Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00133)

In a message dated 4/8/00 6:19:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
gschueler@earthlink.net writes:

[About Krishnamurti, in response to Dallas' comments, to which I have 
responded:]

<< He was, I think, beyond any organization including Theosophy.
 His "pathless land" approach is more Zen than Theosophical. >>

Dear Gerry:
Please note that, according to HPB & her teachers (who were the real authors 
of her work, including THE SECRET DOCTRINE), the schools of Zen were 
considered important "esoteric sources" for the ancient wisdom.  In other 
words, there is an important sense in which there is absolutely no 
distinction between "Zen" and "theosophy," according to the authors of the 
SD.  I discussed this more fully in a paper I published in the last special 
issue of the AMERICAN THEOSOPHIST (on THE SECRET DOCTRINE), in May, 1988, 
called "THE SECRET DOCTRINE, KRISHNAMURTI, AND TRANSFORMATION."  I got so 
many requests for reprints, that I decided to publish it myself as a small 
pamphlet, with some changes.  But now I've run out of that, as well.  You can 
get it on the net, however.  My friend Rodolfo Don has published it on his 
website, the name of which unfortunately I don't have handy just now.  If 
interested, you may reach him at rdon@garlic.com.  (Or else:  Rudy, if you 
see this, please let us all know about your website.  Thanks, & sorry.)  I 
discuss it in even more detail in a book-length ms called THE STANZAS OF ZEN. 
 But I'll just give you a few details here:
As you know, HPB's Secret Doctrine is largely a commentary on THE STANZAS OF 
DZYAN.  So this could credibly be said to be the most important, major source 
for what theosophy truly is, according to HPB's teachers.  What they say, in 
THE THEOSOPHICAL GLOSSARY (entry "Dzyn"), is that "Dzyan [is also] written 
DZEN.  A corruption of the Sanskrit DHYAN and JNANA."  Of course, at the time 
they wrote this, there was no universally-accepted way of transcribing "ZEN" 
into English.  But they are telling us that, if we were using today's 
transcription of the word, the ancient text that is the source for all 
theosophy might more properly be called THE STANZAS OF ZEN, the stanzas of 
meditation, the stanzas of transformation -- as I discuss & document more 
fully in my work.
So your comment that K's work is more similar to Zen than to theosophy is 
most poignant, because it points directly to one of the major insights coming 
out of my research on these subjects:  ZEN (in this deeper, ancient, 
perennial sense) IS what theosophy is.  Transformation is what theosophy is 
about, and what it truly consists in.  Without initiation, without 
transformation (as K used that word), there CANNOT be any THEOSOPHY.  
THEOSOPHY is that which happens in theosophical, divine-like, states of 
awareness.
I know, I know.  We have been sold a huge bill of goods, that theosophy is 
"really" a metaphysical system.  In my work, which is full of specific 
references to the HPB corpus (including letters from her teachers), I show 
that such a THEORETICAL INTERPRETATION of theosophy is absolutely mistaken.  
Just look at it, even if only for a moment:  A metaphysics, a conceptual 
system, comes from the analytical mind.  It may be INSPIRED by a "higher" 
source or dimension.  But the system is clearly a product of the analytical 
mind.  That includes all classifications of races & other groups, all the 
"bodies" that presumably make up a human being, all the THEORIES that have 
been given out (for much too long by now, if you ask me) as if they stood for 
TRANSFORMATION, that is, for genuine THEOSOPHY.
All the talk about MONADS, CAUSAL BODIES, & such, is clearly nothing but 
that:  TALK.  In order to even have a vague understanding of what such WORDS 
might refer to, ONE MUST BE in theosophical states of awareness.  That, in 
any case, is what HPB's teachers said, over & over, in oh, so many, many 
ways.  The analytical mind is a ridiculously inadequate instrument for even 
looking at these issues, let alone UNDERSTANDING them, not to speak of 
"discussing" them.  The value & meaning of these issues are to be discovered 
in that silence (as in THE VOICE OF THE SILENCE) in which the analytical mind 
is not ("The Mind is the Great Slayer of the Real.  Let the Disciple Slay the 
Slayer").  Anything short of that, is sheer & unadulterated DECEPTION -- 
apart from having very little, if anything, to do with THEOSOPHY.  The 
"inspiration" I spoke of above, & which may or may not be a component of some 
particular SYSTEM calling itself "Theosophy," clearly comes from a 
non-analytical source.  THAT is where THEOSOPHY can be found, and THERE ALONE.
For someone who has never been exposed to THEOSOPHY, the analytical mind can 
be somewhat useful in all this, in that, if someone conversant with 
theosophical states of awareness (such as the perennial teachers) speaks or 
writes of THEOSOPHY, the analytical mind CAN be used to help point in the 
direction of the one thing that needs to be done:  engage in transformation.
However, now that we have a deep, highly sophisticated, yet simply expressed 
new version of what true THEOSOPHY is, in the Krishnamurti corpus, all that 
STUFF can be more misleading, even dangerous in many ways (since people get 
to think, arbitrarily, that they "truly know" what "Theosophy" is), than 
really useful, to those not interested in transformation.  But for a group of 
people to have come to the insidious & laughable notion that the analytical 
mind is in any position to truly give us what THEOSOPHY is -- well, that's a 
joke of colossal, historic proportions.  Future THEOSOPHISTS will look back 
upon the first century AB (After Blavatsky) whenever they feel down & out, & 
want to have a really good laugh.  Imagine:  The Masters of Zen Masters, 
spinning CONCEPTUAL systems based on VICTORIAN ideas & expectations!  If that 
is not funny, I don't know what is.
One major upshot of all this, as I see it as of now (as a result of all this 
research), is:  If you want to know what real THEOSOPHY is, go to the best 
source we have available, as of now:  Go to J. KRISHNAMURTI.
With affection,
Aryel

-- 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.