Theos-Talk Archives (September 2002 Message tt00183)

Hi. This is Wry. I have come to Theosophy by chance, but with an open,
unprejudiced mind and heart. True, I know that Krishnamurti, whose work I
greatly respect, and who has had a very large influence on me, called
Theosophy a lot of nonsense or something to that effect, but he was no
authority any more than any of us. I have attempted to look at him with the
same impartial eye I am attempting to use here and have actually made some
assessments of him and his teaching that some K admirers might consider
radical. Each person needs to evaluate material for himself.

What I do notice about the work of Krishnamurti is a clear minded approach
to physical reality that has within it an order that seems to be inherent,
as when the reader experiences it, the organizational process CONTINUES. A
certain quality of truth in his words is easily recognizable, and rings true
as a bell. Nothing that he said was said was in the spirit of telling. It
was always in the spirit of showing. If you follow a branch, or even a twig
of his teaching, it always leads back to the living organism of the tree of
life. Nothing is broken off and disconnected.His teaching is not about
abstract intellectual concepts and archaic formulations. It is about simple
concepts and ideas that any ordinary person with a motivation can
immediately begin the process of enquiring into and verifying in his daily
life. It is a NON-ANALYTIC model and the aim is for the observer to see
himself as he is, in interaction. When this observation is complete,
transformation occurs.

As I have said previously, every teaching needs to be readjusted in such a
way that it continues to be time-appropriate, or it will lose its force.
When we stick with questions rather than with answers, there is already a
natural alignment with the living moment. Some of us may not understand
this, but any of us who have recently had any real questions, will already
have a taste of this. K's teaching emphasized enquiry, and this is one of
the reasons he was great.

I have started to make a study of Theosophy. I do not have an unlimited
amount of time to spend on this, but I will try to do a good job. What I
have seen so far is more interesting than I expected it to be, but starting
from the present moment, this list, here is a tentative assessment: there
seem to be many good and intelligent people attempting to discuss ideas and
learn and grow, but there is an underlying disorder that perhaps has nothing
to do with Brian, but with the structure of Theosophy, itself. I do not
know if Brian's intention is to try to make things more orderly, but I
assume it is, as it is the intention of us all to arrange material in such a
configuration that something new can sprout out of it. Brian may not
consciously know he is attempting to do this, but my sense is, none the
less, that every person wants to create.

I am quite sure why Brian is going back into the past in the way he is, and
why many of you are, but I suggest to you, Brian, and others that you
attempt to bring your own ideas and understanding into this. If you think
Theosophy is nonsense, then I try to make sense of it, but I do not believe
that the taking away of "nonsense" automatically results in "sense". There
needs to be an active, creative force in operation, and this force will
ultimately lead to a REORGANIZATION of material in such a way that a certain
sweet breeze can blow through the open window. It is a matter of sweeping
out the room and leaving a window open. I believe Krishamurti put it
something like that. If there is a "servant" in the room, if she is being
forced to work, if she is not part of the family, a certain sacred quality
will not accompany the work. A genuine question is the beginning of
consecration. There is a sacred quality to this question.

As far as Brian being fanatic, from what I have seen, this is an
exaggeration. To me he is like a lamb or a puppy. Do you call a puppy a
fanatic? Brian is here, as are you and I, to be consciously fit into the
plan of any human being with a conscious aim connected to conscience who is
DESIGNING with material in such a way that is creative. Look for a point of
entrance and actualize your own intentions. I, too, am curious about Brian's
motivation, but this is not a genuine question that I can relate to myself
and my aim, so I would not pursue it, There is an adage, "do not let the
left hand know what the right is doing." Brian does not need to tell you
why. Maybe he does not know because he does not know himself. Maybe he does
know, but does not wish to tell you. Maybe he will "tell" you but will
make-up a reason. In my assessment, Madame Blavatsky had her own plan of
which she kept certain details to herself. Why should not Brian do the same?

Regarding all of this. if some Theosophists are stupid, this does not mean
all Theosophists are stupid. What I personally might do is examine Theosophy
to see what, if anything about it, is flawed. In this way, it can be
readjusted to this time in such a way that it may be more effective. Brian
can help you do this. I have a somewhat extensive understanding of
metaphysical subject matter based on a long career of study coupled with
reality-based verification, and, personally, I do not believe everything
Madame Blavatsky says to be TRUE. I do not care if she manipulated a few
idiots in order to effect a greater spiritual aim. I am speaking of
something else. I believe she understood a lot, but that there was error. If
nothing else (and I believe there is more), her approach was flawed, in that
it was overly subjective and did not lay a solid foundation for future
generations. But IF this is true, this does not mean that it is good or bad.
It is just an objective fact. Every moment spent looking back at the past
and analyzing it is another moment spent not verifying. That is sad.
Sincerely, Wry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bartl@sprynet.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World The Temple of the Quest.


> brianmuehlbach wrote:
> > A new "sixt sub-race" (not a "real race" as Theosophical apologetics in
> > 2002 will argue), today still claimed by Theosophists to emerge in
> > southern California/USA was also to have a new Messiah.
>
> Brian, I think we get it. There has been a bunch of behavior among
> theosophists in the past and present that ranges from idiocy to evil.
> That is also true for just about any philosophical movement you can
> name.
>
> It is plain that your goal is to convince people that Theosophy is
> wrong. And you are putting in a tremendous amount of energy into your
> quest.
>
> So, I must ask you: WHY? Most people who think Theosophy is nonsense
> are more than happy to leave its followers to their nonsense. And there
> are plenty of groups that believe in nonsense. Why is it so important to
> you to try to convince followers of Theosophy, in particular, to quit?
>
> I certainly appreciate the fact that you are willing to discuss the
> matter intelligently (as opposed to another user with a similar name who
> used to own your websites). And, frankly, the information that you have
> given has proven to be useful, at least to me, because your examples
> certainly go against my own idea of Theosophy, and they forced me to do
> the research required to show that they are aberrations, and not
> mainstream. And for that, I thank you.
>
> Still, there is an APPEARANCE (as opposed to reality, at least I HOPE
> that it's opposed to reality) of fanaticism on your part. If you
> explained your motivation better, then we would be better able to
> understand you, and you would almost certainly receive less hostility,
> and might actually convince a few people.
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>