|
Hi Govert,
I thoroughly enjoyed your world teacher article at alpheus.org.
Thanks for posting it. I have some questions regarding K
and his teachings that I thought we might be able to discuss
together if you are interested.
First of all, I am not a Theosophist nor am I a Krishnamurtiite.
I do like K a lot and he has been one of my greatest teachers,
along with David Hawkins, and Buddhism. I have also read
other teachers and teachings, but I resonate with these
3 the most.
I have been a hot and cold person with K. I at one time
had almost all of his books, and then I went through a phase
where I wanted to get rid of him and his influence, and
I got rid of all the books. I have had a love/hate relationship
from the beginning, but something about his teachings keep
on calling me back.
At the moment, I went out and bought a few of his books,
so I have about 5-6 of his books at the moment. I am reading
Life Ahead right now, and Think on These Things.
I also have Meeting Life, and Can Humanity Change
and Krishnamurti to Himself, and the last book I
have is a beginners or children's book on K.
I just read on the internet K's Notebook
for the first time. It really shocked me. I had read Peter
Michel's biography on K [Krishnamurti:
Love and Freedom] a few years back and resonated
a lot with it. I agree with most everything Peter says.
I also just re-read G.
Hodson's book on your website about K and his teachings.
I agree with Hodson a lot too.
The notebook got me re-thinking K and it is troubling me
along with reading some stuff Bohm said about K in his biography
by Peat [Infinite
Potential] and the whole Radha Sloss stuff [Lives
in the Shadow With J. Krishnamurti]. I cannot dismiss
it so easily as many K folk do. I agree with her, if K cannot
live the teachings, who can? And I am not one who just says
ignore the teacher and go to the teachings. If he is a hypocrite
it matters greatly to me.
So my questions are and I am hoping you can share your
views personally with me freely and not holding back. My
questions are what is the process, what is the otherness
or benediction or immensity? These two aspects come out
in the notebook, and most K followers ignore this mystical
side of K, it is downplayed and never discussed, as far
as I know. Peter Michel does not downplay it (I no longer
have the book but am going on memory), he definitely says
K was much more esoteric than most think. So is the process
a kundalini awakening, and if so, why did it go on his whole
life in some form? Or is it possibly Maitreya working on
him or some other entity? And what is the otherness, again
is it Maitreya or some other Master or is it God?
Do you feel K was enlightened? I have wavered back and
forth on this one. He obviously was very aware and psychologically
astute, but was he awakened like a Ramana Maharshi or Buddha
or Nisargadatta Maharaj? Ramana for instance is not concerned
with the world, he is beyond the world. K focused so much
on this world, on changing it or improving it, this approach
is very different than other awakened beings who seem to
have very little interest in this world after their awakening.
Some teachers have said K was enlightened, I haven't heard
any question his enlightenment, they have questioned his
teachings or approach, but not his enlightenment.
As far the teachings themselves, I start reading them and
get sucked into it and feel it is the highest, it is right
on, and then before long I get discouraged and feel it is
leading me nowhere and I was better off without them. There
is something so hard about them to live. He makes it so
difficult. The moment you think you understand what he is
saying, and you understand the topic, he goes further and
you realize you do not see it like he sees it. And I just
do not agree with some of what he says. I do not agree with
his put down of all religions and paths. I feel there are
good in every religion, and in every path. I was wondering
what you feel is the good in his teachings and what you
disagree with.
I will stop there for now and maybe we can have a few emails
discussing these things if you are interested.
Thanks
=============================================
Dear Anonymous,
Thank you so much for your e-mail. You are bringing up
many of the key issues that have been on my own mind for
a long, long time. I can say with you that I also have something
of an ambivalent relation to K and his teachings and because
he had such a profound influence on my life and thinking
I have been pursuing many of the questions you have.
When I first started dabbling in K it became quite clear
that he had something very transformational to say, meaning,
while or after reading him I would find myself with changed
and awakened states of alertness about my surroundings and
the workings of my own mind, though not actually knowing
how or why. After a while I got the 'hang' of his teachings
and started experimenting more and more on my own during
long walks and discussions with others. When I realized
he was still alive, after reading his remarkable biography
by Lutyens, I went to Switzerland and participated in the
gatherings for two weeks, during which I read his Notebook
and started having similar experiences of benediction and
bliss, which only lasted, on and off, for the time I was
in Switzerland. I also found a little autobiography there,
in French, by K's former friend Vimala Thakar. From reading
her account of her experiences with K and her own enlightenment,
I derived the conviction that what K eggs us on to do would
indeed be feasable. After many years of being a 'purist'
Krishnamurtian, I started again having an interest in Theosophy,
which I had previously developed during high school. With
all the 'occult' phenomena surrounding K it seemed to be
doable to somehow harmonize the two. This didn't have a
high priority though. I was more interested then in philosophy,
east and west, and especially found both phenomenology and
philosophy of science to my taste. A breakthrough in this
endeavour was the finding of an early work by Sartre on
ego-genesis ("The Transcendence of the Ego"),
which came very close to what K was saying. Another breakthrough,
but quite unexpected, was when I found Scott's "The
Initiate in the Dark Cycle." Wow, that hit hard and
deep and somehow I was open to the quite profound theosophical
critique laid out in that book. This revelation was prepared
by my own question of what the Masters might have thought
about K. This prepared for me the way to get involved in
what I then thought, and still think to be the case, a post-Theosophical
group connected with the same Masters HPB, CWL and K were
connected with. From them came an even more devastating
critique of K. But, while repudiating the metaphysical claims
of K's status and the claims regarding the purity of his
teachings, I knew he had said many a true thing, and I was
not ready to completely throw him overboard. After some
intensive research in the mid-90s I wrote the "K and
the WT" study, trying to be objective and comparative,
and the two pamphlets to set out my own personal views.
I also started my own Web site to present as much resources
as possible for people to investigate these matters for
themselves. Then philosophy struck again and I started another
round of intensive studies of phenomenology, now with a
Heidegger-expert I found at a university close by. This
now resulted in this paper "The Relevance of Phenomenology
for Theosophy" which was also the basis for a class
I'm teaching on phenomenology. In the paper you'll find
a sub-section on K, which pretty well spells out my intended
program to deal with K.
As regards the subtleties themselves involved in this endeavor
I submit to your mind the following two analyses of K's
experiences in which I pull from both phenomenology and
Theosophy. As you can read, the two analyses are somewhat
at loggerheads and a deeper investigation is necessary (see
way below) to find the angle from which both accounts can
be seen as true. This then might result in an understanding
of our own ambivalence towards K.
==========================================
Analysis I: The Sympathetic Theosophical View
(Its context was a discussion on awareness and implicit
and explicit self-awareness. For a table regarding the Theosophical
and Sanskrit terms see the Seven
Principles of Man)
In terms then of states-of-consciousness one could differentiate
within Krishnamurti's own experiences and history--as he
related them publicly and privately, and in his own words--the
following 'states,' to which I will attach some Theosophical
and/or Sanskrit terms:
a) Mundane, critical, rebellious, doubtful, even sometimes
depressed in the years leading up to 1922. (Regular Kama-Manas
with sometimes some Buddhi poking through)
b) (Re-)conversion/dedication to his mission inspired by
Mahatmic message received in Sydney in June 1922. (Buddhi
taking over in moment of vision prevailing over Kama-Manas)
c) Starts a regular regime of meditation (stabilizing of
the Buddhic in silence and Kundalini rising)
d) Start of the painful 'Process' in August 1922 in Ojai.
(Masters purging K's body through occult means while K himself
mostly OBE)
e) 'Process' culminates in opening of both Crown and Third
Eye Chakras making it possible for K to have conscious communion
with the Masters and almost absolute clarity about his own
being and mission. (The Buddhic having overcome and subdued
the Kama-Manas)
f) Initially traumatic, but finally very transformative
experience because of Nitya's death in November 1925. Purging
of last vestiges of doubt and attachments. (Deepened vision
born out of suffering. Possible unification with Nitya,
who might have been his Twin Flame)
g) First manifestation of Maitreya in December 1925 in
Adyar. (Made possible by K's Buddhic state of awareness,
making it possible for a realized Mahatma to temporally
'take over' at that level)
h) Starts to have experiences around 1927 of what he would
call the "Beloved.' (The Buddhic sighting of Atman)
i) Becomes the 'Beloved' in moments of intense mysticism.
Sees the 'Beloved' as everywhere and within everything.
(The fusion of the Buddhic with the Atman)
j) Has deep experiences of 'benediction,' 'otherness,'
and 'immensity.' Referred to early on in his Notebook as
"that fullness of Il L." (i.e. Il Leccio, the
name of a Tuscan villa belonging to K's friend Vanda Scaravelli),
which might have been the place where these experiences
started when he visited that place on a regular basis just
after WWII, though he had stayed there once before in 1937.
(This experience of Satchitananda [blissful consciousness
of being] seems to be an ongoing experience, though in differing
intensities, at the Buddhi-Atman level)
k) This state of high intensity meditation culminates one
night in the middle of November of 1979 in reaching "the
source of all energy." (As Atma is equated with Brahm
and K was arguably at that level of consciousness, it could
very well be that the 'source' was beyond Brahm, i.e. Para-Brahm).
Excluded so far in this enumeration are the states of consciousness
relevant to K as a teacher. Now, what has been gained with
this differentiation? First of all it has to be noted that,
though words fall short in giving complete descriptions,
these states of consciousness are different enough that
they can be expressed in different concepts. Secondly, that
K was aware of these differences and was the first one to
suggest the appropriate concepts. Thirdly, as good theosophists
can do, parallels can be found with Theosophical and Sanskrit
terminology.
The fact that K was aware of these experiences and could
describe them afterwards indicates that something like a
'self,' or something 'self-same,' was enduring during these
experiences, at least from the experience itself up to the
moment of having them written down. For me this also indicates
that something implicitly self-aware in the experience became
explicitly so in the wording.
================================================
Analysis II: The Critical Theosophical View
Around 1927, when Annie Besant (AB) proclaimed to the world
the return of the Christ, a process had set in within Krishnamurti
which made it more and more difficult for Maitreya to overshadow
him. AB's understanding that K's consciousness was blended
with Maitreya's and that a part of Maitreya was blended
with K is incorrect. K became his 'own' and the only fusion
taking place was K and his Beloved, not K and Maitreya.
In K's own view he is leaving the Masters behind, and in
Maitreya's view, as per David Anrias, K takes certain initiations
under some very advanced Devas. K's account, based on experience
and seen from the inside out, seems to accord with Maitreya's
account, seen from the outside in. Only their valuations
differ. The crucial point, which made these developments
possible, was that the world teacher project was a unique
experimental one, never done before with any previous preparations
for an avataric happening. Because it was experimental it
had the chance for not working out as was hoped. And I think
it did fail. The failing factor, and here I use the word
'failing' in a completely factual and non-judgmental sense,
was that K's body could not endure the strain, even though
it could endure a quite inconceivable amount of pain and
stress. This shortcoming of K's body was nobody's fault.
Where K was at fault was in re-interpreting the project
according to his own emerging understanding, which became
more and more at odds with Theosophy. This understanding
was--and this is the core of the problem--a reflection of
K's non-acceptance of the failure of the project and his
decision to carry it out anyway, even if that meant an arrogating,
through creative conceptual massaging, of the world teacher
title and tossing out the whole spiritual-conceptual framework
of Theosophy, including Masters and initiations. Seen from
this perspective, and mixing in some psychoanalysis, K's
teachings are one long continuous justification of that
one fateful decision he made. Because of his charisma
and appeal to flawed deep motives within ourselves similar
to his own, he was successful in converting quite some people
to his view and providing them thereby with the justifications
to leave behind the deeper mystical understanding of Theosophy.
Only exceptions here would be those Krishnamurtian Theosophists
and Theosophical Krishnamurtians who have taken on a mighty
spiritual-intellectual struggle to straighten out the many
inconsistencies between the two, for which I only have the
greatest respect, even while contributing my contrarian
view.
Conclusion
Though both accounts are quite different, I can see some
of the possible strategies to explain analysis I from the
perspective of II, and other way around. To start with the
first--the refutation of the critical view by the sympathetic
view --I think that K himself already gave some indications
about possible strategies. These mostly come down, as I
pointed out in "K and the WT Project," to ad hominem
attacks: the listener just doesn't get it, because he/she
doesn't want to or has an alternate agenda. Many variations
can be found on that theme. Meanwhile the real work for
me is to incorporate and re-interpret K's development and
experiences as presented in the sympathetic view, into the
critical view. Is it possible for a person, in this case
K, to have all that charisma, deep mystical experiences
and profound teachings even while having failed a crucial
test and having repudiated the Masters and Theosophy? This
is THE question for me. One of the lines of investigation
is to get a grip on the idea of skill acquisition as that
pertains to displaying charisma, attaining deep levels of
meditation and being able to talk to an audience without
notes. The idea is that these are skills developed over
a long period of time, including many lives, and are not
the side effects of a somehow passive state of consciousness
through which something otherworldly comes through, though
apparently it might be perceived as such by K himself and
others. Phenomenology can help here, because it has made
some attempts to differentiate the different levels of skill
acquisition. Especially this other American Heidegger-expert,
Hubert Dreyfus, is quite active in this field. (See for
example the beginning of his paper
on skill and intelligibility). Actually this paper just
referred to has some very pertinent things to say about
action on the highest levels of human endeavor, i.e. public
action based on visionary experiences, which is what K,
and also HPB and others, were all about. The crux of the
matter is a correct understanding of the highest level of
skill, i.e. expertise or the Aristotelian virtue of 'Phronesis,'
in which the actor has a uniquely appropriate response to
a unique situation. Important here is to realize that this
is a very high skill only obtained through time and experience,
not through some methodless instantaneous transformation
as K wants it. Further, this analysis of skill acquisition
might also shed further light on the whole initiatique process,
which might be nothing less than a gradual and integrated
development of mental, volitional and affective skills,
a process through which K went himself, only to repudiate
it later, when he was arguably at a quite proficient level
of spiritual skillfulness, if I can put it like that. Meanwhile
the more or less passive part of the WT Project--i.e. K's
overshadowing by Maitreya--can also be re-interpreted along
'Phronetic' lines, because it involved K's skill to maintain
a certain level of attunement and Maitreya's skill to then
'overshadow' K and bring forth the needed teachings for
the new epoch. As you can see the idea has some fruitful
applications in clarifying many of the subtleties involved
in the K-problematic.
The foregoing seems to have been merely an introduction
to answer the specific questions you posed.
First the 'Benediction.' Going back to the sympathetic
view of K presented earlier I can indeed see it as an experience
of Satchitananda (blissful consciousness of being) operative
at the Buddhi-Atman level. As many have reported similar
experiences, and I have partaken of this myself, it doesn't
seem to be so extraordinary by itself. What's unique here
in K's case is the apparent depth of his experience, its
ongoing nature, and the simple and poetic language in which
he was able to convey this depth. The experience doesn't
indicate a necessary reference to Maitreya, the Masters
or God. Aryel Sanat in his esoteric study of K seems to
think that the experience is somehow indicative of an intimate
communion with Maitreya. I strongly think he errs there.
Of course Kundalini was involved here, especially in the
preparatory stages of the Process. A differentiation has
to be made between the Process, which seems to be a painful
purging of the lower bodies in which other intelligences
might be involved like Masters or Devas, and the Benediction,
which is an experience of cosmic bliss beyond the Process
and beyond other intelligences. For now, I see K's capacity
for having these experiences as rooted in a very subtle
skill developed over many life-times and greatly helped
by his intimate relationship with the Masters in the early
stages of his last life.
It is hard to establish the idea whether K was enlightened
or not. It all depends on one's notion of enlightenment
of course and as long as we are not enlightened ourselves,
we really do not know. My position is that he attained some
superior levels of spiritual skill, but got stuck, though
he himself thought he had reached the highest level of ego-less
being. For some he might be a genuine and really helpful
beacon of light for a while, but beyond a certain point
his role becomes that of a very subtle pied-piper leading
souls to an impasse similar to his own. The really enlightened
teachers for humanity are the Ascended Masters. I belief
that Buddha, Kuthumi, El Morya, Jesus, Saint Germain, Nicholas
and Helena Roerich and Guy Ballard are all at that level.
I do not know about Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta Maharaj.
So, for me, K is not enlightened.
Sorting out the true from the false in K's teachings will
be an arduous task. Indeed his put down of other religions
and philosophies is quite unacceptable. Most of them are
a mixed bag, as are his own teachings. I think he can be
right on in his analysis of certain existential themes like
fear, desire, death, escapism, etc. He can be quite wrong
and simplistic in his analysis of the function of thought
and understanding. Also his analysis of ego-genesis as solely
depending on thought, while leaving out the necessary component
of consciousness reflecting upon itself, is therefore quite
inadequate. And he really starts fumbling when he equates
the essence of thought with that of matter. He is also quite
deficient in finding a realistic balance between gradual
developments and possible 'quantum leaps' in spiritual development.
He also reduces issues, far too often than acceptable, into
black-white dichotomies, which suggests to me that he is
a little bit infatuated, without knowing so, by the power
of logo-centric thinking. This is all the more ironic because
of his purported deep insights into the nature of thought.
There are pearls to be found in his thoughts, but it is
a dangerous picking.
This e-mail got a little longer than intended, but it allowed
me to further develop and re-asses some of my own thinking,
for which I'm quite grateful to you. Hope it will help.
All the best
Govert
P.S.: One of the issues I didn't discuss is the issue whether
or not K is living his own teachings. A lot is involved
here, beginning with the problem of what it means in the
first place to "live a teaching." The phrase seems
to imply that the teaching is the more important part of
the equation, and that it would be possible to live according
to the teaching. The problem with K seems to be that he
doesn't give much of a teaching to live by. If there are
specific instructions, they are very commonsensical and
obvious, like "don't smoke," or they are so general
that nothing specific is implied, like "be aware."
I don't think he ever said "always tell the truth"
or "don't bed your friend's wife," etc, which
would be obvious grounds to accuse him then of hypocrisy.
He might have trespassed conventional norms of behaviour,
but those norms are ours, not his. As a highly creative
and observant person, K was bound to do things many would
not understand, or find immoral, but again, that might be
more due to our own shortcomings than his.
Now, if one sees his live as more important than his teachings,
and instead of measuring his live by the content of his
teachings, one could try to assess if his teachings reflect,
or are an expression of, his life. Here I can see three
ways: either we see his life as K wants us to see it, or
see his life from a sympathetic Theosophical view, or from
a critical Theosophical point of view, as I laid these out
above.
In the first case it could be argued that his life is lived
on such a high, subtle, virtuous and trans-rational level,
that whatever he teaches, his verbal expressions will never
really express what he really wants to express, though he
can get very close. And as he keeps trying and trying, he
is bound to make an excusable mistake or two here and there.
And as his teachings are on a lesser level than his life,
you can not throw those teachings back into his face, as
he would say himself. And as far as some of his questionable
behaviour is concerned one could make a similar defense
by making the case that, as his actions come from his seeing,
and we do not see how he sees, we can hardly criticize him.
And even if he would make a mistake, we should give him
some leeway for such, for he keeps experimenting for the
sake of truth and humanity and is therefore bound to make
some mistakes. In short, there is enough material in K's
life, and enough reasonings shaped by his teachings, to
construe K such, that he is indeed the almost infallible
enlightened secular world teacher as many belief him to
be.
In the second case we get into the thought realm of people
like Radha Burnier, Aryel Sanat, Jean Overton Fuller and
Peter Michel, all of whom are sympathetic to K and try to
see him also in an esoteric perspective. The only one having
some doubts is Michel for he is aware of the Scott and Anrias
perspective. Anyway, the crux of the matter is that they
see K's life as intimitely bound with his teachers, the
Theosophical Masters of Wisdom, and his teachings as, at
least, sanctioned and possibly suggested and even formulated,
by them. Seen in this way his life is that of an Avatar
bringing a superior message. And the new teaching is superior
to Theosophy, which might therefore be legitimtely bashed
here and there. (There are of course some other interesting
strategies deployed to reconcile their esoteric perspective
with K's criticisms of the same). Therefore his life has
a transcendental dimension few of us are aware of, and his
teachings are better understood if that dimension is taken
into account.
The last perspective, the one I think is correct, is seeing
K's life in the perspective of his, first attempted, then
failed and then pretended, messiah-ship, fueled by a subtle
spiritual and intellectual pride he never overcame. In the
critical perspective I stated somewhat dramatically that
"K's teachings are one long continuous justification
of that one fateful decision he made" of "non-acceptance
of the failure of the project and his decision to carry
it out anyway." I think it is this perspective that
will be able to reconcile the many contradictions and mysteries
in his life and teachings and see both as being in 'harmony,'
for both are terribly flawed. Therefore one could say that
K did live his teachings and his teachings do reflect his
life, but but not in the way most would like to see.
|
