Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00388)

Hi Pablo

In response to your question, 
so H.P.B could say that Krishnamurti was a theosophist too (this is not a speculation, similarities between they do exist). And could you say that Krishnamurti teachings are Theosophy?
 
I have been reading a lot about Krishnamurti over the past couple of days, and that organization has had as many problems as the TS. However, Krishnamurti did start out as a Theosophist but broke away and taught an ancient form of yoga, the Advaita system. I found Krishnamurti very helpful in waking people up to the workings of the Lower Mind, but unfortunately he doesntattribute a Higher Mind and can in some people cause the Antankarayana to be severed, which leaves these people without an overshadowing Higher Mind principle. (That is worth a study in itself!) Now as I have not a Higher Mind understanding, I can only quote a higher authority than myself, i.e. HPB who said this (incidentally she died prior to Krishnamurti's birth) and here was referring to the Advaita system of Yoga. I know, by personal experience, that to take on board the Krishnamurti system can cause mental confusion and intellectual isolation.
 
What else are we to do but to quote HPB/Masters until we know it for ourself. I guess it is an act of faith and belief in someone else, but providingthere is a logical and reasonable explanation inherent in what she says, can't we can accept it at that level ( as a definite maybe) until we find out for ourselves?
 
Cass

Pablo Sender <pasender@yahoo.com.ar> wrote:


Hi to all



I think that Theosophy cannot be compared with religions and its becoming, because religions have “official sacred scriptures” and Theosophy hasn’t it. 

Let me put an example. Blavatsky said that Jokob Boehme was a theosophist. If you read his teaching, you will see they have a few similarities with modern Theosophy as a body of teachings. But its spirit (of Boehme teachings)has all to do with Theosophy. Now, if you read Krishnamurti teachings, forinstance, you will find several identities with Boehme teachings, 
I think it is a mistake take Theosophy in an academic way, because it become dead, limited, and then orthodoxy arises. Theosophy is not a philosophy system, concrete and delimited; it is much more than that. People that know me can say I love Blavatsky teachings and I think her writings are deeper and more inspiring than most of other “sages”. But I think that Theosophy is beyond Blavatsky herself, and make Theosophy a Blavatskyan system, excluding all other development, is a mistake. 

Of course, we must develop our discrimination in order to realize what Theosophy is and what it is not. But, if the parameters will be “to say that that Blavatsky said” we are wrong.

Apologies if I look harsh, but my knowledge of English words and grammar isvery limited.

Best wishes

Pablo


----------------------------------

Dear Krishtar:

Sorry if you extracted from what I write any arrogance. I am not intending,
nor am I interested in that.

I realize if I speak plainly, or quote from the "original teachings," (which
have always been available) it rubs some the "wrong way." 

I present, as far as I am able, what THEOSOPHY says. If there are any faults
they are of course mine. They are not of THEOSOPHY. 

But I would encourage all to really study THEOSOPHY. It is so valuable.

You are right that we all study at our own chosen pace. And we all chose to
adopt such aspects of the philosophy as please us. But such individual
choosing may leave "gaps," and later on, those become clearer. 

Just cast an eye at the last 50 or 100 years during which there has been an
intense review the history of the development of Christian sects, protests
and divisions -- and, the well known fact, that it is now difficult after
some 2,000 year to secure original texts. 

The Nag-Hemadri and the Dead-Sea scrolls have embroiled scholars for years
now. Further, as old texts (gospels and "orthodox" MSS, were copied or
translated, amendments and changes of meaning were introduced. (When
compared to older versions.)

In the past 125 years of THEOSOPHY we have seen, on a small scale, similar
things happening. Analogies and comparables. 

Facts don't repair "ruptures" but people do, if they consider that they may
have accepted information that was inaccurate for some time. Now is a chance
to verify and alter such conclusions, or protest them. 

You seem to protest my method of offering comments, but not the facts in
themselves? Am I right ? I am truly sorry if in any way I have annoyed or,
ruffled anyone, as I would rather be the one that is "ruffled," if I am in
error. But, I notice that 2 other persons were involved in this exchange:
Konstantin and Frank. 

I only present what I have discovered and let those facts tell their own
tale. I don't think anyones' guesses make up for inaccuracies and incorrect
opinions. I can only go to the documents and the records made by
contemporaries. I don't think any "hate" is involved. Annoyance at
inaccuracies -- yes, but not "hate." All adjustments of facts ought to be
conducted dispassionately. 

I considered what you said a good time ago and felt that it was better to
provide accurate information that all could check, rather than let
misinformation (of course in my opinion) continue, unremarked. I am always
open to correction and welcome it. 

Thank you for your mind consideration.

Dallas



__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis! 
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Yahoo! Groups Links








		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]