Theos-Talk Archives (March 2002 Message tt00245)

Hi Brigitte,

I am the first to admit that many of you have a much greater
understanding of theosophical history than I do.

I am also aware that Sanat's works are mot well recieved in all quarters.
There is a real disparity between TS people and K's devotees, and it
seems many do not want to see that gap closed.

My only purpose in posting what I did was to show that K did not
absolutely reject Masters per se.

You comments on "the process" or Kundalini are well taken. I will let
other pick up the torch on this one if they so desire. as once again, I
am out of my league.

Larry 

On Sun, 10 Mar 2002 12:14:04 -0000 "bri_mue" <bri_mue@yahoo.com> writes:
> Larry, I just had a look at Aryel Sanat [Miguel Angel Sanabria], The 
> Inner Life of Krishnamurti, Private Passion and Perennial Wisdom, 
> Quest Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 1999.
> However some of the flaws it seems to me are that Sanat, appears not 
> 
> to have employed any of the standard biographies of Leadbeater 
> (Tillett's Elder Brother), Besant (Nethercott's The First Five 
> Lives; 
> The Last Five Lives) and so on.
> 
> Several of Sanat's statements seem suspect: Olcott cannot be 
> considered as having been one of the most respected psychic 
> investigators in the world (p. 7), nor was he put in charge of the 
> investigation of President Lincoln's assassination (p. 7) in fact he 
> 
> was given a special commission to investigate conspiracy); it is not 
> 
> possible to conclude that Leadbeater's Ôpsychic ability has stood up 
> 
> to the more rigorous scrutiny of researchers almost a century later 
> (p. 41). Sanat also entirely misunderstands Blavatsky's notion of a 
> twentieth century Avatar (p. 265). It is also an odd construction 
> to 
> suggest that if such teachers (Masters) exist, yet were not behind 
> this powerful and influential movement (Theosophy), would that not 
> be 
> an oversight of colossal proportions on their part? (p. 24). Nor is 
> it necessary to conclude that Krishnamurti's psycho-physical 
> stigmata 
> (the process) provide evidence for the Masters' existence:
> 
> If there were no perennial teachers in charge of the process, then 
> the process remains a mystery - incomprehensible, unknowable. On the 
> 
> other hand, if what K said from when he first experienced the 
> process 
> in 1922 until his death in 1986 is accepted as true - that the 
> process was conducted by the perennial teachers - then the 
> experiences connected with it can be explained and need no longer 
> remain a mystery (p. 30).
> 
> If so, look forward to your feed back reg.the above.
> Bri.
> 
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "bri_mue" <bri_mue@y...> wrote:
> > Larry:"is not the same as denying them."
> > 
> > Yes Larry, but if we ad "them", then wouldn't it be fair to also 
> > ask, if so, what did Krishnamurti then really understood 
> > under "them" ?
> > 
> > Namely the way I understood the incident when Krishnamurti 
> ironicly 
> > said that , yes, "he saw" them, that he really meant, in his 
> creative
> > imagination. That is not as a distinct entity other then in his 
> own 
> > mind. And I suspect that he was conditioned to see so by 
> Leadbeater.
> > 
> > I mentioned once before on this list that I met one of 
> > the "clairvoyant" so called, "Leadbeater children", the brother of 
> 
> > the former president of the TS in the US, Harry van Gelder in 
> Ojai.
> > 
> > And the way Leadbeater was training his pupils to be "clairvoyant" 
> 
> is 
> > trough creative "visualization", that is you imagine it first, and 
> 
> > then let that what you imagine independently of your 
> "intellectual" 
> > thinking, act on its own, and "trust" that what you see is real.
> > 
> > This said I want to distinguish between the Leadbeater or in 
> general 
> > post Blavatskyan, "visualized" (or/and "Channeled") "Masters"-era, 
> 
> > and the biographycal events as analysed in K.Paul Johnson's "The 
> > Masters Revealed."
> > 
> > Bri.
> > 
> > 
> > Bri.
> > --- In theos-talk@y..., Larry F Kolts <llkingston2@j...> wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 06 Mar 2002 01:29:28 -0000 "bri_mue" <bri_mue@y...> 
> writes:
> > > > Sanat's interpretation of Krishnamurti has been seriouly taken 
> 
> in 
> > > > doubt 
> > > > by many other Krishnamurti biographers.
> > > > 
> > > > There is no doubt that Krishnamurti said:
> > > > 
> > > > "I have told you frankly that Masters are unessential, that 
> the 
> > idea 
> > > > of
> > > > Masters is nothing more than a toy to the man who really seeks 
> 
> > > > truth." 
> > > > J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti 
> (Dubuque 
> > IA:
> > > > Kendall/Hunt, 1991), Vol. I, p. 173.
> > > >
> > > Yes, this goes along with the lack of need for Masters K 
> expressed.
> > > 
> > > But just because he no longer felt a need for them is not the 
> same 
> > as
> > > denying them.
> > > 
> > > Larry 
> > > 
> > > ________________________________________________________________
> > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
> > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
> > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
> > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 


________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.