It had been years since I had read this text, and I noticed a totally different approach from then: what does this text mean in relation to teaching?
Not the question yes or no ‘got it’ but questions like:
Who and/or what prepared the body? The masters? The theosophical society? Does time have a function after all?
Does mankind have at least a hundred years to go Because we (mankind) will not see it again.
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.
Do you doubt James quote?
If my memory is still in order it’s also mentioned in: Prepairing to leave’ from Scott Forbes.
But what about the questions?
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.
" They’ll all pretend or try to imagine they can get into touch with that. Perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings. But nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that’s that .”
Perhaps the above statement says that if the teachings are lived, the energy can be touched/accessed.
And look at the emphasis on ‘nobody has done it’. Leaving no doubt as to what he means. 
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.?
That seems to me stuf for folowers.
No doubt as to what “HE MEANS”.
Doesn’t mean what you think at all.
Why so quick to react?
That seems stuff for heavily conditioned😍
No. Examiner started this thread because he didn’t believe that K said “nobody got it”…“it” being what K was trying to get across to his listeners. Drax has provided the quote that proves K said it.
You seem not to have realised that this is another thread with totaly different questions and btw was not started by Drax.
“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?
Is there perhaps an element of allowing intelligence to flow by keeping the “I” out of the way and silent?
If I’m inquiring into whether intelligence can awaken, I’m more interested in the sleeping/dreaming I’m actually doing than dreaming about what intelligence might be.
So you’re saying intelligence has not awoken in you. Interesting.
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.
Did you think I was foolish enough to think intelligence had awakened? I just assume that anyone discussing K’s teaching is as unawakened as anyone else.
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?
Have you ever acted with intelligence? Have you observed others act with intelligence?
When K speaks of fear, we know what he’s talking about because we’ve all experienced it. Why is it different with intelligence?