"Again, you have the idea that only certain people hold the key to the Kingdom of Happiness. No one holds it. No one has the authority to hold that key. That key is your own self, and in the development and the purification and in the incorruptibility of that self alone is the Kingdom of Eternity." (K - Dissolution of the Order Of The Star 1962)

Without being 'for' or 'against' is there a way we can throw light on what K was trying to express. The wording changed throughout his teaching but is there not a consistency of meaning?

Or, if one insists he was in error, where does it lie?

The phrase 'Kingdom of Eternity' is something that has resonance in all his writings. Later he talks of the 'ground of all being' as having the characteristic of 'eternity.' That word should be easy to track in the archive.

What are you waiting for?

Paul Davidson wrote:
Or, if one insists he was in error, where does it lie?

He was not 'in error'. He spoke honestly from where he was at the time. And at that time he was breaking away from his theosophical conditioning and control.

(Why have you quoted 1962 as the year? That isn't the year of the dissolution of the order of the star.)

Also - K never went back over old territory to explain his actions in retrospect. Why would he? He always spoke from the moment he was in.

Which is why context IS important in the teaching of K. And probably why he allowed and approved the biographies, although never showing any interest in what they said. And again - why would he be interested? It wasn't happening now.

So one can go back to the very early teaching in isolation, and find an 'out' for the self in there. K eventually closed down all those loop-holes in the teaching. The later teaching is austere and concise, with no comfort at all for the self to indulge itself in. But the teaching as a 'whole' is extremely relevant, as it reveals the process of negation.

One can take the bits one likes and ignore the rest, but such action will never result in understanding.

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
The later teaching is austere and concise, with no comfort at all for the self to indulge itself in.

Excellent,thanks!,

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

The horse is dead.

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Why do you say that Dean?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
He was not 'in error'. He spoke honestly from where he was at the time. And at that time he was breaking away from his theosophical conditioning and control.

Thanks Patricia. I agree with most of your posting, as it applies, generally. But this thing about K's 'theosophical conditioning' that he had to break from . . . I am not sure of that.

However I also believe his teaching developed in many ways. He was a human being in a body dealing with the complexity of human society and human psyche, which also changed incrementally over the 70 years. His terminology developed and his choicefulness of words changed.

But I do not think the basics changed. In these threads on the dissolution speech I am asking, what changed and what remains? It is not a theoretical exercise. It is a rediscovery and deepening of our understanding, which must be from the heart, not simply the intellect.

The emotion is quite different from the thinking, when they are divided, which they mostly are. So we need to touch his early writings and talks with our hearts and our minds, together, not separate. It is not for an 'out for the self' that I seek,but for a deepening of the understanding. .

What are you waiting for?

Patricia Hemingway wrote:
Why do you say that Dean?

Haven't you already explained to Paul on the 'Dissolution Of The Order Of The Star' thread, where Krishnamurti was at?

His stated purpose for the thread is false. He's a pretender, a time waster, one who deeply feels that which doesn't exist to be felt. :)

"See thought arising; watch it. Without that, all else is illusion and becoming."

Thanks Dean - understood.