Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tt00053)

Dear Art
You wrote:

>Taking the Masters... they are but pale reflections and echoes of the
>Ancient Wisdom we all seek. I will take a Jeddu Krishnamurti anyday over a
>Koothumi, or a Sri Aurobindo over a Dhwal Khul, or a Swendenborg over a
>Saint Germaine... Name them all my friend... they will not measure up in
>thought, depth or spiritual power. When the Gita can be apprehended in its
>original language (as English can only approximate) it is far more powerful
>and penetrating than a few crumbs of Morya!
>

A friend who still does a lot of work with the Krishnamurti school  was
amongst those having lunch with Krishnamurti, when someone said the kind of
thing you are writing about the Mahatmas  (the difference being that that
person was being derogatory) -
 to which Krishnamurti responded:
"You just don't know what you are talking about."

>Taking the Masters... they are but pale reflections and echoes of the
>Ancient Wisdom we all seek.

This writer certainly does not see the Masters "as pale reflections and
echoes .
. ."
For example, if we see the MAHATMA:  MAHAT-ATMA as a pale reflection, what
of SPIRIT?  What of intuition, mind and space?
For some spirit is non-existent
To others it is real

You write of "real" live Tibetans, as if being able to see and touch them,
is what
makes them real.  But how does the *real* in them differ to the real in you?

What do you understand the original language of the Gita to be?
Divine wisdom (theosophy)?

Best wishes,

Tony





-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.