Eliza Carroll MS
Intuitive Spiritual Counselor/Aura Healer

This Light in Oneself

A new consciousness and a totally new morality are
necessary to bring about a radical change in the present
culture and social structure. This is obvious, yet the
Left and the Right and the revolutionary seem to
disregard it. Any dogma, any formula, any ideology is
part of the old consciousness; they are the fabrications
of thought whose activity is fragmentation - the Left,
the Right, the centre. This activity will inevitably lead
to bloodshed of the Right or of the Left or to
totalitarianism. This is what is going on around us. One
sees the necessity of social, economic, and moral
change, but the response is from the old consciousness,
thought being the principal actor. The mess, the
confusion, and the misery that human beings have got
into are within the area of the old consciousness, and
without changing that profoundly, every human activity
- political,economic or religious - will only bring us to
the destruction of each other and of the earth. This is so
obvious to the sane.

J. Krishnamurti
"This Light in Oneself"
|  Home  |
Jean Overton Fuller
An independent quarterly journal founded in 1985 London

This article rises out of a correspondence. In connection with
the biography of Madame Blavatsky I have just finished
writing, Mr. Leslie Price and I had been exchanging letters,
when he wrote to me, "One of the problems associated with
the Mahatmas, and on which I would welcome your views, is
what happened to the Brotherhood in question? They may
have disintegrated or splintered; or they may have found the
T.S. unworthy of further attention and broken with it".
I replied, "I am sure the Masters are still with us. At a certain
moment, plainly, they decided to desist from giving evidence
of themselves as Mahatmas, either by precipitating letters or
appearing in propria persona. They must have seen from the
world's reaction that this did no good... As regards the T.S.,
my belief is that it ceased to be regarded by the Masters as
the spearhead of their work from the moment Krishnamurti
left it. Contrary to what some declare, he has never denied
the Masters. What he saw as repellent was the striving for
advancement in initiations, the vulgarity in the idea of seeking
to become a Master, i.e. better than other people, the liability
to deception, also, that comes from reliance upon information
given upon authority, in some cases specious, I am sure they
still support him, but, in conformity with his way of doing
things, just stepped back a little, out of visibility."
Mary Lutyens quotes a letter written by Krishnamurti to her
mother in 1934, "I have never denied being the W.T. (World
Teacher). You know, mum, I have never denied it. I have
only said that it does not matter who or what I am..." (1) The
point is, that if the listener does not see something that is
being said as true, the speaker's telling him he is the World
Teacher will not convince him. To assert spiritual authority or
status does a kind of violence to relationship. Either the claim
is rejected, or, if it is accepted, the other is reduced to a state
of stunned suspension [21] of his own faculties, in which he
merely gapes, and accepts things said because of who it is
that says them, sometimes merely echoing phrases verbally,
without seeing what the speaker is meaning. Thus there is no
relationship, and so no communion. If the speaker does not
claim to be anybody in particular, then his words have only
the weight of the natural sense in them, the listener is not
stunned and so his faculties have a better chance to work. As
one reads through Krishnamurti's talks from the beginning,
one notices that when listeners have put questions about
Masters, he has met them with questions to the questioner,
such as why does he want to meet a Master? To become a
Master? What does he think a Master is? Has he the idea of
obtaining some power, some superiority to others? So, the
questioner is made to look at the motivation of his question.
Krishnamurti has never made a secret of his attraction to the
Buddha. He has sometimes spoken of "otherness", meaning a
presence, not his own, sensed suddenly in the room. He
mentioned to a friend once, waking with the feeling the room
was full of "eminent holy beings." (2) He admits their
existence, then, but avoids stressing it, because he does not
want to create an image of authority. Also, he does not like
the idea of a measurable progress from the past towards the
future, steps to spirituality, occupying time, gradualness.
Sometimes he destroys Theosophical imagery. One of his
earliest writings was called 'The Path', in which it was very
graphically imaged. Now he says there is no path. "Truth is a
pathless land" . The path is a very ancient image. In The
Voice of the Silence, Blavatsky's rendering of certain stanzas
inscribed on tablets in the temple of the monastery of Trashi
Lhunpo, there is continual talk of paths. Yet his dismissal of
the image should not shock. Nobody ever imagined there was
some physical path which had to be found and followed.
Krishnamurti now drops this image probably because it
implies the idea of gradualness, progress [22] from one stage
to another, measure and method. All these things are, to him,
unreal - in relation to spiritual understanding, that is, for they
have real application to the acquirement of skills, such as to
learn a foreign language, drive a car or play a piano. Here,
accumulation of experience, and practice, have their place.
The concept of method, of procedure, however, breaks down
when applied to what is spiritual. There is no method by
which one gradually prepares oneself to understanding
something. One understands something or one does not. It is
a matter of seeing. One does not see... then suddenly one
sees. It happens in the present.
All one can do to help this happen is remove what is
preventing it. One will not see if one's view is blocked by
cumber. Hence his insistence upon the negative approach.
One cannot say, "I will make myself more spiritual. I will
develop vision". But one can see what is false in one's life, in
one's relationships, in one's ostentatious motivations. The
perception of a falsity is the perception of a truth. When the
false is seen as false, the seeing is the seeing of truth. A word
of caution is needed here; he does not mean retrospection.
Going back into the past, to analyse it, separates one from the
present, and it is only in the present one can act. What he
refers to is the catching of the motivation on the wing. Clarity
comes as an explosion. The seeing is action.
One cannot build towards it. There is no road to it.
Explaining his negative approach in one of his talks given in
India, where the heat can be stifling, he said, "One cannot
invite the breeze - but one can leave the window open".
And clean, of course.
Mr. Price, when he came to see me, said, "But Krishnamurti
and Blavatsky don't say exactly the same things..."