Theos-Talk Archives (January 2003 Message tt00671)

Hi Wry:

> 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. 
Well, I agree: you weren't all that specific. Blavatsky's writings 
(taken as a whole) are indeed not a whole. If you look at them hoping 
to find a complete philosophy of life, you will not find it. HPB 
never claimed that anyhow. If on the other hand she is what she 
claimed to be: a messenger of the masters, then it all makes sense: 
she gave out details and broad outlines as she saw fit, and was 
allowed to. That these aren't a whole is because she had taken a vow 
of silence. 
> 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. 
I haven't actually followed the discussion on this list. But are you 
critisising them or HPB? There is a difference. I don't think it is 
fair to critisize the teacher for the quality of the understanding of 
the teacher. 
> 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.
Sure - what subjects would interest you? 
> I have gotten good stuff from Madame Blavatsky's writing, but it 
> does not seem to be an organic whole. 
answered that above. 
> Also, what happened with Krishnamurti was an
> interconnected event, in relationship to her and her teachings. 
YOu can state that, but what on earth do you mean? I don't see the 
connection. Can you give us your reason(s) for seeing the two as 
connected? Please include quotes. Why blame HPB for what happened 
decades after her death? 
> 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).
People were not actually studying HPB all that much at the time that 
Krishnamurti was raised. They were studying Leadbeaters work, and 
Annie Besant's and the work of other clairvoyants. That is, the 
majority of the TS-Adyar members were. That the other TS's were 
studying Blavatsky (if they were) has no relevance here. Once again: 
if you had read the post by Daniel on this, you would have known 
that. 
> 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
> atmosphere.
You are leaping so many thoughtbridges here, it is difficult to trace 
them all. First of all: any statement of fact can become a 
beliefsystem once people start taking it on faith. This is true as 
much mor modern physics, mathematics, Buddhism as it is theosophy. 
Blavatsky, other than Krishnamurti, saw fit to disseminate certain 
things she saw as facts. That most of us don't know this to be true, 
does not make Blavatsky a fraud or her teachings useless. 
Krishnamurti made a huge and applaudable effort to avoid this 
pitfall. Still, it does seem a bit forced here and there. But the 
fact that he thought that a priority does not mean that this priority 
is universal for all of us. It is hardly fair to transport one 
person's priorities to another. Especially when the times in which 
they lived were so different. Krishnamurti spoke mainly after the 
first world war. Blavatsky before either world war had begun. 
Krishnamurti spoke to a world already infested with eastern 
philosophy. Blavatsky was the first to popularise the same. In 
Blavatsky's time spiritualism was still going strong. In 
Krishnamurti's time it was no more than a small sect, as it is now. 
In Blavatsky's time the churches were still strong, though their 
power was waining. In Krishnamurti's time the power of the church had 
wained even more. 

As for people accomplishing brotherhood by believing they are 
immortal: I agree, one does not lead to the other. Nor has Blavatsky 
stated this. 

As for your fear: This is your business, not mine, nor is Blavatsky 
responsible for it. Having read Krishnamurti, you should know that 
much. Discussing fear is an appropriate subject for the Krishnamurti 
e-mail group. Shall we? 

Once again: are you challenging the atmosphere on this list or HPB? 
You can hardly hold me or her accountable for the general atmosphere 
here. 

Katinka