Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00072)

It is saddening to see all this. cutting off the principle of Perfect
Masterhood is a death sentence to any spiritual movement, it has been the
down fall of all religions - they turned the Master into a tombstone, where
they pushed him for eternal rest. During the time of Krishnamurti there were
at least four true perfect Masters in India alone, whom he could ask for
advice, or his *guides*. Etzion
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@adslhome.dk>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 6:27 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World direct insight (krishnamurti and the white
brotherhood)


> Hi Katinka and all of you,
>
> Thanks for your interesting answer.
>
> Yes.
> Katinka - to answer your questions I have in the below used ***
> encapsulated.
> In the following - I give it another try, reformulating the questions -
> because you as I see it didn't adress my questions clearly enough.
>
> My problem is the following and I quote passages from the link at
>
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
> (p. 138-141).
>
>
> My questions are:
>
> 1. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
>
> "climbing his particular staircase necessitates constant meditation,
> which in its turn necessitates constant protection from Guru--and Guru not
> allowed by Krishnamurti" ???
> If not, why not ?
>
> I agree on, that a moderate degree of meditation may be practiced in
safety
> without any
> teacher at all. A teacher being a friend, who just know a little more than
> one self.
> (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
>
> 2. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
>
> "Krishnamurti's casting aside of time-honoured definitions and
> classifications leaves [the] aspirant without true scale of values. " ???
> If not, why not ?
>
> (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
>
>
> 3. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
> "Another flaw in this pseudo Advaita
> which Krishnamurti is giving out, is that he addresses the personality,
the
> physical-plane man, as if he were the Monad or at least the Ego. Of course
> the Monad, the divine Spark, is the Absolute Existence-Knowledge-Bliss,
and
> hence eternally free, but that doesn't mean that the personality down
here,
> immersed in endless-seeming karmic difficulties, can share its
> consciousness, or even that of the Ego--the link between the personality
and
> the Monad. Krishnamurti's Advaitism, which is not to be confounded with
the
> recognized form of that noble philosophy, will, I fear, lead his followers
> nowhere except perhaps to hypocrisy and self-delusion." ???
> If not, why not ?
>
> (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
>
>
> 4. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
>
> "And while he has directed them to repudiate all Masters, he refuses to
act
> as Guru to them himself. "...(The old gentleman was silent for a moment,
> then shook his head mournfully.)... -
> "Children crying in the night of spiritual darkness, and no one to comfort
> them. ... He who could help, won't, and we who might help, can't, for
Doubt
> has poisoned their belief in our very existence. No wonder Koot Hoomi's
face
> looks a little sad." ???
> If not, why not ?
>
> The proper word to use in the last above quote would be "spiritual Teacher
> and friend" and
> not "Guru" because this word is misunderstood by many.
> (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
>
>
> 5. On Krishnamurti then in his early days. Wasn't is so, that :
>
> "Krishnamurti is endowed with Parsifal-like simplicity. Because he has
> reached a certain state of consciousness and evolution, in his modesty he
> fails to see that others have not reached it likewise. Therefore he
> prescribes for others what is only suitable for himself." ???
> If not, why not ?
>
> (Let us remember it is the years around 1929-1938 we talk about)
>
>
> 6. My view:
> The result was then, near the years 1929-1938, that a greater number of
> previuos theosophists was (publicly) given NO PATH, NO TEACHER to follow,
> and that the MASTERS was according to Krishnamurti as he said - "to me
this
> assumption is based upon an illusion" (Star Bulletin, september1931).
>
> I would have been better if Krishnamurti then - at that time - would have
> taught the interested followers, so that they had benefitted from his
> teaching.
> Some of us can easily benefit from his teaching. But others cannot.
> And a great number of his followers was prevented progressing.
> Krishnamurti dissolved to much - and created nothing for the future to
those
> who needed it at that moment in time.
> He in fact damaged Theosophy because of that !
> Annie Besant and especially C. W. Leadbeater also created problems, but
that
> is another issue...
> Well, that is my view. One may of course disagree.
>
> If you, - Katinka don't add more of value to this issue,
> I will close the debate on it.
>
>
> from
> M. Sufilight with peace and love...
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@katinkahesselink.net>
> To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 4:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World direct insight (krishnamurti and the white
> brotherhood)
>
>
> > Hi Morten,
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> > theosophy@a...> wrote:
> > > The short conclusion I get is:
> > > So publicly Krishnamurti denied the existence of the Masters and
> > the Path.
> > > And privately he is - assumed ? or known ? - to have agreed to the
> > > opposite view ?
> > > Is this your view and others view ?
> > Well, I don't know where he publicly denied there existence. He did
> > repeatedly say it was unimportant, I think.
> > For instance he says:
> > "What you think of the Master is not what it is. They personalized
> > something immense into personalities."
> > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/arch/krishnaj.htm
> > (talk 1980)
> > > So i ask, what do you think about this the following part of the
> > text taken
> > > from the same link
> > >
> > http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_
> > k.html
> > > .
> > >
> > > Is it true ?:
> > I think this whole story has the taste of what Krishnamurti disliked
> > in how the myth of the masters has been treated (within and outside
> > the Theosophical Movement) - merely having relations with masters who
> > can't talk back, because the person involved is only seeing them
> > clairvoyantly. So even if some real contact is at the base of such
> > experiences, it is very possible, if not likely that the person
> > reporting the conversation has heavily edited it, without the Masters
> > being able to correct any misunderstandings.
> >
> > As for Krishnamurti teaching Vedanta or any other old system, I will
> > merely quote Jean Overton Fuller's recently published biography
> > (which does an outstanding job of putting Krishnamurti into
> > theosophical perspective)
> > (p. 277,278)
> > "What Krishnamurti teaches is obviously not Buddhism. Buddhism - that
> > is, the Buddhism of the classic scriptures - takes as its starting
> > point that existence is suffering and seeks a way out of it. The five
> > senses, soliciting one's attention to the outer world, are to be
> > denied, as fetters to be thrown off. In this it is not different to
> > the Vedanta. Krishnamurti, on the other hand, sees the earth and the
> > things that grow on it as good; there is no cause not to be happy on
> > it. " She goes on in length about this and every other teaching one
> > could try and pinpoint on Krishnamurti, as well as specifically
> > targetting the text you are now quoting. The book can be ordered at
> > the Theosophical Society in England.
> > http://www.theosophical-society.org.uk/
> >
> > > A question more:
> > > So did Krishnamurti cut himself of from the White Lodge - or did he
> > > not ?
> > I don't think so. He knew he was protected all his life and others
> > testify to feeling a force about him. He talked about a "They" who
> > cleaned his system during the process at various times in his life.
> > What other beings than those we call the White Brotherhood would be
> > capable of such work? It would have to be beings capable of great
> > spiritual insight coupled with the ability to work on the physical
> > level. In short: perfected human beings. In Blavatskyan terminology:
> > masters.
>
> ***
> You don't think so ? Allright that is your view.
> We talk you know about the years 1929-1938...and not the later years.
> So the question you put will remain unanswered at the moment.
> ***
> >
> > -
> > > My view:
> > > The masters exist. But they are not Masters as people often think
> > > about them.
> > agreed.
> > > The Path towards enlightement exists, but it is not any ordinary
> > > Path for sure.
> > agreed. Still, to think of it as a path, in the sense of next life I
> > will learn this, that and the other, is a way of postponing observing
> > now, learning now. And it was precisely that postponing that
> > Krishnamurti did not want us to do.
> > > The Path is even mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita...(- smile).
> > > The need for a teacher is important to most students in the western
> > > world.
> > Is it? What do we need a teacher for? Krishnamurti made it very clear
> > that he did not want to be a spiritual or psychological authority.
>
> ***
> A spiritual Teacher are quite necessary, and will be there, when you reach
a
> certain level of development. Teachers are not necessarily always to be
> viewed as authorities. But if you did read all of the quote at
>
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
> more carefully , you would have answered differently, wouldn't you ?
> There the differences are spelled out clearly, and it is said that
> Krishnamurti did a good job
> in removing the trap "authority", but also that he did to much on it !
> (I at least partly agree with you on your view. But didn't he do to much
?.)
> And not everyone do cling to a spiritual teacher as a need.
> ***
>
>
> > The clinging to somebody outside yourself is detrimental to spiritual
> > progress. In fact, one of my favorite Blavatsky quotes supports this:
> > >>Coll. Wr. Vol. X, p. 96
> > It is this pernicious doctrine of ever relying upon extraneous help
> > that leads to the collapse - physical, mental, moral, and spiritual -
> > of well-meaning, but weak and unbalanced minds. It slays the patient
> > of the mesmerizer and the mental healer, the neophyte of the
> > sorcerer, and the dilettante of Reform. Neither success nor safety is
> > to be found outside self-development. >>
> >
> > > Krishnamurti did some good work when he became older. But his work
> > > around the years 1929-1938 was not so good.
> > Well, I don't agree with that. He continued repudiating the problem
> > of psychological authority his whole life long - either that is a
> > real issue, or it wasn't.
> ***
> I disagree, while talking about the years around 1929-1938.
> Try answering my questions at 1-5 in the above.
> ***
>
> Have you studied his teachings at all?
> ***
> Yes. But not all of them, when we only talk about the physical books.
> To the readers: Don't rely too much on physical books. But be aware of
that
> they only sometimes are useful, and at other times not.
> ***
>
> How
> > was his later teaching better than his earlier teaching?
> ***
> When he was overshadowed for a short while - he did good - no doubt there.
> (I do not
> know for sure if he was overshadowed, but at the beginning he did fine -
as
> far as I can read.)
> Later on after 2nd world war he was more wise and then at least offered a
> sort of a path to his
> followers. You may correct me if I am wrong, as I believe you can access
the
> proper physical books.
> Do you know the book written by Diana Baskin ? What does that tell you ?
> (Not that I agree on the Sai Baba issue just like that.)
> Let us remember, that This is just my view.
> ***
>
> Personally I
> > understand the earlier a lot better than the later. I suppose the
> > later depth is just beyond me.
> > He had to dissolve the order of the star - it is obvious. Also, with
> > the conflicts that were going on, who would not have let their
> > membership of the TS lapse?
> >
> > Katinka
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>