Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00005)

Hi Katinka and all of you,

Thanks for your answer.
This email seeks to anser on the "difficilties disappear" issue.
Next email is intended to be on the Krishnamurti issue.

My views are only views:
I am really doing my best.
I try again.
The email we talk about was as I understand it, this one:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12435

In it we have that the below mentioned "difficulties" you refer to was
the mentioned "confusion" in this following quote . This "confusion" does
according to me not cover ALL kinds of difficulties - a student can have.
That was what I meant.

"To some readers the studying of Theosophy makes them uncertain
to whether they should study at all. They sometimes find the
psychological and spiritual studies confusing. They find that confusion
makes it difficult for them to approach certain subjects, and once in
them the confusion and dissatisfaction continues or gets worse.
So you could ask, what to do ?"

These were as I understand the text the difficulties, which should
disappear.
I would like to know if I am wrong.

In the below I ca'nt find last sentence in the following quote, which you
somehow have deleted from the original emailed answer to you:
"No one said that all your trouble would disappear. But, that the mentioned
trouble will do so, - if you truely do learn and absorb the above."
The answer was this one:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/12465
Here you can read the deleted sentence.

This sentence gives my answer a different reading i believe.


But I do care.

Feel free to comment or do your best...


from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World direct insight (krishnamurti and the white
brotherhood)


> Hi Morten,
>
> Sorry to say - you aren't going to influence my study habits.
> If what you write doesn't come across clearly, then I and everybody
> else has the right to ask questions and otherwise respond. If you
> first say one thing and then the exact opposite, it is no wonder I
> don't know what you are saying anymore... Some reply in between the
> below anyhow.
>
> Katinka
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > Hi Katinka and all of you,
> >
> > My views are only views:
> > You do ask a lot. Allright then...
> > Your below email shows to me, that you did'nt quite digest
> > the email you responded to. That is my view.
> > You could consider this...on more than one level.
> -
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@k...>
> > > > So, in answer to 'what to do?', you should get used to
> > > > this idea. It is not the materials, the school, the
> individuals, or
> > > > anything else, which are confusing, making dissatisfied, or
> causing
> > > > uncertainty, but the clash between materials etc. and the
> > > > personality which feels itself threathened.
> > > > If you learn this, the difficulties disappear. This is because
> > > > the secondary peronsality learns that it is no longer in danger
> of
> > > > being punished or extinguished.
> > > Golly, is it that simple?
> > ***
> > Well - you know, that you will have to really - learn - it first -
> > do'nt you !
> > ***
> > One insight and all my trouble with
> > > learning (say learning math) will disappear? Wow. Wish it were
> > > actually true. Even Krishnamurti (who was a great advocate of
> direct
> > > insight) did not go as far as you do above.
> > ***
> > No one said that all your trouble would disappear.
> Katinka:
> You literally wrote: "the difficulties dissapear". which sounds to me
> like the same thing as trouble disapears. then you deny anybody (lett
> alone you yourself) said that. weird.
> > But, that the mentioned
> > trouble will do so, - if you truely do learn and absorb the above.
> > A question arises...
> > Was Krishnamurti not against an occult Brotherhood ?
> >
> http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_
> k.html
> Katinka:
> As to that it is easiest to refer to "the inner life of Krishnamurti"
> by Aryal Sanat who has investigated this issue and comes to the
> following conclusion (from the backflap, hoping that word is English)
> "But Krishnamurti (K) was a revolutionary in the deepest sense. For
> over sixty years he publicly eschewed belief systems and
> presuppositions of any sort, including the esoteric principles taught
> by Theosophists.
> But privately?
> Aryel Sanat's ... meticulous research reveals that, contrary to
> appearances, K's inner life was rich in esoteric happenings.
> Privately, he never denied the existence of perennial "Masters"; nor
> did he deny being a vehicle for the manifestation of the Lord
> Maitreya, or the Christ. In fact, according to K, these inner
> realities were present every day of his natural life and intimately
> related to his work. "
>
> The point of denying it seems mainly to have been that people made it
> concrete, simplified, devoid of "the sacred" or something. And I can
> quite understand it. I mean, look up the word Maitreya on the
> internet and see what you come up with. I dare you to find one quote
> that is deep enough to deserve the title maitreya as its author. The
> same for masters and the term white brotherhood, if you exclude the
> many references to that in the theosophical literature. People have
> been anxious to label their truths with high sounding names, and that
> attitude started even before Krishnamurti was being raised by
> theosophists, I think. Not sure, a historical survey on the spread of
> this terminology might be interesting. Anyhow - people around
> Krishnamurti were more interested in the label and the status
> attached to it, than they were to the message. Those who remember
> some of the stuff being written about that time, will know that the
> whole circus around him was appalling. People weren't even told to
> rely on themselves to know which initiation to take. The whole
> atmosphere was very far removed from the atmosphere one gets from
> reading for instance Damodar, by Sven Eek. (early version of that
> book is online).
>
> Also, western society wasn't prepared for the flood of guru's that
> has been opened. I mean, by all acounts, in India it was well known
> that not every person personating a guru, was to be relied upon, also
> a tradition of doubt was in place, and people often went from guru to
> guru. This is accepted practice in the Buddhist system as well. Which
> simply means one learns what one can and judges the truth of it for
> oneself. But ultimately the message was identical to the message in
> Light on the Path:
> "For within you is the light of the world -- the only light that can
> be shed upon the Path. If you are unable to perceive it within you,
> it is useless to look for it elsewhere. "
>
> Anyhow, why worry about the labels. Why worry about whether or not
> Krishnamurti denied the masters. He either had something important to
> say, or he didn't. In my opinion he did. So did the Mahatmas. Even
> the story Cyril Scott gave here shows that Krishnamurti talked about
> an important truth (or more than one). So what's the issue? They
> disagreed on details... or did they?
> Katinka
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>