The comments on my latest blogpost about theosophical popquizes went a bit off topic. So I thought I'd start a new blogpost discussing the issue.

I've written about this before, so I'll start by quoting myself a few times. Let's start with my first attempt at discussing this:

I still do appreciate Krishnamurti's teachings as valid on the path for many, but aspects of it just don't work for many people on other stages of the path. For instance the implication that one should only follow those doctrines that one can personally vouch for, and only practice what one knows works is simply dangerous. Human beings aside from being individuals, are also group beings. This is a practical fact that has to be taken into account on the spiritual path. Most of us need a direction in basic ethics in order not to slide off into simple selfishness. We also need groups to help us stay focused on aspects of the path we might, on our own, ignore.

I didn't have a blog yet back then, so it's published on Katinka Hesselink Net: Theosophy & Krishnamurti.

and in my comments on the blogpost here:

I wrote in one of my attempts at explaining my position regarding Jiddu Krishnamurti:

Perhaps that’s how I can best explain my ultimate rejection of Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings. I’ve studied his work, learned a lot from it, and have since moved on.

Testimony to how deeply I've studied J. Krishnamurti's work is the whole section of my website devoted to his work. I've studied his work almost as intensively as Blavatsky's. Though while I claim to have read 99% of her work, I certainly haven't read all of K's work.


I do think - as the title of that post implies (If you see the Buddha Kill Him) - that it's only possible to reject Krishnamurti once one has studied his teachings.

I did end that post with a list of things one can learn from his teachings. And memorizing the list is not the same thing as wrestling with his words. Just like memorizing a summary Blavatsky's teachings isn't the same as reading The Secret Doctrine. It's the wrestling itself that brings insight.

Now I'm not at all suggesting you or anybody else should read the whole of K's work - those 300 books you talked about. But one or two are, I think, a good thing to include in one's spiritual diet.

Here's the main article on my blog: my disillusionment with Krishnamurti.

I did write there too that:
In summary: while I feel Krishnamurti’s teachings were exactly what the TS needed at that time, stand alone they offer people (especially kids) in our time enormous risks.

and
for theosophists K’s teachings aren’t a risk at all. We come packed with safeguards and K’s teachings are designed to get rid of precisely the risks theosophy as a spiritual path has:

* Too much reliance on theory

* Not looking at your life but at an image of your life
* Arrogance from thinking you are serving imaginary masters (imaginary to you at least as you’ve never met them – if that’s sentence seems to imply I did meet them, that was not my intention :) )

Views: 168

Comment

You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!

Join Theosophy.Net

Comment by Mark R. Jaqua on November 28, 2009 at 9:16am
Hmmm, 3.14159ect. is not always 3.14etc... that could open a whole other discussion... 3.14etc is not an exact value - is that so in a base 12 numerical system - what is the thickness of the lines in the circle you are radiusing - is there any such thing as a perfect circle or sphere in nature - is 3.14etc a platonic ideal only as there is no absolute measurements in nature - what color is 3.14etc......
Comment by Katinka Hesselink on November 27, 2009 at 3:02am
K said that to scientists? I guess he had some nerve.

There are geometries where the ratio between radius and circumference isn't 3.14etc. and if there's any audience that might know that, it's them, but that doesn't mean pi isn't pi if you get my drift.
Comment by Katinka Hesselink on November 25, 2009 at 4:14am
K said Pi is not always 3.14 etc? That requires context to know what he meant. But I agree, on first sight that's too relativistic.
Comment by Katinka Hesselink on November 24, 2009 at 7:40am
Hi Govert,

We'll have to agree to disagree on the nuances on this one.

From a historical perspective it's hard NOT to see K's teachings as being very specifically aimed at the perceived defects of the theosophy Krishnamurti experienced. That these defects are also present elsewhere - and struck a core in his time - made his teachings so intriguing to many.
Comment by Govert Schuller on November 23, 2009 at 4:28pm
Dear Katinka,

I think you still have a far too optimistic image of K's teachings. Yes, I can see how and why some Theosophists can derive something advantageous from K, and only if you're already firmly rooted in Theosophy. And not just Theosophists might derive such advantage, but any other spiritual path with strong theoretical tendencies. Therefore to claim that K's teachings were designed to address specifically Theosophy's pitfalls is not correct as he addresses any and all spiritual and intellectual pitfalls and made the case that Theosophy itself is to be regarded as one big pitfall with hardly any redeeming qualities. With that in mind and from a Theosophical pov, I think K's teachings are at its core one big pitfall with some peripheral, advantageous qualities. Notwithstanding this important difference, I applaud you in thinking through the many aspects of this issue and having come to an "ultimate rejection of Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings."

Search Theosophy.Net!

Loading

What to do...

Join Theosophy.Net Blogs Forum Live Chat Invite Facebook Facebook Group

A New View of Theosophy


About
FAQ

Theosophy References


Wiki Characteristics History Spirituality Esotericism Mysticism RotR ToS

Our Friends

© 2019   Created by Theosophy Network.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service