WHAT SADHGURU SAID ABOUT KRISHNAMURTI

In the following video you can see what Sadhguru said about Jiddu Krishnamurti:

ALSIBAR ANALYSIS

Alsibar is a researcher who has studied spiritual guides extensively, and he commented on what Sadhguru said about Krishnamurti:

« Hello everyone, today we're going to talk about Sadguru and his view of Krishnamurti. Many people ask me what I think specifically about Sadguru. I haven't researched him yet, but I'll take this opportunity to discuss his statements about Krishnamurti.

Sadhguru starts by saying that Krishnamurti refused to use any method, which is true, but he also adds that Krishnamurti refused to use any parable, story, or joke, which is not true.

Anyone familiar with Krishnamurti's work will recall several anecdotes and parables he tells, some of which he even invented himself. If you'd like to learn more about the stories, parables, and jokes (some admittedly a bit lame) that Krishnamurti told, read the book "The Kitchen Chronicles: 1001 Lunches with J. Krishnamurti" by Michael Krohner, who was Krishnamurti's personal cook for many years.

Well, regarding the claim that no one understood what Krishnamurti was talking about, that's not true. Some did, but rarely.

And it's true that Krishnamurti refused to play the role of guru, to offer any kind of process. But Sadhguru makes another blunder by claiming that Krishnamurti said "it will happen anyway," because this is not true. Krishnamurti never said that, and knowing his way of thinking, I can assure you he would never have said it under any circumstances.

And Sadhguru also mentions something that is very common in Krishnamurti groups, that there is a lot of confusion, a lot of misunderstandings.

But Sadhguru makes his biggest mistake regarding Krishnamurti, saying that Krishnamurti's path is the path of intellect. He uses the correct word, jnana marga, but as far as I know, any basic student of Hinduism —well, anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Sanskrit— knows that jnana marga is about the path of wisdom, not intellect.

And Sadhguru is dishonest about Krishnamurti when he says that Krishnamurti's path is the path of intellect, which is false. Krishnamurti always criticized intellect, knowledge, and scholarship in the spiritual realm, though not in the practical realm of life.

This is one of the biggest lies Sadhguru told, which is very strange. I don't know if he did it in bad faith since he is a guru and a person who knows Indian culture and language.

Another misconception that demonstrates Sadguru's ignorance or superficial knowledge of Krishnamurti; first he says that Krishnamurti was "a fantastic person," that is, he praises him, right? And Sadguru adds that when Krishnamurti was in a place "he was a fragrance, but afterwards when Krishnamurti left only the books remained because there was no living process."

This is very similar to Osho's words about Krishnamurti. He has a phrase like this: "It gives no method," and then he says, referring to a supposed method that Krishnamurti uses, "that method will lead nobody anywhere." Which is contradictory.

Well, Sadhguru here does the same thing, first saying that Krishnamurti emitted an incredible vibration, but then adding that it only served as an intellectual exercise, which is contradictory.

But Krishnamurti also displays anything but intellectual exercise. Any beginner reader of Krishnamurti knows this; he abhorred intellect. And in so-called spiritual matters, there is nothing to do with intellectual exercise, and for Christians, absolutely nothing.

And finally, Sadhguru talks about his experience with education, saying that he really liked Krishnamurti's view on education, and that's why he enrolled his daughter in one of Krishnamurti's schools.

So what we perceive is that on the one hand Sadhguru praises Krishnamurti and on the other hand criticizes him, but it's not constructive criticism; I consider it dishonest criticism, or at least very superficial. »

CID ANALYSIS

I have observed that Sadguru makes great errors regarding Indian spiritual doctrine, which shows that he is quite ignorant of his native teaching, and his mistake of defining jnana marga (also called jnana yoga) as the path of the intellect instead of the path of spiritual knowledge, is further proof of his spiritual uneducation.

And I have also observed that Sadguru investigates superficially; for example, in his speech he said that Khalil Gibran entered the room where Krishnamurti was, but in reality it was the other way around, and Khalil Gibran related that it was Krishnamurti who entered the room where he was.

And I also note that Sadguru makes many mistakes and tells many lies. Here Alsibar detailed the mistakes and lies that Sadguru told regarding Krishnamurti, and I have published two articles where I detailed the mistakes and lies that Sadguru told regarding Blavatsky, Leadbeater, Besant and the Theosophical Society.

And finally, I note that Sadhguru (like Osho) displays a combination of admiration and contemptuous criticism about Krishnamurti. But as Alsibar demonstrated, his criticism is unfounded, and as for his praise, I consider it hypocritical, motivated more by Krishnamurti's fame than by genuine admiration, since Krishnamurti was strongly against deceitful and abusive gurus, and both Osho and Sadhguru are that type of guru.

BLAVATSKY DESCRIBED BY SADHGURU

In the first three minutes of the following video, Sadhguru spoke about Blavatsky, and although he said little about her, I note that most of what he said is incorrect:

CORRECTIONS

1. Sadhguru said that Blavatsky was in India in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but this is false.

Blavatsky had previously visited India twice in the mid-19th century.

Her third stay in India (which is the one Sadhguru mentions) was from January 1879 to May 1885.

But it is false that Blavatsky was in India at the beginning of the 20th century because Blavatsky died in 1891.

2. Sadhguru said that all those Western spiritual seekers who went to India were explorers of Indian mysticism: Max Muller, Paul Brunton, including Blavatsky who came before them.

But this is incorrect because while the other seekers went to India to discover Indian spiritual teachings, Blavatsky went to India to clarify those teachings and motivate the natives to value them.

3. Sadhguru said that for Western explorers of mysticism, their journey to India was quite an adventure because—among other odysseys—they had to try to meet the right guru, but with Blavatsky this was not the case because she already had her teacher: Mahatma Morya.

4. Sadhguru said that Blavatsky ended up in Tamil Nadu where she established the Theosophical Society, but this is incorrect because the Theosophical Society was initially founded in 1875 in New York.

Later, the headquarters of the Theosophical Society moved to the Indian city of Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), and then to the Adyar neighborhood located in the south of the Indian city of Chennai (formerly known as Madras), which is the capital of the state of Tamil Nadu.

And Blavatsky didn't end there, since she later went to live in Europe.

5. Sadhguru said that Blavatsky's project was to produce the perfect being, but this is incorrect and in reality Blavatsky's goal was to help humans develop (although not yet become perfect), and to achieve that, three objectives were established for the Theosophical Society which Blavatsky summarized in her book "The Key to Theosophy":

 

« The  principles of the Theosophical Society are three and always have been since the beginning, and these are:

 

1) To form the core of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, color or creed.

2) To promote the study of Aryan and other scriptures, of the religions and sciences of the world, and to vindicate the importance of ancient Asian literature, namely, Brahmanic, Buddhist and Zoroastrian philosophies.

3) To investigate the hidden mysteries of nature in all possible aspects, and especially the psychic and spiritual powers latent in man. »

(p.39)

CONCLUSION

Sadhguru did not study Blavatsky well.

LEADBEATER AND BESANT DESCRIBED BY SADHGURU

In the following video, from minute 2:40 to minute 6:00, Sadhguru spoke about Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant, and although he said little about them, I find that most of what he said is incorrect:

CORRECTIONS

1. Sadhguru said "Leadbeater and Besant are brilliant intellects, there is no doubt about that."

But this asseveration is false because Charles Leadbeater was a huge charlatan and Annie Besant let herself be completely manipulated by him.

Both claimed to have highly developed clairvoyance, but all their clairvoyant investigations have turned out to be tremendously wrong.

And they also developed a pseudo-theosophy which is full of lies.

2. Sadhguru said, "For some reason and at some point, Leadbeater and Besant believed that with all the esoteric information they had gathered and through their intelligence, they could recreate the perfect man and chose Jiddu Krishnamurti."

But this asseveration is also false because Leadbeater and Besant were not seeking to create the perfect man, but rather Leadbeater wanted to further deceive people, and to achieve this he invented the lie that "The Lord Christ-Maitreya, the World Teacher" would soon come.

And Annie Besant completely believed this lie.

3. Sadhguru said, "When Krishnamurti was about 27 or 28 years old, Leadbeater and Besant decided to announce to the world that he was the ascended master, that the perfect master had arrived."

But this asseveration is also false.

First, Leadbeater and Besant announced Krishnamurti's existence to the world when he was 14 years old, not when he was 27 or 28 years old.

Then they claimed that Krishnamurti would be the messenger of Lord Christ-Maitreya, not that he was the perfect master.

And finally, theosophists never spoke of "ascended masters," this was a lie invented in 1930 by the fraudster Guy Ballard.

CONCLUSION

Sadhguru did not study Leadbeater, Besant, or the Masters well.