[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one

Jan 28, 2003 01:26 PM
by wry

Hi. Please read my response below your message.
----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:28 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one

> Hi,
> Respectfully, so you are not inspired by her writings, so what? Many
> people are. her Voice of the Silence (
> ) is a booklet
> full of spiritual wisdom, and hardly confused. Then again, nobody is
> asking anybody to give up their religion. Theosophy "only" claims to
> help people get in touch with the spiritual dimension behind each
> religion. Granted, that is a huge claim, but I don't think you are in
> a position to judge Blavatskian theosophy, as of yet. Her work is
> complex and has absolutely no claim of even being complete.
> As for the Order of the Star of the East, this was an organisation
> created for Jiddu Krishnamurti. If you've followed the link recently
> supplied by Daniel Caldwell, and read the article thoroughly, you may
> have come across the line where it says that HPB DID NOT predict any
> avatar any time soon. So - what's the relevance? You can hardly blame
> one theosophist for what another is saying. Theosophy is one of those
> religions where people can have totally opposite views of reality (or
> myth) and still be members, or even leaders of the Theosophical
> Society. That freedom is a much cherished quality.
> My point being: Krishnamurti was brought to the fore by Annie Besant
> and Leadbeater. As you know I fully admire and study Jiddu
> Krishnamurti's work, but the relationship between that work and the
> work of H.P. Blavatsky can only be found by living both. That is,
> with some help of The Voice of the Silence and perhaps Aryal Sanat's
> work "The Inner Life of Krishnamurti". But the relationship between
> the Order of the Star of the East and HP Blavatsky is nill. Whether
> the paths each lead to converge, is up to each student. For me they
> do. Better put, for me they are complementary.
> In short - I don't think you know what you are talking about. Sorry
> to be this direct.

WRY: It is o.k. with me if you are direct, if it is in the spirit of
enquiry, but it is hard to answer this, as there are not that many specifics
and myaybe not enough in my message either, but it was just meant to be a
beginning. I have to go to work, but maybe I will try later. I agree that
the paths can be complementary, but there is an affect that her writings
created that is holding people back. People are are here babbling about the
"light" and being immortal. There is little enqujiry. It is really not
happening, though it seems to be getting better, not worse, since I have
been on here. If you want to enquire on here about theosophy, I would be
glad to do it with you.

I have gotten good stuff from Madame Blavatsky's writing, but it does not
seem to be an organic whole. Also, what happened with Krishnamurti was an
interconnected event, in relationship to her and her teachings. You and
others do not seem to understand this. Maybe things progressed so very fast
according to her good work, and her teaching, even then, had already become
time-inappropriate (this is not to suggest that an individual cannot receive
something or other from studying it).

What I say may be wrong. I am no authority. But neither are you. If you
disagree my message, you need to demonstrate that what I say is not true. If
you do not have the time and energy to do this, perhaps you can help to
promote an atmosphere of enquiry on here. You have already stated something
to the effect that you left this list and other theosophy lists because
there was so much dissention. I believe this was well before I came on the
scene. The message I wrote was actually in response to a message from Leon
in which he posed ceratin question (1/28) in which he posed certain
questions. Wry p.s. As far as K dissolving the Order Of the Star,
theosophy is a belief system, however subtle, and it was against the spirit
of his teaching. People do not accomplish the establishment of a universal
brotherhood by believing they are immortal. It is a thought, and will not
accomplish that, and leads to static eternalism, which is immature and has
nothing to do with the mind becoming intelligent and solving urgent
problems. How come I am so afraid to speak on here? It is not a free
> Katinka Hesselink
> --- In, "wry" <wry1111@e...> wrote:
> > Hi. I personally do not believe this is the time on earth for
> people to practice individual religions, but most people will not
> give up their religion until they have something to replace it with.
> All major organic religions are designed, tested and fine-tuned over
> many hundreds of years by many individuals, not just one, to convey
> material to individuals of various levels of understanding by the
> means of allegory in story, art and ritual, in such a way that it can
> be organically assimilated onto their functioning in such a way that
> there is TRANSCENDENCE. True, when people interpret this symbolism
> literally, it crystallizes into dogma, and this is a big problem, but
> at least there is a change for certain material to be conveyed.
> >
> > With theosophy, it is different. It does NOT succeed in doing
> this.. Blavatsky was too mixed up. She had certain knowledge, but did
> NOT understand how to present it. She was quite developed in some
> ways, but in other ways, she was spiritually IMMATURE. This is why
> the conditions she established, as part of an interconnected
> continuum, led to what someone on here recently dismissed as "the
> Krishnamurti incident." Any mature spiritual person would need to
> reject her teaching in order to fulfil the prophecy of actually
> becoming a great world teacher.
> >
> > Just as, if religion is not working, there is are reasons, so also,
> if theosophy is not working there are reasons, but all of the reasons
> are not exactly the same. I believe she was successful in that she
> brought eastern teachings to the west at a certain time, but as far
> as achieving the aim of a universal brotherhood, theosophy will not
> work unless there is a different approach. I am willing to enquire
> into this with members of this list. The Order Of The Star was
> dissolved by its leader. It is over. You are acting as if still
> exists, but it does not. It is impossible to work this all out
> without enquiring deeply. If no one is interested in doing this,
> nothing will change. This is sad.
> >
> > No Buddhist, Hindu, Roman Catholic, Jew or Muslim or whatever is
> going to give up his FINELY-TUNED, though perhaps time-appropriate
> religion, which, at the very least, can create a state of deep
> reverence which resonates within, no matter how imperfect it is, to
> read the confused writings of Madame Blavatsky. In my opinion,
> theosophy in its present form will not accomplish the aim for which
> it was designed. Wry
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application