Both Jiddu Krishnamurty (1895-1986) and Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950) demonstrated that their was a "demolishing" yoga.They unfairly ended up with traditions and older structures disposing the yoga in terms of actual, dynamic and meaningful issue.
They shared some fifty years on earth and yet it seem they never existed for each other! How could it be!They never mentioned each other.
But their purpose was exactly the same!
Krishnamurty, a great achiever and a great yogi, was that revolutionary as to never mention the word "yoga" which in his view could be simply substituted by the word "life", which was to him an accustomed alternative.
But even without mentioning each other, Sri Aurobindo, not too far, was stating that
"All Life is Yoga".
That was the reason for Krishnamurty not to mention the word "yoga", because for him too, life was yoga.
From the most complex to the most simple, in them was realized the synthesis of thousands of years of spiritual search.
As mirror of each other they shared the knowledge of yoga and life, Sri Aurobindo synthesizing the Yogas and Krishnamurty synthesizing life itself.
They never mentioned each other because they where but one thing.
They unified thoughts and events.
Life, -had- to be yoga.
It was not a quest anymore. It was a verification.
We finally understood irrelevant -where- to practice yoga and search for the Spirit, as yoga was everywhere much as life was.
We were immersed in a life which was yoga we new it or not!
Planets or plants and seasons were already doing their yoga, it was only "us" the problem.
So it was only question of awareness.
Not a search, a quest, a discipline, a religion, a going far at the end of life with immortality, but a change, a shift, that could be possible here and now.
More, it could be only possible into the here and now.
Not everywhere else. That simple.
They resolved thousands of years of spiritual quest into a trip that never started, because it was all into the here and now.
Only superficial observers would consider their teachings different or in opposition, Sri Aurobindo put the final word about the intricate matter of yogas and synthesized them into a new version, and Krishnamurty added what remained unspoken. A vision of life so simple that could only be true.
So what´s the difference between Krishnamurty which never spoke of supermental light as he never spoke of yoga too, and Sri Aurobindo?
You convene with me, none.
Because the Teaching has to be intended as a -synthetic- teaching where each true Master add a new perspective of but one same Truth.
They are opposed only in our mind.
The Synthetic vision is not a new invention of my own, it started when Sri Aurobindo and Krishnamurty synthesized Life and Yoga, so we can but follow on this evolutionary path of the consciousness.
It is an inclusiveness of sight able to discern the truth in each, not the differences, as the differences are exactly what makes realization a fundamental personal option and possibility depending on personal tendencies.
A man of action may not be inspired by a life of contemplation, but his action worth that of the other as they fulfill their own tendency and necessity of expression.
**********************************************
It seems there is a record of a desfavourable comment made by Sri Aurobindo about Krishnamurti.
I´ve never seen it personally, I could not found more references, but on what I remember it was made in 1940.
I wish to state here a few things.
I´ve often observed that the disciples around Sri Aurobindo presented a different register of a same conversation held at a given day at the Ashram, sometimes words or phrases are completely different, and I do not consider this comment on Krishnamurti supposedly said by Sri Aurobindo was:
1) actually said by himself
2) with that same words
3) it was words put in the mouth of Sri Aurobindo by some disciple which had not a fine feeling towards Krishnamurti
4) Sri Aurobindo had discontinue information about Krishnamurty
It is known to me that Sri Aurobindo was a bit critical about the necessity that european people had to rapresent the wisdom of Asia (Theosophical Society, Olcott etc.).
Surely Sri Aurobindo did not know personally Krishnamurti but rather read about him on the press, a press that at that time did not look at English people with a favourable eye, and what Sri Aurobindo did read was certainly critical about the "cooperation" of Krishnamurti with the Theosophical Society.
Eventually Sri Aurobindo did not approve Krishnamurti as was presented by the Teosophical Society, but that must have been a consideration born by a discontinue information about Krishnamurti, which in 1929 had already dissolved the Order of the Star, while the comment of Sri Aurobindo seem to be given in 1940. And possibly Sri Aurobindo had not any more recent news about Krishnamurti.
Sri Aurobindo died in 1950 and Krishnamurti in 1986, from the date of the comment 1940) till the death of Krishnamurti there are 46 years.
This is almost half a century, and I wonder what an integral yoga follower would say if someone said that he or she would not make any progress in his/her spiritual development for half a century.
Would be that even possible?
What I mean is that people take often commentaries has something granitic and unmovable only because said by a reputed person, as if there was not any possibility that Krishnamurti would advance a single step in half a century.
Now, I rather think that Krishnamurti since the dissolution of the Order of the Star has done a great work, to be traced into his memories, the memories of people close to him (Mary Lutyens), his talks and the foundation of the schools.
If someone, after reading about Krishnamurti´s life and his teaching thinks that this man has some problem with his own ego, well, I say that this person would be a complete ignorant and unable to grasp the spiritual value of anything at all.
i
No comments:
Post a Comment