Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tl00133)

Several years before he died, K had a meeting with the Trustees of KFA in
which he discussed his views/opinions on TS and Masters. It was recorded
and I am yet to see a transcript of it. It would be very interesting to see
what he had to say. After all he has seen first hand how TS operates and I
will not be surprised if we find surprises in his views. The fact that the
transcript has not been quoted or released tells me that he may have been
very critical on certain aspects. But one of these days, it is going to be
out.

mkr

At 02:43 AM 4/9/1998 -0400, you wrote:
>ti-l@vnet.net wrote:
>> Date: Thu, 09 Apr 1998 01:12:01 -0500
>> From: M K Ramadoss <ramadoss@eden.com>
>> To: theos-talk@theosophy.com
>> Subject: K's views on TS
>> Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.19980409011201.0084f3c0@mail.eden.com>
>> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Here is an excerpt from Ernest Wood's book " Is this Theosophy..?".
>> Ernest Wood had first hand knowledge of TS and was also one of the
>> instructors for Krishnaji. Some will find it interesting.
>> 
>> ......doss
>> =======================
>> 
>> 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.
> 
>Amen!
>
>Vincent
>-- 
>
>vincent@dmv.com
>
>http://home.dmv.com/~vincent/
>