Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00089)

At 08:23 AM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>cut<<<<<
>Dear Doss:
>
>I really wish you hadn't done that.  With enough adversaries in
>Theosophical circles to last a manvantara, I don't need
>Krishnamurti-ites demanding that I prove everything I say too.
>
>>>>>cut
>If Radha is a disciple or admirer of K., who ran for the
>presidency on his instructions, wouldn't it be surprising if
>that *weren't* reflected in the direction she took the ES?  My
>only source for this is a post someone made in which this was
>asserted as fact here on theos-l.  Of course with people and
>organizations wrapped in secrecy, the chance of an outsider
>being able to prove anything is next to nil.
>>
>>>>>>cut<<<<< 	
>
>Sometimes actions speak louder than words.  The best source I
>know of regarding this angle on K. is Sloss's Lives in the
>Shadow.  He certainly allowed-- no, acted as if he expected as
>his proper due-- his followers to treat him with great
>deference due a World Teacher.  While explicitly questioning
>such behavior.
>
> and I have also not seen his mentioning *Masters*
>> and least of all *his* intimacy with Masters. Since this is a fairly new
>> revelation to me, can you enlighten me about your source for the above.
>
>Actually, on the subject of the Masters, I cannot enlighten
>you on my source since it was made available to me on a
>confidential basis.  However, perhaps I can find some things
>*in that source* which will confirm what I am saying.  Again,
>back to Radha-- if she is really a Krishnamurti intimate and
>disciple, would she be pontificating about the Masters being
>something *beyond perfected men* about whom it is blasphemy to
>speak in human terms, unless she somehow thought such a view in
>harmony with his (secret) teachings?  What I'm suggesting is
>that K. never really denied his intimacy with Masters as
>completely as it might seem from a superficial reading.
>Moreover, he acted as if he were precisely what/whom Leadbeater
>had proclaimed him to be-- the World Teacher.
>
>Will dig around for details.  Feel free to cross post my
>response, since we've gotten started down this path, but I
>don't wish to engage in debates with an expanded group.
>
>Cheers
>P
>
Pauk:

That was an excellent posting. I think that almost everything you had to say
was absolutely true. Krishnamurti was, as my Late Friend Dr.Augusto Liutti
put it "evasive and dogmatic". He was also extremely arrogant. He clearly
expected everyone to defer to him as if he were the "World Teacher"; One
instance: a person asked him: "Mr. Krishnamurti are you the "World Teacher"?
K's response was in the negative. The same person then asked: "What are you
then"? K responded: "I'm a man who goes around the world teaching". To me
that displays a great deal of contempt for his audience. K denied the
"Masters" in almost absolute terms, but behaved exactly as if he was one.
I think your suppositions about his "arrangement" with Radha are probably
true. But she obviously has her own agenda, and as I've said before "used"
K. to her own benefit.
Sometimes I wonder if K. didn't pull away from the TS becuase he thought he
was even too important for it, at other times I wonder if he wasn't just
plain scared that he couldn't 'PULL IT OFF" and then, after quitting the TS,
he decided to try to do it anyway, and certainly succeeded in avoiding
working for a living. As I've said before it took a lot of guts to do what
he did in 1929(?) but then, his whole life after that may just have been a
fraud. I have never found his writings to be all that profound, just Vedic
rehashes and much disguised theosophy.

alexis