Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00763)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:


> Radha Burnier and John Algeo both have told people that Theosophy 
and
> Krishnamurti's teaching are same. Unfortunately both of them are 
wrong. 
> 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 
lies
> 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 
worship,
> 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. "


Anand,

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.


Pedro