HOME : : NEW : : ABOUT ALPHEUS : : CONTACT US : : SEARCH  

Site for Esoteric History 


Krishnamurti discussion

Exchange of e-mails between Anonymous
and Govert Schuller, November 2005.

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.


 

Up

Copyright © 2001 - G.W. Schüller

Home