Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00098)

I think that some of those in K's list may be interested in the following
msg. Hence I am cross posting it to listening-l.

        ....doss


At 01:47 PM 4/9/96 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>
>