Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00722)

Hi

This is a continuation of Part I of an excerpt from Wood's very rare book
"Is This Theosophy?", which may be of some interest to some in looking at
the historical fact that after Krishnamurti left TS, its membership never
pickup.


MK Ramadoss


Part II:

--------------Continued from Part I --------------

        I saw much of Krishnamurti during his visit to New York and on
subsequent occasions. I tried to grasp how life appeared and what it meant
to him. That was difficult, because it did not mean anything at all. It
stood for itself and required no interpretation.  He said he had reached
liberation; he was free, but he could not describe that freedom.  Mind could
no more grasp life than teeth could bite the air. Life was knowing itself
direct in him, not through the veil of mind, with its clumsy categories of
past, present and future.

        I could see clearly what he was driving at in describing so many
things as hindrances, but I was not able to grasp the positive and superior
life of which he spoke.  After all, his position seemed to be that of the
yoga school of India, which I knew well.  It was simply that the mind
(perception and reason) is not the instrument for knowing the positive
element of being that is, life itself, but is concerned with the limited
department of production and understanding of forms.  Its enhancement could
not lead to discovery of fundamental truth any more than could development
of abnormal muscularity.  On the other hand its suppression could not lead
to it, any more than material suicide..

        We ought not, therefore, to picture our evolution into some godly or
angelic type of being and stultify our present power by waiting or working
for that. That would not be different from the way in which stupid devotees
set aside their own judgment and waited for orders from above. Nor, on the
other hand, should we discredit our present capacity by going backwards, as
it were, to the peaceful animal state of mind.  In short, the secret of the
real is to click with the present, to be fully what we are.  Consolation,
hope, remorse, and any philosophy which softens the incidence of life upon
us in the present stands in the way of life's realization of itself.  The
mind can help only by removing the obstacles, the errors created by itself.
To think of life in its fullness is to make only a picture on canvas.  Life
is life, and cannot be known mentally by comparison with any object. You
cannot put God in a box.

        Several times I discussed with Krishnamurti the function of the
Theosophical Society. He said: You cannot organize truth."

        I pointed out that the Society was intended to be only a business
organization.  It existed for the promotion of truth, but did not say what
that truth was.

        " I am afraid you cannot have such a brotherhood," was
his reply. " Consider the weakness of human nature. Some creed will get
control of the thing, or will be fighting for it and giving trouble all the
time'

        I pointed out that the position is maintained in scientific and
learned societies; the Chemical Society does not advocate the use of any
particular brand of soap or matches.

        " People can be impersonal with reference to soap and matches," was
the substance of his reply, " but your society proposes to deal with man
himself, and you will find that people simply will not face the truth with
reference to themselves."

        " Let us put it to the test of experience," said I. At any rate I am
going to try to make the position clear, since there ought to be a society
where people may meet to discuss and criticize their various efforts to find
the truth.

        Go ahead," was his conclusion.  " I shall watch the effort with
great interest, but I think there is little hope."

        I had still to learn that there are no truth-seekers, because really
to want it would be to have it: it is because we do not really want it that
we are what we are, embodiments of wanting something less.

        My first active step was to join with several others in January of
1929 in a renewed effort to establish freedom in the Society, not freedom of
individual belief, which was constantly being asserted and accepted, but
with regard to the platform of the Society, so that no party could use the
organization mainly for its own purposes.  We were highly conscious of the
acute situation arising in the movement between those whom I may call the
Catholics, who wanted to organize a system of living, with stations on the
road and all the rest, and the Protestants, so to speak, who wanted private
judgment, individual freedom and ethical purity, rather than ceremonials,
disciplines and obedience.

        The position was becoming exacerbated.  The big guns began to urge
that the Star Office be not allowed on the Adyar estate, although it was
full of churches and temples administered by their several sectarian bodies.
No one could tell, it was argued, what Krishnamurti's attitude to the
Society was going to be.

        Some of us, therefore, put before Dr. Besant the idea that she might
take the lead in a reconstruction, a reformed society, such that membership
of it should give not even a flavour of sectarianism, and would thereby be a
suitable instrument for the teacher to use, though it would not as a society
advocate his views any more than those of any other person.  Dr. Besant was
willing to make alterations some what on those lines.  At least she went the
length of putting forward a tentative proposition which was defeated in the
Council, that the stated objects of the Society should be replaced by one
simple statement that its sole object was to seek for the truth.

------------------------end-----------------------