Re: PURPOSE OF THIS LIST - Listening-l! (fwd)
Sep 02, 1997 08:36 AM
by M K Ramadoss
At 07:50 AM 9/2/97 -0700, Valerie Lombard wrote:
>On Sun, 31 Aug 1997 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>> I think it was very appropriate you posted the msg describing the
>> historical events that took place with Krishnamurti Trusts, Rajagopal
>> In a recent book by the daughter of one of the Trustees of the Trusts
>> headed by Rajagopal, mentions that some of the published material edited
>> by Rajagopal was found to be far different from what K actually said
>> during his talks and discussions. So readers may have to keep this in
>> mind when reading some of the K material. Is it possible that Rajagopal
>> was trying to introduce *his* Theosophical ideas into the K material by
>> using his editorial function?
>vl: I do not wish to speculate what his intentions may have
>been concerning his editorial capacity. But, he was found liable for
>transferring K.'s foundation funds to the Theosophical Society, which
>was in violation of K.'s foundation bylaws.
This is a very interesting information that I am seeing for the first
time. Could you tell me where I could find the full account of above
instance of transfer of funds.
It is very sad that Rajagopal could not fully understand and benefit by
what K has been speaking about.
> However, I only brought this up, because people tend to think
>that resolving daily challenges by understanding the inward state of
>affairs was something to be done away from the challenges of living and
>that K. was not dealing with an ego within. He was facing the basic
>problems of aggression, oppression that all human being have to deal
>with. But he dealt with it by facing the inward challenges of his own
>conditioning, and therefore effecting freedom to have access to what he
>had earned in his life.
> It had been suggested by some posters on this mailing list that
>one cannot verify whether one is dealing with their ego in a intelligent
>manner, and that when it comes to subjective matters, there is no way of
>telling if their approach is free from conflict or not. And I was showing
>that K. was not just *telling* people to mesmerize themselves with words
>that sound like spiritual riddles, but that he was facing his conditioning
>which was stimulated by the various ordeals arising in his daily life. In
>looking at the truth about ourselves *without fighting against it*, we get
>exactly what we have coming to us in the end--as was seen in this one
> I'm sure there are various versions of the details involved that
>may vary, but the main point is that Raja was egotistically exerting his
>power to keep K. beholding to the Theosophical Society's ideology,
>regardless of K.'s change of heart. And K. was no longer interested
>in feeding his or anyone else's egotistical demands.
> And this tells us that one does *not* have to succumb to the ego's
>overbearing coercions or intimidations nor does one have to resort to
>becoming an aggressor in order to be free of the one who wishes to rule
>over you, if you first deal with the seed of aggression within yourself,
>adequately/intelligently. While it is true that one takes technical
>steps to safeguard physical security, that does not include crossing the
>line by maliciously defaming another's character. Then, one is attempting
>to dominate the spirit of another in order to fulfill the ego's desire to
>be "superior" or "more important" than another.
> Your response is appreciated.
> Take care,
> Valerie Lombard
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application