Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00398)

Any thoughts on thisCass Therefore we are told that if we destroy Antahkarana before the personal [personal self] is absolutely under the control of the impersonal Ego [the higher self], we risk to lose the latter and be severed for ever from it, unless indeed we hasten to re-establish the communication by a supreme and final effort. It is only when we are indissolubly linked with the essence of the divine Mind [higher self] that we have to destroy Antahkarana.”H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, pp. 413-414. Krishnamurti’s teaching neatly corresponds to the exoteric position as presented here by Blavatsky, for he proposes to access directly the impersonal universal creative intelligence (Atma) by tossing out aspiration (Antahkarana) and denying the existence of the higher self (Buddhi-Manas).Another flaw inthis pseudo-Advaita which Krishnamurti is giving out, is that he addressesthe personality, the physical plane man [personal self], as if he were theMonad [divine self] or at
least the Ego [higher self]. Of course the Monad, the Divine Spark, is theAbsolute 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." ‘Sir Thomas,’ an English Master, in: His Pupil [Cyril Scott], The Initiate in the Dark Cycle (London: Routledge, 1932), pp. 136-139
He said that in spite of his upbringing in Theosophy, his mind was kept vacant and protected by a higher power to facilitate the transmission of a teaching. He seemed to imply that that would have happened regardless of "Theosophy etc."

 

Cass


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

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