|
This article rises out of a correspondence. In connection
with the biography of Madame Blavatsky I have just finished
writing, Mr. Leslie Price and I had been exchanging letters,
when he wrote to me, "One of the problems associated
with the Mahatmas, and on which I would welcome your views,
is what happened to the Brotherhood in question? They may
have disintegrated or splintered; or they may have found
the T.S. unworthy of further attention and broken with it".
I replied, "I am sure the Masters are still with us.
At a certain moment, plainly, they decided to desist from
giving evidence of themselves as Mahatmas, either by precipitating
letters or appearing in propria persona. They must
have seen from the world's reaction that this did no good...
As regards the T.S., my belief is that it ceased to be regarded
by the Masters as the spearhead of their work from the moment
Krishnamurti left it. Contrary to what some declare, he
has never denied the Masters. What he saw as repellent was
the striving for advancement in initiations, the vulgarity
in the idea of seeking to become a Master, i.e. better than
other people, the liability to deception, also, that comes
from reliance upon information given upon authority, in
some cases specious, I am sure they still support him, but,
in conformity with his way of doing things, just stepped
back a little, out of visibility."
Mary Lutyens quotes a letter written by Krishnamurti to
her mother in 1934, "I have never denied being the
W.T. (World Teacher). You know, mum, I have never denied
it. I have only said that it does not matter who or what
I am..." (1) The point is, that if the listener does
not see something that is being said as true, the speaker's
telling him he is the World Teacher will not convince him.
To assert spiritual authority or status does a kind of violence
to relationship. Either the claim is rejected, or, if it
is accepted, the other is reduced to a state of stunned
suspension [21] of his own faculties, in which he merely
gapes, and accepts things said because of who it is that
says them, sometimes merely echoing phrases verbally, without
seeing what the speaker is meaning. Thus there is no relationship,
and so no communion. If the speaker does not claim to be
anybody in particular, then his words have only the weight
of the natural sense in them, the listener is not stunned
and so his faculties have a better chance to work. As one
reads through Krishnamurti's talks from the beginning, one
notices that when listeners have put questions about Masters,
he has met them with questions to the questioner, such as
why does he want to meet a Master? To become a Master? What
does he think a Master is? Has he the idea of obtaining
some power, some superiority to others? So, the questioner
is made to look at the motivation of his question. Krishnamurti
has never made a secret of his attraction to the Buddha.
He has sometimes spoken of "otherness", meaning
a presence, not his own, sensed suddenly in the room. He
mentioned to a friend once, waking with the feeling the
room was full of "eminent holy beings." (2) He
admits their existence, then, but avoids stressing it, because
he does not want to create an image of authority. Also,
he does not like the idea of a measurable progress from
the past towards the future, steps to spirituality, occupying
time, gradualness.
Sometimes he destroys Theosophical imagery. One of his earliest
writings was called 'The Path', in which it was very graphically
imaged. Now he says there is no path. "Truth is a pathless
land" . The path is a very ancient image. In The
Voice of the Silence, Blavatsky's rendering of certain
stanzas inscribed on tablets in the temple of the monastery
of Trashi Lhunpo, there is continual talk of paths. Yet
his dismissal of the image should not shock. Nobody ever
imagined there was some physical path which had to be found
and followed. Krishnamurti now drops this image probably
because it implies the idea of gradualness, progress [22]
from one stage to another, measure and method. All these
things are, to him, unreal - in relation to spiritual understanding,
that is, for they have real application to the acquirement
of skills, such as to learn a foreign language, drive a
car or play a piano. Here, accumulation of experience, and
practice, have their place. The concept of method, of procedure,
however, breaks down when applied to what is spiritual.
There is no method by which one gradually prepares oneself
to understanding something. One understands something or
one does not. It is a matter of seeing. One does not see...
then suddenly one sees. It happens in the present.
All one can do to help this happen is remove what is preventing
it. One will not see if one's view is blocked by cumber.
Hence his insistence upon the negative approach. One cannot
say, "I will make myself more spiritual. I will develop
vision". But one can see what is false in one's life,
in one's relationships, in one's ostentatious motivations.
The perception of a falsity is the perception of a truth.
When the false is seen as false, the seeing is the seeing
of truth. A word of caution is needed here; he does not
mean retrospection. Going back into the past, to analyse
it, separates one from the present, and it is only in the
present one can act. What he refers to is the catching of
the motivation on the wing. Clarity comes as an explosion.
The seeing is action.
One cannot build towards it.
There is no road to it.
Explaining his negative approach in one of his talks given
in India, where the heat can be stifling, he said, "One
cannot invite the breeze - but one can leave the window
open".
And clean, of course.
Mr. Price, when he came to see me, said, "But Krishnamurti
and Blavatsky don't say exactly the same things..."
[23]
They do not say things which put what each other says out
of court. The things they set out for one to think are different
but are not mutually preclusive. Madame Blavatsky, with
her Cancerian Ascendant, loved the past, with its glamour
and mystery. When stating a truth, she liked to tee able
to support it with the citation of some ancient text. Her
mind had the Cancerian fecundity in poetic images. She had
the Cancerian love of magic. Krishnamurti never mentions
her writings. Most likely he has never read them. They would
not hold anything for him. When he reads, it tends to be
for entertainment. This is probably because, as regards
deep things, he prefers to keep his mind fresh, unencumbered
by traditions of the past.
Truth may be one, but the manner of affording glimpses into
it can be coloured by personality, and wherever a revelation
comes from, there is a relation between its expression and
the revealer. Krishnamurti's Ascendant is Aquarian. Aquarius
is the water- carrier not water. Cancer is a water sign.
Aquarius is an air sign. Cancer feels for mystery. Aquarius
likes clarity. It is the sign of electricity and the lightening
flash. Of all the signs, it has the least interest in tradition.
Signs in opposition in the zodiac tend to have something
in common, because they deal in the same terms, from opposite
points of view. With dancing partners, one goes back as
the other goes forward 9 yet they are dancing together.
Hence, astrologers have said the most awkward aspect is
not the Opposition (180 degrees) but the Inconjunct (150).
Signs in Inconjunct seem to have non- relationships. They
form neither a harmony, disharmony nor yet, polarisation.
Now, all of the twelve signs of the circle must be related
in some way, but where the Inconjunct is concerned, a little
more attention may be required in order to modulate from
one key into the other. There is certainly a modulation
that needs to be made from The Secret Doctrine to
the Krishnamurti talks. [24]
The late Mrs. Hilda Jaffa of the Astrological Lodge did
a statistic on window-cleaners, and found the sign that
came up most often in their horoscopes was Aquarius. She
supposed it was because they spent so much of their lives
high up, in the open air, also because windows are things
one sees through.
Krishnamurti is a window-cleaner.
(1) Krishnamurti, the Years of Fulfillment, Mary
Lutyens, (Murrey, 1983), p. 30
(2) Ibid., p. 180
Source
Originally published in Theosophical History 1/2
(April 1985): 20-24. Reproduced with the permission of the
author.
|
