Theos-Talk Archives (February 2003 Message tt00001)

Hi Wry,

Will try once more to get to something here. Though, to be honest, 
there is nothing there that I am all too interested in. Also, you 
can't attack Blavatsky and then expect us to sit quietly by. In my 
opinion attack's should be properly based on fact, or quote, or 
refrained from altogether. 
> > Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 6:22 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World Re: Wry on Blavatsky part one
> >
> Hi. I would like to make an addendum to the part of my message 
> which is
> quoted below.. When I spoke of authoritarianism being disgusting I 
> was speaking of what I felt when I have seen it in myself. 
Which means you were probably projecting. 
> Do you understand
> that by phrasing the material above in the way that you did, you 
> were, to
> use a psychological term, objectifying me (turning me into an 
> object)? Do
> you understand that therre was no way to go any further after 
> reading this?
Well, if there wasn't why are you still here? And, no, I don't 
understand this. You started this discussion, I merely replied to the 
extent of my abilities. Then when I ask you to explain what you mean, 
you tell me you don't have the time to answer properly. Fine, but if 
you didn't, then why discuss all this at all. I understand what you 
are trying to do. I actually aplaud the effort to start some sort of 
enquiry here. You should ask yourself if it is only because of the 
rest of us here that it is not getting anywhere. 
> No opening? Krishnamurti came out of the theosophy movement. That 
> is an
> obvious given. He left it because he could not use that as a 
> vehicle to
> accomplish his aim, which was, if I am not mistaken, similar to, if 
> not the
> very same aim as that of theosophy. He could not use it because it 
> was not
> functional as a vehicle for accomplishing this. It is obvious - 
Katinka: That is, it is obvious about the Order of the Star of the 
East, not about the TS as a whole. More about that below. But one 
thing: you aren't Krishnamurti, you have your own path. That 
Krishnaji's message, in his time and position was better served by 
leaving the Order of the Star, and perhaps the TS, does not mean that 
this is true for everybody else, does it? 

Gosh, so far we are almost in agreement. In fact, you are in this 
agreeing a lot with those theosophists I know (which aren't 
represented all that much online, but there are many) that are 
interested in both theosophy and Krishnamurti. You may want to read 
the following on my website:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/other/jjleeuw.htm

> If you or I
> understand something it might be a good idea to try to explain it 
> in our own
> words. If we cannot do that, maybe we can learn by practicing.
I do that all the time. You know that. But as long as your point 
isn't clear, I can hardly see where you are coming from and frame a 
decent response. 
> You have called theosophy a RELIGION. 
Which was a slip of the pen. I appologize. it is very clear that 
Blavatsky never meant for theosophy to be a religion. It is also 
clear that the major influence theosophy has had over the past 
century has not been as a religion, but as a reservoir of people and 
ideas mixing more freely than elsewhere. 
> Other people may want you to follow
> THEIR religions because they think they are better. There is no way 
> to sort
> it out. This all leads to war. Krishnamurti had to leave. He could 
> not be a
> world teacher under those conditions. No one would have listened. 
Oh, is that it. You are bunking theosophy as a whole (including the 
TS and Blavatsky) because Krishnamurti left the order of the Star? 
Can you think of nothing more original? 
It is rumoured, though I don't know the truth of it, that 
Krishnamurti only left the TS because he was pushed to by some of the 
then-leaders. 

> It does
> not matter when Madame Blavatsky predicted a world teacher would 
> come. 
Well it does, in so far as you are somehow making her responsible for 
what came after. I still fail to see how Blavatsky is linked to the 
whole order of the star thing. 
> She, too, like you and I, was no authority. 
Nor did she claim to be. But when you want to link her work to what 
came after, you have to show such a link exists. And the mere fact 
that it is the same organisation that does something, does not mean 
you can blame blavatsky for it. 
> Yoiu cannot prove anything except
> perhaps the truth of what I say by asking me to read Sanat. 
I asked you to read Sanat because it seemed to me you were ill-
informed. That is all. I think after reading his work you might be a 
bit more capable of explaining your precise point and basing it on 
something. 
> It is not
> enquiry. At least the subject of what is and is not enquiry has 
> come up here. 
Is that your motive? To bring up the question of what genuine enquiry 
is? Why not ask that question then? 

> Wry p.s. Please tell me where to find Daniel's message, which I have
> missed seeing.
I meant the following message:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/10752
It contains a link to the original article by Geoffrey Farthing, wich 
in turn discusses theosophy and Krishnamurti. 

Katinka