The inner life of Krishnamurti

[Monad]

I would like to recommend a book I read a couple of months ago.The book is called:The inner life of Krishnamurti.                                     

It is written by Aryel Sanat.

The following is an excerpt from the back cover:               

"...Krishnamurti was a revolutionary in the deepest sense.For over sixty years he publicly eschewed belief systems and presuppositions of any sort,including the esoteric principles taught by Theosophists.

But privately?

Aryel Sanat explodes myths at the heart of the controversies surrounding this beloved and complex man.His meticulous research reveals that,contrary to appearances,K's inner life was rich in esoteric happenings.Privately,he never denied the existence of his perennial "Masters";nor did he deny being a vehicle for the manifistation of the Lord Maitreya,or the Christ.In fact,according to K,these inner realities were present every day of his mature life and intimately related to his work.

The admittedly strange story that unfolds is critical for understanding K's life and views.It is also essential to Buddhism,the teachings of Gurdjieff,the perennial renaissance-in fact the whole of contemporary spirituality..."

 

Aryel Sanat(Miguel Angel Sanabria) has lectured and written on Krishnamurti since 1964.He is currently Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religion at the American University in Washington,D.C.

The book is published by Quest Books.

[Ferran Sanz Orriols]

 ;-) ... sorry Michael, I did not read the whole list of people "influenced by HPB" but skipped through these lines ;-)  It seems that he wants to impress the reader but is not aware that he can give the wrong impression... it may be that the booklet (37 p.) was a kind of preliminary work for the book.

[Michael A. Williams]

I checked out the first part, Ferran, of the booklet and it looks very interesting and important. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

I do have one quibble, though. Mr. Sanat mentions some people who he says were greatly influenced by the Secret Doctrine. In my younger days, I read almost all of what Alan Watts wrote and I don't recall him ever mentioning the SD at all. If he had, I certainly would have looked into it back then. From all accounts, Freud was opposed to all Occultism and anything metaphysical. Jung quite possibly, but anyone very familiar with him can comment on him.

Anyway, I'll dive into when I get a chance.

[Monad]

Hello Ferran Sanz Orriols.Thank you for providing this link.I think this is really interesting too.I believe it was this booklet which led me to his book actually.

Transformation Now!

[Ferran Sanz Orriols]

 Hi, friends!!!

 I have found this booklet by Ariel Sanat. I've found it really interesting.

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/15726814/Aryel-Sanat-The-Secret-Doctrine-...

 

 Spring is the time of transformation!!! :-D

[Ferran Sanz Orriols]

 Hi, friends!!!

 Yes, the only clear point is that J Krishnamurti is a mixed bag. Michael, when you've written that "one would think that being in an intimate relationship with a world teacher ... would leave one in top emotional shape, etc." you have me think on Jesus, it must be today's date ;-)  Jesus, "betrayed" by one of his intimate disciples, and whose other closest disciples lost faith in the moment of trial... ;-) Jesus, whose "esoterical" teaching different from the public one is still today an open question... I dare say they both belong to the same brotherhood, but it's just my opinion ;-) 

[Michael A. Williams]

Hello, Monad, I respect your difference of opinion in regards to Geoffrey Hodson's critique. J. Krishnamurti certainly has many inspirational insightful gems that can be gleamed out and quoted. I would put him among the top ten Metaphysical/Spiritual influences of the 20th Century. He's a mixed bag, though, as is much of what he criticizes. i.e. organized religion, meditation, etc.

To point out one factor, no one has ever been raised to K's level of understanding and "enlightenment" via his "non-method and pathless land" approach. Nor did he he get there via that approach himself. When asked by Mary Lutyens, mentioned in her "THE OPEN DOOR, if he would summarize and define his "teachings," K replied that he really couldn't define them and would leave that up to others. Yet, in public and private conversations, he would advise people to "adhere to the teachings," thus putting folks in a rather difficult conundrum of trying to do something that even he, the originator of,  couldn't really tell you what they were. And, in the weeks he was on his death bed, K admitted that no one had understood him nor been been enlightened by his teachings, would anoint no one as his successor, but still stubbornly told his inner circle to tell the public to "adhere to the teachings."

As for the Radha Sloss book, for sure it is a one sided account, and Ms. Sloss probably left out many of the positive experiences there were growing up around J. Krishnamurti. But, to say that the book is unreliable because she stated her mother was "emotionally unbalanced at the time" is very misleading. At what time? The full 30 years of the affair? What are we calling "emotionally unbalanced"? How did this impair her memory? I've been in intense emotional crises at times and my memory wasn't impaired, and I'm no exception.

Plus, let's look at the other end of the spectrum with Mary Lutyens, K's life long friend official "keeper of the flame" of Krishnamurti's image and legacy. I have respect for Ms. Lutyens, who wrote the main rebuttal book, but she had a long history of ignoring and keeping out anything negative about K, and coming to the PR rescue when K was in trouble. I admire her loyalty, but her writings have to be kept in perspective also.

What is not questioned, and the Krishnamurti Foundation admits it, is that K had a 30 years love affair with Rosalind Ragagopal. One would think that being in an intimate relationship for 30 years with a self proclaimed, though privately, "World Spiritual Teacher," certainly one of the top Spiritual Influences of the 20th Century, would leave one in top emotional shape, clear minded, and in a high state of consciousness, if not some sort of enlightenment. Evidently, just the opposite. It doesn't speak well of Mr. Krishnamurti's prowess as an intimate partner, for starters.

As I said, I'll leave it up to others, such as yourself, to evaluate his "Masters" with those of Bailey's, Roerich's, etc. I haven't studied that enough to comment one way or another.

What does interest me is this disparity between his Occult life and his public "teachings." Yes, I would suspect that would be one reason given, that K felt it would distract from reaching the general public-at-large. But, to be so adament in his public talks against "Masters" and the "Occult" and involved so deeply privately would prompt many to think it hypocritical. Didn't he realize at least some of it would eventually come out after he parted the physical plane? I personally think that if he'd integrated the two, it would have highened and clarified many issues.

After one of K's last talks in India, before he retreated back to Ojai in his last months, a small group of people surrounded him as he walked back to the limousine to drive him away, demanding to know his "secret teachings," saying he was hiding the real stuff. Reportedly, K just kept smiling, got in the limo and it drove off. I suspect these people were on to something, and Sanat's book goes to further support it. 

Also, during the last months of K's life at Ojai, according to Mary Lutyens' THE OPEN DOOR, (she was not there, but got it from Mary Zimbalist, K's longtime private secretary) K gave a series of private talks to his exclusive inner circle on subjects he never covered publicly. These were transcribed in long hand, but not recorded. Only a small fraction of the material has been released. Most likely, this is where he went into his Occult experiences and teachings. The Krishnamurti Foundation continues to keep this under lock and key.

It's been 13 years since Sanat's book, THE INNER LIFE OF KRISHNAMURTI, and obviously even that hasn't prompted them to unveiled this material.

[Monad]

Hi Michael A. Williams.I can't say I agree with Geoffrey Hodson's critique.Aryel Sanat mentions Radha Sloss in the book.Quote:"...her book might have been informative and of value to anyone interested in K's life and work.However,Sloss relies on her mother's memories from some forty years earlier as her exclusive source,even though she admits that her mother was emotionally imbalanced at the time some of the relevant events in the book took place.The book's disparaging and narrow view of K has prompted a number of responses to point out some,though not all,of its numerous inaccuracies."

You wonder whether Krishnamurti's Masters were the same as other persons Masters such as Bailey.

My view is that Krishnamurti mainly dealt with Koot Hoomi and had a very special relationship with Maitreya,the Master's Master, known in the West as the Christ .Helena Blavatsky's master was Morya.I believe she received much of her teachings from Morya,Koot Hoomi and Djwhal Khul(DK,The Tibetan).Helena Roerich's Master was Morya.The teachings released through her known as the Agni Yoga teachings was given to her by Morya and some other Masters,mainly Koot Hoomi.The first book in the Agni Yoga series also known as "The Call" was given to her by Maitreya.Alice Bailey's Master was Koot Hoomi.She received her teachings(except for the few books she wrote on her own) from the Master Djwhal Khul.

You find it puzzling that Krishnamurti seemed to withold his relationship with the Masters and other metaphysical/occult matters.I believe he chose do do so because he felt that these matters would stand in the way of his message.

[Michael A. Williams]

Monad, the full thoughts and critique of Geoffrey Hodson is too involved to be go into here. Here's a link below to an article by Bill Keidan, a member of this site, summarizing and commenting on Mr. Hodson's views. Bill was a friend and student of Mr. Hodson for about 10 years.

(In case you don't know, the Radha Sloss referred to in the first paragraph is the daughter of D. Ragagopal and his his wife, Rosalind, with whom J. K. had a secret love affair for over 25 years. Her book is "In The Shadow of J. Krishnamurti," and sent "shockwaves" still being felt today)

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/krishnamurti/keidan.html

On the left is another link labled "Krishnamurti," with more articles and critical commentary on K from a TS perspective.

One thing I might add here concerning his experience with the "Masters" throughout almost his entire life(and hiding such from his public writings and talks), is that I don't know if these were the same or different than Bailey, Steiner, Claire Prophet or others. That's for others to evaluate. What is important, I think, is that J K spent most of his entire life in an full effort not to be deceived. If he felt these experiences were real and substantial enough to honor and be guided by on, evidently, a daily basis, certainly says there is something important here to be seriously openminded about.

Why he withheld all this, and other metaphysical/occult personal matters, from his public discourses is more than a little puzzling. Perhaps Mr. Sanat has some answers in his book.

[Monad]

Hello again Michael A.Williams.Aryel Sanat doesn't adress any criticism by Geoffrey Hodson in the book.What did he criticize him of?

[Michael A. Williams]

Thanks, Captain, for the kind words and the info. If memory serves, plenty of topics and metaphysical systems were discussed and sometimes debated in the past. I don't have time for long winded exchanges anymore, but Joe has indicated he doesn't want comparing one teacher or guru to another anymore. Prompting one member to swiftly resign on the spot. Perhaps I misunderstood and thanks for the clarification.

Now, back to the topic at hand. - Monad, I went back and reread the excerpts from the book on Amazon, and I see what you mean. I'm sorry that Mr. Sanet doesn't go further into comparing K's Master Teaches with those of Bailey and Steiner, et. al. Thanks for pointing that out.

Sanet does state he personally feels that J. Krishnamurti(to distisguish him from his namesake and long time nemesis, U.G. Krishnamurti) "represents the best and deepest that 20th Century philosophy has achieved." That's a bold statement that highly arguable and I personally would disagree with and I'm sure some or many members here would also.

One quick question, Monad. Does Sanet address the criticism of K's "teachings" by famous Theosophist Geoffrey Hodgson, in the 1930's? I feel that critique still holds water today. Sanet mentions having spoken with Hodgson, among many others, in the Introduction?