Hello Michael, I just viewed your comments made in April quoting my article on Krishnamurti, May I say this: I do not buy Aryel Sanat's view of K. as secretly accepting The Masters etc. - I see it as an attempt to sanitize K's limited philosophy so that it should be compatible with Theosophy instead of something of a betrayal of the same. If more people had access to some of the hateful and vitriolic comments that K. earlier made about the Masters and their disciples it would be obvious that he had some sort of schizophrenic breakdown in consciousness, as indeed stated by Dr. Nethercot. I do not feel that K. ever really recovered from this breakdown. The sort of ambivalance that Aryel Sanat suggests is totally out of kilter with those who know the Masters and would therefore be loathe to allow misunderstandings to develop around them. I don't know that I should really say this but, aspects of it are already in the public domain: In the original manuscript of Geoffrey Hodson's Light of the Sanctuary - the Occult Diary of Geoffrey Hodson (1988) there were several entries by Geoffrey which spoke adversely about K's break from the T.S. and there was one in which one of the Mahatmas informed Geoffrey directly that K. had made a mistake. I understand that these extracts were pulled prior to publication probably to preserve harmony within the T.S. and especially since many Theosophists had embraced K's philosophy thinking it to be Theosophy, including some very influential members. Those who have sighted these pulled passages are not I think going to make them public, but the fact that they exist gives hope that one day the full story may come out. May I say in regard to the revelations made in Radha Rajagopal Sloss's book, which to me sound totally objective, the sexual dalliance and adultery component of K. is of less importance than the sustained legal persecution of Rajagopal who K. owed his public career to. Either way both behaviours are incompatible with a realized yogi or an occultist where there has to be consistency in thought, word and deed. But then K. was only really a philosopher and philosophers of this modern ilk are quite capable of saying one thing and doing another. I do regret deeply that the fabric of Theosophy has been degraded by the Krishnamurti issue and I look to a brighter future when these mistakes will be rectified.