I couldn’t find the transcript of the conversation between Scott Forbes and Mary Zimbalist when they talked about K saying he was surrounded by people who didn’t know what he was talking about. That, I think, is when he said that no one “got it”. Maybe you can find it.
I don’t think that whatever happened to K (mysterious stuff, I agree) is supposed to happen to everyone else - thats not the goal.
K seems to have been used as a vessel for the Teaching - so no thank you.
It is mentioned in Raja Yoga that the body has to be well maintained for it to withstand the energies which might be released during Yoga, with a well balanced diet, adequate rest etc etc. Not only that but also the person has to live a highly moral life if he is not to become psychologically imbalanced.
Highly moral not in the sense of outward social morality, but inner honesty and integrity.
So K certainly has been well looked after by the theosophical society.
I think psychological time has no place here. But technical time is inevitable.
“Does mankind have at least a hundred years to go Because we (mankind) will not see it again.”
Perhaps,unless somebody really touches that energy and remains sane.
“So everyone and everything must be doubted exept K.?”
All K aficionados felt this way at the beginning of their study of K’s teaching. But eventually, as one comes to realize how mechanical and predictable one is, and how dimly aware one is of oneself, it begins to dawn on the student that the student has been studiously ignoring itself, explaining itself, defending itself, and so on, because it can’t honestly justify its existence, other than to say it exists as an example, as if we needed more examples of ourselves.
In a dialogue, I think that with Bohm and Shainberg -1976 but not sure, K says that the cosmic stream of thought manifests itself in each particular brain, but if it is true what he suspected about himself that in his brain there was never neither an ego nor anything pertaining to that stream of thought (jealousy, envy, desire, and so on) then, what was his brain a manifestation of?
Well, Ramakrishna made a very similar statement, also few days before dying. These people are considered as avatars, manifestations of the ultimate, whereas there are those who are considered as jnanis or liberated while living, Ramana Maharshi for instance, and if you read Ramana´s verses, written in his own hand not merely answers to questions recorded by others, it becomes clear that he too got in touch with “that”, the primal source of everything, the ultimate, the nameless or whatever we want to call it. J.Krishnamurti wasn´t the only one nor was he the first or the last one in touching that.
Problem with Krishnamurti, even though personally I don´t consider it as a problem at all but rather the opposite, a great advantage for all of us, is that he completely, totally, uncompromisingly put aside everything and everybody known in order to start the inquiry from zero, from the timeless “here and now”. Not to mention the very enquiry itself of which every talk and dialogue of him is by itself a great teaching about it, enquiring, since most of us lack of a keen, acute, clear mind to go into what is actual enquiry. To me, this is his main contribution.
Did the personality of K “do” this, or was it the brain we identify as K’s brain that did it? I ask because if K did it, it wasn’t intelligence that did it, and all credit goes to K. Was it the awakening of intelligence that did it, or the person whose brain was awakened? How significant is individual identity to the awakened brain? Do I have anything to do with the awakening of intelligence, or am I what keeps the brain asleep, dreaming?
I don´t know, no need the awakening of intelligence nor even to be a genius to realize that nothing that has been said or done by those who have experienced this awakening along millennia hasn´t changed human being. What K did was basically to investigate, with the help of philosophers, scientists, monks and even the audience attending his meetings, using reason and logic, in order to find out if there is a way of communicating this, so that it can have an actual impact on mankind and bring about a real change. I don´t discard his personality had something to do with this attempt.
I notice that when I am actually learning about myself, I’m not thinking about what K has said. Instead of studying what he says as something on its own, you’re supposed to look for yourself. Therefore if you “get” this, then listening to K might actually be counterproductive. Why listen to K? Because you think you have to in order to learn about yourself?