Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00092)

On Tue, 9 Apr 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote:

> Date: Tue, 9 Apr 1996 08:22:49 -0500
> From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <theos-l@vnet.net>
> Subject: Re: Misunderstandings re: K, ES
>
> According to M K Ramadoss:
> >
> > This reply is cross-posted to listening-l, where K related matters are
> > discussed. Any respondent on listening-l may like to cross post the
> > message here at  theos-l@vnet.net
>
> 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.
>
	Dear Paul:

	When you break new grounds, there is going to be a lot of
questions asked by a lot of people. If after all the questions, a
viewpoints still stays firm and solid, it only proves its validity and
all of should be thankful to everyone who has taken the time to think and
respond.
	Like participants in theos-l, the participants in listening-l are
very serious, intelligent, thinking good people. More wider circulation
we get to our views, better the chances of some one coming out of the
woodwork with very valuable firsthand information either to support or
dispute any fact or statement. Actually all of us will be beneficiaries
of my cross posting to listening-l. As mentioned by you, I have cross
posted this message of yours. You will get some responses.



> > > so I think it more plausible to conclude that he encouraged her
> > > to maintain the ES and use it as a tool to turn the TS towards
> > > his own teaching.  From what I hear this has been/is being done
> > 	
> > 	This is the first time I hear of this.
>
> 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.
> >
> > 	After K's statement that Truth is a Pathless Land, I have not
> > seen either his claiming any *authority* for himself least of all any
> > *spiritual* authority,
>
> 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.
>
	I would take everything Sloss says with a large grain of salt.
Had she published her book when K was alive, there would have been more
credibility and someone could have even confronted K with Sloss's
statement.


>  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.
>
	I tend to disagree that K acted as if he were the World Teacher
or for that matter any one of any importance. He always maintained he is
just a human being like all of us. While some people may have looked up
to him, that was not his fault. It is the fault of the individual.

> 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.
>
	When ever the subject of Theosophy or Theosophical Society is
mentioned, K is the most well known individual in modern times. When some
fairly new and definitive statements are made in all fairness we should
expect discussion. The expanded group has people with great personal
knowledge and knowledge about K's writings etc. Their input will
definitely be very interesting and useful.

	I am cross posting this message to listening-l.

	....doss

> Cheers
> P
>