Re: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one
Jan 28, 2003 09:54 PM
Hi. Here is a further reply to to your message, as I had to go to work. My
message, as previously stated. was in response to Leon's message of today in
which he questions religion and asks if theosophy could be the shortest
method. I originally linked to his message and after writing quite a bit,
when I pressed the enter button to make a space, some of his message became
deleted and then when I continued writing, each word was missing a
letter,over and over, so I had to start all over. Anyway, see below.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 11:28 AM
Subject: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one
> Respectfully, so you are not inspired by her writings, so what? Many
> people are. her Voice of the Silence (
> http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/voice/voice.htm ) 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.
WRY: Actually, work has been amazingly easy to evaluate as the flaws repeat
themselves over and over and stand out like a sore thumb, and again, I have
never discounted thevalue of her work, but it is no longer time-appropriate
and there are other problems. I am not saying her work is of no value, but
it's major flaw is that it creates a strong affect, that of eternalism,
which people easily get bonded to, and this form of eternalism, in my
opinion, has nothing to do with transformation or what it is about, and even
retards it. It is easy to see this result in others and I have experienced
it myself from reading her writings, but I am sophisticated enough to not
get sucked into what I see as a pit and a dead place. In my opinion, this is
an unbalanced state and highly problematic. It is simplistic, but not
necessarily bad if people can progress beyond it, but generally, many do not
seem able to. It is an obstacle. I am willing to enquire into this in detail
and maybe I can learn something. I will be writing much more about this
subject soon and giving my opinion, which people can respond to.
Because I do not believe Madame Blavatsky completely understood certain
concepts and how to communicate about certain ideas, it is questionable to
me that her writing will help most people to get in touch with "the
spiritual dimension behind each religion." It is way too heady and
intellectual, among other things. It may even be better to participate fully
in one religion and ponder its teachings.
> 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.
WRY: I somehow missed this message, but would like to read it if I can find
it, but WHO CARES WHAT SHE PREDICTED. I do not understand why you present
this as if it is a valid point.
> So - what's the relevance?
WRY: Maybe not much, now that you mention it, but he rejected theosophy and
there was a reason. Too bad a great world teacher who came out of that
movement could not continue to promote the movement, not that he was an
authority anymore than HBP, you or I, but his teaching was alive. He
explained things for anyone, so they could be changed, if they enquired
deeply. On this list we have people talking about being immortal and finding
the light and saying maybe we talked to Jesus in a previous incarnation.
There is little enquiry here, and also LOTS of infighting which has nothing
to do with me.
>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
WRY: IS it a religion? I don't think so.
That freedom is a much cherished quality.
WRY: Too bad I am afraid to speak what I see as the truth on here.
> 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".
WRY: You have done very good work, in my opinion, on your Krishnamurti list
(which I have loved participating on), and made some good comments and left
some valuable and appropriate quotes by K.which stimulated real enquiry, as
his words always do. On this list a lot of people do not seem to know how
to talk about ideas in their own words. It is sad. I will write more about
this later. About Sanat, I have read his messages in the archives. He seems
like a sincere person, but his approach, though well meaning, seemed to me
to be lopsided and slanted toward theosophy in a simplisitc way that somehow
missed the mark.. This was my impression.
>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: One person cannot invent what you have referred to as a "religion".
Maybe you did not mean to use the word religion. I have spent much time
trying to participate on this list and contribute something worthwhile. I
hope I have. I actually do not believe you know what you are talking about,
but who even cares what you or I believe. When you or I say something like
this, it is the establishment of ourselves as an authority and a base, is it
not? In my opinion all this stuff about theosophy and the matatmas
eventually came viewed as sheer and utter nonsense by Krishnamurti and
anyone who reads his writings can easily understand this. This is the kind
of stuff he came to consider to be stupid. He was no authority, and I do not
even necessarily agree completely with this view, as my own spiritual
background has a strong empathesis on something very similar to Madame
Blavatsky, and in some ways, her work is very appealing to me and I see a
potential for theosophy to reflower in a certain way that could be most
exciting to many on here, but I do not tell, only show, little by little.
Anyway, re Krishnamurti and theosophy, the value of anything depends on
what can creatively be done with it, on how it can consciously be USED, and
out of this movement he emerged as a great world teacher, whether you agree
(that he emerged out of it) or not. It is a fact worth more than just
noting. I still stand behind my original statement about Krishnamurti in the
message below, though if I had known it would be so upsetting to someone, I
may have phrased it differently. I am sorry to have so upset you and any
others, if I have done so. If you read my future messages, I will attempt
to clarify my position and maybe you will get a better sense of where I am
coming from. Sincerely, Wry
> Katinka Hesselink
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application