Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00156)

In response to the two replies to my post about Krishnamurti
and the Esoteric Section:

Attitudes are habitual mental patterns, ways of interpreting
experience, "points of view."  They evoke emotions, which are
psycho-physiological reactions to events *as interpreted* by
the perceiver.

The attitude I bring to the question of Krishnamurti's
relationship to Radha Burnier and Theosophical history in
general is clearly not that of the two persons who responded to
my comments.  It is based on wide familiarity with the history
of the Theosophical movement, which has been characterized by
secrecy, exclusivism, evasion of unpleasant truths, and fantasy
about Masters and initiations.  What now appears to be going on
in the Esoteric Section is that Krishnamurti is becoming the
object of the same adulation that he denounced during his
life.  My attitude therefore is to question why this is
happening and to consider alternative explanations, one of
which is that Krishnamurti himself sanctioned Radha Burnier's
course of action-- which had been developing for six years
before his death.  Moreover, based on familiarity with
Theosophical history, I tend to have a cynical attitude about
the extent to which people deceive themselves and others about
their true motivations.

What attitudes are revealed in the two comments?  "I don't know
why such a big fuss is being raised over some masters living in
the himalayas."  Translation: not only do I not share your
interest in this topic, I deplore it as inappropriate.  So the
attitude is one of dismissal.  "It is quite malicious to say
that K sought a special position for himself."  Translation:
anyone whose expressed opinion about my hero differs from mine has
motivations that are evil and harmful.  The
attitude is thus not merely of dismissal but accusation and
moral blame.  Radha Sloss is "no more than a fiction
writer...[who} seeks sensationalism, very similar to what is
shown on popular TV."  Translation: I condemn, look down on, and
resist granting any plausibility to the portrayal of
Krishnamurti found in this book.  The attitude seems to be one
of blaming the messenger.

Comment #2:

"The issue is not about K at all, but about us...our own
pettiness, our own inability to look at ourselves."
Translation: I don't have to pay the slightest attention to any
critical scholarship, any information about Krishnamurti that
might shake up my worldview-- it's all totally irrelevant.  "It
is a game that we play with spirituality."  Translation: any
effort to figure out the historical truth behind the inflated
images of spiritual leaders is blameworthy and can be ignored.
Again, an attitude of blaming the messenger.  The quote from
Krishnamurti is absolutely irreproachable.  It does not however
mean that there is no valid function for critical historians.

In short, Doss, there is no reasonable hope of dialogue with
people who, instead of engaging a question on the basis of
evidence and mutual respect, denigrate the motivations and
basic approach of the person who raises the question in the
first place.

Since I didn't really "raise" the question, however, so much as
volunteer a possible alternative to someone else's hypothesis
(that Radha had double-crossed K) it does not seem profitable
to pursue the matter further.  The effect, if not the intent,
of your friends on listening-l, is to squelch any interest in
discussion.