Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl00157)

Paul:

Glad to see your response.

I would like to mention that from what I have seen on listening-l, there
is wide ranging very open unrestricted views are expressed there. Again
as I had earlier mentioned, as for factual matters, there are a number of
people on that list who know or have access to much of the material
relating to K and his works.

Secondly, as for Sloss' Book, I look up on it with a very large grain of
salt. If she had published the book while K was alive, it would have
provided an opportunity for getting a feedback from K. She waited until K
died and then published the book and she is not a young person. She is in
her sixties and she was fully grown adult to have written and published
the book when K was alive if she wanted to.

	.....doss

-----------------------------------------------


On Wed, 10 Apr 1996, K. Paul Johnson wrote:

> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 09:36:36 -0500
> From: K. Paul Johnson <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <theos-l@vnet.net>
> Subject: Attitudes about K.
>
> 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.
>