, these inner 
realities were present every day of his natural life and intimately 
related to his work. "

The point of denying it seems mainly to have been that people made it 
concrete, simplified, devoid of "the sacred" or something. And I can 
quite understand it. I mean, look up the word Maitreya on the 
internet and see what you come up with. I dare you to find one quote 
that is deep enough to deserve the title maitreya as its author. The 
same for masters and the term white brotherhood, if you exclude the 
many references to that in the theosophical literature. People have 
been anxious to label their truths with high sounding names, and that 
attitude started even before Krishnamurti was being raised by 
theosophists, I think. Not sure, a historical survey on the spread of 
this terminology might be interesting. Anyhow - people around 
Krishnamurti were more interested in the label and the status 
attached to it, than they were to the message. Those who remember 
some of the stuff being written about that time, will know that the 
whole circus around him was appalling. People weren't even told to 
rely on themselves to know which initiation to take. The whole 
atmosphere was very far removed from the atmosphere one gets from 
reading for instance Damodar, by Sven Eek. (early version of that 
book is online). 

Also, western society wasn't prepared for the flood of guru's that 
has been opened. I mean, by all acounts, in India it was well known 
that not every person personating a guru, was to be relied upon, also 
a tradition of doubt was in place, and people often went from guru to 
guru. This is accepted practice in the Buddhist system as well. Which 
simply means one learns what one can and judges the truth of it for 
oneself. But ultimately the message was identical to the message in 
Light on the Path:
"For within you is the light of the world -- the only light that can 
be shed upon the Path. If you are unable to perceive it within you, 
it is useless to look for it elsewhere. "

Anyhow, why worry about the labels. Why worry about whether or not 
Krishnamurti denied the masters. He either had something important to 
say, or he didn't. In my opinion he did. So did the Mahatmas. Even 
the story Cyril Scott gave here shows that Krishnamurti talked about 
an important truth (or more than one). So what's the issue? They 
disagreed on details... or did they? 
Katinka