Something incredible happened in my life - Progressive Rock Music Forum

dr wu23 wrote:

Spoken like someone who has misunderstood Krishnamurti's point , has chosen a path, and thinks it's the correct one. This of course has biased and distorted the search for 'unconditioned truth'.

I have indeed chosen a path (or rather, God has appointed a path for me), but I would never think of it as *the* correct one, as in "the only valid one". To understand what I mean when I say Krishnamurti (whose worldview was fundamentally anti-traditional and intrinsically heretical and profane) was misguided, I highly recommend the book The Fall of Spirituality: The Corruption of Tradition in the Modern World by Julius Evola, as well as the works of authors such as René Guénon (who would most certainly regard Krishnamurty as an agent of what he termed the "counter-initiation") and Frithjof Schuon (particularly his books The Transcendent Unity of Religions, To Have a Center, and From the Divine to the Human).

I have no wish to start a lengthy discussion on this matter, being busy as I am, but I will leave here a couple of relevant excerpts by two genuine philosophers of Tradition, the first being Marco Pallis, who writes:

Krishnamurti (...) must be accounted something of a fringe manifestation of "the new religions" seeing that he himself rejects, as self-imprisoning products of a bad habit of thinking, practically all that the word "religion" covers for an ordinary mind. For him there is no question of revelation, therefore not of tradition either; doctrines or formal elements of any kind which others regard as reliable supports for truth and as its eventual catalysts in the soul are discounted by him as being no more than creations of a wish to feel comfortable and secure; the inter-relationship between Intellect—the intelligence uncreated and untreatable, as Meister Eckhardt put it—and Truth on which all acts of discernment ultimately rest seems to be omitted from Krishnamurti’s calculations so that, for him, the human task reduces itself to a psychological process of self-observation sufficing unto itself, a kind of "art for art's sake" from which all ascertainable finality is a priori excluded as being but one more deception of the arch-enemy "thought" (...).

If Krishnamurti showed good sense in breaking loose from the grotesquely inflated role for which he was being briefed by his Theosophist sponsors—for a young man of spirit, life under their ceaseless battery of adulation must have been terribly boring—one may yet wonder whether, after that, he might not have done better to retire quietly into the fold of his ancestral Hinduism where his remarkable gifts could then have ripened in the normal way, and who can say how far this course might subsequently have taken him? This is only speculation, of course, since in fact the world-stage has continued to be his field of activity: which leaves one with the thought that Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater may, after all, have carried out their briefing more thoroughly than they knew of, even if things did not work out exactly according to plan from their own point of view.

And the second author being Whitall Perry, who addresses the topic of Krishnamurti in his essay Anti-Theology and the Riddles of Alcyone:

As a prerequisite for understanding his "method," Krishnamurti says it is essential that we discard all our previous thought reflexes and conditionings. The first condition to get rid of, then, is that this work has anything whatever to do with religion—unless the word is to lose all meaning. This is given on his own authority (although he says "there is no authority whatsoever") throughout his teachings which hold the revelations and practices of the world faiths in contempt (...).

But since Krishnamurti claims not to be a teacher, what is the sound all about? He claims that a teaching received "is already a secondhand thing"; therefore who is beguiling whom? Is he the dupe of his audience, or vice versa? The answer is: both—it is only through their mutual ignorance that the comedy is perpetuated; while criticizing the thought of his questioners for "chasing its tail," he is doing nothing other himself. To use another metaphor, he saws the branch on which he sits; for in default of a common denominator or minimal cognitive adequation between agent and recipient, no communication is possible, and ideas are voided in a flux of empty utterances.

Furthermore, either his "message" is timeless, in which case it is madness to believe Krishnamurti the first to promulgate it, or it is not, in which case it is a passing fad without interest. The man is in fact a victim of the very thought conditioning he would reject, being a product of the Brahmanic heritage from which he has deviated. The violence of his reaction against religion is a manifestation even of exactly the sort of antagonism, resistance, opposition, and conflict which he pretends to be rejecting. Moreover, every spiritual anomaly is nothing but the distortion of truth. (...) Krishnamurti's aberration is [a perversion of negative theology and a confusion between the ego and the Self] in a more "Hindu" mode, a distortion of the via negativa (neti, neti) of Advaita Vedanta. If he were a caste Hindu practicing the sadhanas and dharmasastra, he could have an ashram and pursue the Shankaran method of "non identification of the self with the non-Self." For it is perfectly true that the map is not the country it portrays, that spiritual attainment can only be had through a reversal of values, a rupture of habit, a spontaneous immediacy that cannot be "communicated," and hence a "leap into the dark." But these are things that every spiritual master knows.

People like (...) Krishnamurti (...) are all in one way or another spokesmen for a New Religion (...) and have in common these salient characteristics: a patent individualism, a scientific and moralistic humanism, evolutionism, a relativistic "intuitionism," inability to grasp metaphysical and cosmological principles and the realities of the Universal domain, a mockery (latent or overt) of the sacred, a prodigous dearth of spiritual imagination, no eschatological understanding, a pseudo-mysticism in the form of a "cosmic consciousness."

Edited by SolNiger - March 06 2021 at 08:18