Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00654)

>Here you are just repeating an official version which
>I've heard many times before but it has many misfits which
>Krishnamurti's fans are always trying to ignore.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not repeating any official version. See the reason why 
Leadbeater returned to India, because Arundale started influencing 
Besant. Annie Besant was a leader there is no doubt of that but 
during many moments in her life she was influenced by different 
persons changing in a very radical way many of her views and 
believes. Or do you think it was Besant's idea to create the Order? 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Geoffrey Hodson description of the great beautiful aura of Hitler
>If is a heavy charge and you haven't prove it because his name
>was not mentioned in the sources. As a rule, most of theosophists
>were against Hitler. Alice Bailey, whose teaching is almost
>identical with that of Leadbeater, even was in the list of
>personal enemies of Fuehrer which should be immediately
>executed when caught. Yet she criticized jewish leaders
>severely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Believe me as a theosophist I do really wish such information be 
false. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>Precisely. Recently we all could see this attitude of
>buddhist inhabitants of Thailand, contrasted with that of
>inhabitants of non-buddhist countries also devastated by
>tsunami. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

I think everyone has the right choose its own line of study and to 
praise or follow any particular school of thought or none. But 
nobody has the right to judge someone's reaction in a difficult 
moment in a moment of crisis. There can be thousand unknown facts 
involved in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>He said many right things, but most of them are just platitudes.
>His adherents emphasize a point that an organization can't lead
>to illumination. But the theosophical organizations never had
>such objects. Even Order of the Star had no such object and
>was intended just to remove the physical obstacles from the
>way of a World Teacher. I think that he was right when dissolved
>the Order, for this organization created more obstacles than
>removed, as it seems, but I think he was wrong when he left TS.
>Probably the Order of the Star was the only obstacle which
>could really stop the World Teacher :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Many are those that believe just to be a member of a certain society 
or religious group make them more special. Or you do not know that 
Christians believe that the only real path is to follow 
Christianism, Buddhists the same Muslins the same etc. Such comment 
is not related to the any organization per se, but to the attitude 
of persons towards the organizations and I think you can understand 
that. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>We should transform ourselves, but any guru who have reached
>buddhic level can come in.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Without one to be in contact with the higher self, there will be no 
teacher no guru. There is no guru cannot that can help the student 
to pass through the inner transformation that one treading the 
spiritual path will face. 
"This is not a case like that depicted by a great artist, where 
Satan is seen playing a game of chess with a man upon the stake of 
his soul, while the latter's good angel stands beside him to counsel 
and assist. For the strife is in this instance between the Chela's 
Will and his carnal nature, and Karma forbids that any angel or Guru 
should interfere until the result is known."
Lay Chelas H.P.B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>"For example, Blavatsky stresses that one cannot pass over even one
>step on the path to higher consciousness(2), yet Krishnamurti 
>summarily rejects not only a path of graduated levels in attaining 
>truth(3), but also the very existence of a higher self to unite 
>with.(4) Furthermore,Blavatsky makes it clear that a Guru plays an 
>essential part in one's mastery of higher consciousness(5), while 
>Krishnamurti repudiates the role of a spiritual teacher.(6)

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

I think it is not necessary to stress here that there is no a 
definition of what theosophy is even between the T.S. fellows. 
Krishnamurti teachings incentive the process of inquire and self 
knowledge and a try to break up with the dual consciousness. 
Meanwhile I understand that it would not be wise to follow 
Krishnamurti's teachings alone as much any other teaching. See even 
Blavatsky in the S.D. states that the teachings exposed are but a 
fragment of the truth. I think that many understand that we have but 
a great puzzle in front of us. And to try to abstract the best every 
teaching has to offer is the right attitude.

"Now the question is: can the mind be free of this egocentric 
activity? Right? That is really the question, not whether it is so 
or not. Which means can the mind stand alone, uninfluenced? Alone, 
being alone does not mean isolation. Sir, look: when one rejects 
completely all the absurdities of nationality, the absurdities of 
propaganda, of religious propaganda, rejects conclusions of any 
kind, actually, not theoretically, completely put aside, has 
understood very deeply the question of pleasure and fear, and 
division--the `me' and `not me'--is there any form of the self at 
all?" J. Krishnamurti, Observing Without the "Me" 
---------------------------------------------------------------------

>I may not agree with some other points of Schüller, but these are
>obvious. Yet is would be OK to hold such an opinion inside
>Theosophical Society, but many of his followers are too agressive,
>intolerant to other teachings and picture theosophists as
>hallucinating monsters. And yet leaders of the TS disseminate
>his teachings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well indeed Govert Schuller made good points on his article. See 
many followers of others teachers have the same attitude of some 
Krishnamurtian fellows, this does not means that we are not going to 
try to filter the best that one teacher or other had to offer. In 
the case of K. I already stated my point, he helped in a level to 
reduce the great dose of Astralism imprinted in the T.S. by CWL. I 
do consider healthy any teaching that incentivate self knowledge. 
And if I had to choose thousand times the T.S. leaders to follow a 
Krishnamurtian line than a Ledbeaterian line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> If any technique alone and any guru is supposed be the path for
> the truth all India would be enlightened by now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Not "alone". These are prerequisites but they are not enough.
>Free thinking is yet another prerequisite. Those who emphasize
>any of them, denying other, are both wrong, IMHO.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Free thinking will be guided by an inquiring attitude and such is a 
spirit to be cultivated by any student. I wonder how your judgement 
to Krishnamurti can be so hard to the point to call him a 
materialist and in the same time you seem to support CWL's 
teachings. That is difficult for me to understand. Nice chating with 
you and thank you to express your views.

Erica Letzerich .'.




--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
<kay_ziatz@y...> wrote:
> 
> Hello Erica, 
> 
> --- In theos-talk Erica Letzerich wrote:
>  
> > Annie Besant was for a long period a puppet of Leadbeater
> 
> > Krishnamurti was taken away from his family and convinced
> > by persons like Leadbeater and Annie Besant
> 
> Here you are just repeating an official version which
> I've heard many times before but it has many misfits which
> Krishnamurti's fans are always trying to ignore.
> 
> Besant was a very free-thinking and well-known person even
> before she joined TS, her books were prohibited, as HPB
> mentioned. She was a natural leader. How could Leadbeater make
> a puppet of her? If so, he probably had miraculous powers.
> But why he didn't make puppets of other people which were more
> dangerous for him? And why, when everything seemed so good
> he left for Australia and didn't reap any fruits of his
> contrivances? (Except the negative ones which he couldn't
> escape) Instead he removed from public activity and plunged
> into the research of the masonic and church rites. Doesn't
> it seem strange?
> 
> Krishnamurti was born in 1895. In 1927, when he still thought
> to be himself a guru, he was already 32. He wasn't little boy.
> In that age Shankaracharya already wrote all his famous
> treatises and left physical body. If up to that age anybody
> is still unable to think for himself, we should regard him
> a mentally handicapped person. Remember that Leadbeater has
> left to Australia in 1914 and couldn't influence directly.
> Or, if he could, we have to admit that he had the miraculous
> occult powers. Neither Krishnamurti looked as a scared or
> controlled person. Roerichs visited him in mid. 1920's, and
> they witness that he made an appearance of very important
> person, he wanted to build new buildings which he needed for
> his work and wanted that Nicolas Roerich assisted him in that
> project.
> 
> > Geoffrey Hodson description of the great beautiful aura of Hitler
> 
> If is a heavy charge and you haven't prove it because his name
> was not mentioned in the sources. As a rule, most of theosophists
> were against Hitler. Alice Bailey, whose teaching is almost
> identical with that of Leadbeater, even was in the list of
> personal enemies of Fuehrer which should be immediately
> executed when caught. Yet she criticized jewish leaders
> severely.
> 
> Another consideration is that a man probably can have beautiful
> aura and yet be wicked. I'm not sure about it, for I don't see
> auras. Somewhere Leadbeater wrote that development of psychic
> powers is connected with morality not more than development of
> physical power. Remember that Hitler was a good painter and
> wasn't a young soul at all.
> 
> 
> > And which kind of knowledge you would expect him to express
> > when he lost his brother? Detachment, do not suffer because
> > death is an illusion?
> 
> Precisely. Recently we all could see this attitude of
> buddhist inhabitants of Thailand, contrasted with that of
> inhabitants of non-buddhist countries also devastated by
> tsunami. This is not only example. Several years earlier
> russian resquers which worked after an earthquake in India
> were surprised by the calm attitude of Indians to death,
> though probably it is not so characteristic to them as to
> buddhists. So Mahachohan was right when he wrote that buddhism
> is the only religion which has taught to despise earthly life.
> 
> By the way buddhist approach perhaps contradicts to that of
> Krishnamurti "to live in now". "Now" is just an illusion, maybe
> greatest of all. In his Harward lectures Dalai Lama mentions
> that the moments from future are incessantly becoming moments
> of the past, and it comes so that probably there's no any "now".
> Though I am not sure that all buddhist schools share this view.
> 
> >>Is it an older work?
> > I never quote Krishnamurti before he dissolved the order.
> 
> This division is too simplified. I think that he had at least
> three periods: approx. before 1925, end of 1920's-1940's, and
> 1950's-1980's. The middle period has some vedantin features,
> and might be called "Beloved-period".
> 
> "Till I was able to say with certainty, without any undue
> excitement, or exaggeration in order to convince others, till
> I was one with my Beloved, I never spoke. ...
> Hence I am able to say that I am one with the Beloved - whether
> you interpret it as the Buddha, the Lord Maitreya, Shri Krishna,
> or any other name." ("Who Brings the Truth?", 1927)
> 
> 1929 was important rather in respect of organization, not views,
> which changed slowly from middle of 1920's till that of 1930's.
> 
> "For sixteen years you have worshipped the picture which has
> not spoken ... Now that picture is beginning to get alive, and
> you cannot have anything real, you cannot have anything true,
> which is not alive." (Ibid.) So the radical change was surely
> before 1929.
> 
> > So what you try to say with the above quote, that may be
> > Krishnamurti believed to be what he was told to be most
> > part of childhood and adolescence.
> 
> So why didn't he believe in theosophical conceptions about other
> things, like life after death? Probably he even didn't study
> them, for during the adolescence he more interested in cars,
> races and things like that. Didn't he know about thoughtforms?
> 
> "when I was a small boy I used to see Shri Krishna, with the
> flute, as He is pictured by the Hindus, because my mother was a
> devotee of Shri Krishna. ...When I grew older and met with Bishop
> Leadbeater and the Theosophical Society. I began to see the
> Master K. H. - again in the form which was put before me, the
> reality from their point of view - and hence the Master K. H. was
> to me the end. Later on, as I grew, I began to see the Lord
> Maitreya. ... Now lately, it has been the Buddha whom I have been
> seeing, and it has been my delight and my glory to be with Him."
> ("Who Brings the Truth?")
> 
> It's not a revelation at all for those who have even a faint
> conception of thoughtforms.
> 
> >> There is a school of thought which has many adherents here
> >> which teaches that all the subtle bodies are just "auras"
> 
> > And what this has to do with Krishnamurti? Was him promoting
> > teachings similar the ones you mention above? Was him promoting
> > immortality by obsession of a new body? Or you try to tell me
> > that even if he spoke about immortality he was a materialist?
> 
> I took that school just as an example. There are many people who
> talk about immortality and auras but are thouroughly materialistic
> inside.
> 
> > So what you found in the teachings of Krishnamurti? Arguments
> > against superstitions created by religions and gurus? You
> > emphasize his arguments against any form of psychological
> > dependency to a guru or to a group or to an organization. Was he
> > wrong? But you do not mention that the key note of his teachings
> 
> He said many right things, but most of them are just platitudes.
> His adherents emphasize a point that an organization can't lead
> to illumination. But the theosophical organizations never had
> such objects. Even Order of the Star had no such object and
> was intended just to remove the physical obstacles from the
> way of a World Teacher. I think that he was right when dissolved
> the Order, for this organization created more obstacles than
> removed, as it seems, but I think he was wrong when he left TS.
> Probably the Order of the Star was the only obstacle which
> could really stop the World Teacher :)
> 
> Yet I don't condemn him as a person, I simply have strong
> philosophical differences with him. But those who can be condemned
> are his thoughtless followers who repeat his slogans, praise him
> even more than when he was a "World teacher" and make a monster
> from a country vicar whom they endowed by contradictive qualities,
> like non-existing God, or rather, Satan.
> 
> (As far I know, Krishnamurti himself wasn't hostile to leaders of 
TS)
> 
> > By the way tell me which guru can go within yourself and
> > transform your nature? Such is an individual task.
> 
> We should transform ourselves, but any guru who have reached
> buddhic level can come in.
> 
> "The Guru is inside you also just as he exists inside the other
> person. In the first stage the Guru should be found outside, when
> he should find you. In the second stage the Guru is in me, in
> you, and in everyone. So at first there is a trial, a test and a
> treatment to heal our complexes. Our complexes do not accept some
> other person before whom we can make a total surrender.
> Theoretically we can accept a teacher in the University sense or
> the college sense. But the trouble is to make a total surrender.
> Here comes the necessity to make a cut off of our complexes that
> exist with our lower nature. Unless we make such a cut off we
> cannot have a cut off of our lower nature. The moment we are
> prepared then the necessity to cut off complexes goes away.
> Unless we make a total surrender of personality to another
> person, we will have no chance of crossing the barriers of
> vanity. When once we cut off, the lower ego disappears and the
> necessity to make a surrender to another person disappears. It
> is a real test at the gate. Some people ask, "Is it necessary to
> have a Guru? Can't we do it for ourselves?" Years pass and they
> die. In the next birth also the same question dwells with them.
> The answer is that a Guru is necessary to come out of this
> question."
> ("Lessons on the Yoga of Patanjali" by Dr. E. Krishnamacharya)
> 
> It's an Indian outlook. In other words, we have to reach to the
> higher nature. The higher nature is impersonal, so it is the same
> in all people. But when we are trying to reach "our" higher
> nature, shunning from "others" who are "outside", we reach
> an individual nature only, for we get to what we think about.
> It's like a technical trick, it's easier to find this nature in
> some other person, and it is the real use of all devotion, gods
> and gurus. I admit that Krishnamurti might reach higher nature,
> but this transformation was performed in the earlier period when
> he still followed the guru.
> 
> > And his teachings in no form contradict theosophy.
> 
> "For example, Blavatsky stresses that one cannot pass over even one
> step on the path to higher consciousness(2), yet Krishnamurti 
> summarily
> rejects not only a path of graduated levels in attaining truth(3), 
but
> also the very existence of a higher self to unite with.(4) 
> Furthermore,
> Blavatsky makes it clear that a Guru plays an essential part in 
one's
> mastery of higher consciousness(5), while Krishnamurti repudiates 
the
> role of a spiritual teacher.(6)
> 
> (2) No single rung of the ladder leading to knowledge can be 
skipped. 
> No
> personality can ever reach or bring itself into communication
> with Atmâ, except through Buddhi-Manas ... SD vol.3
> 
> (3) "This idea of a gradual process, this idea of gradual 
> psychological
> evolution of man is very gratifying... . This gradual concept, 
which
> psychologically is generally called evolution, seems to me utterly
> false."
> 
> (4) "... We invent the higher self, the supreme self, the atma, and
> all the innumerable ideas, to escape from the reality of what we
> are--the actual everyday, every-minute reality of what we are."
> 
> (5) "...because of that merit, but only because of the Karma 
> generated
> by it, which leads and guides him in the direction of the Guru who 
> will
> initiate him into the mystery of Nirvana and who alone can help him
> reach his abode." SD vol.3"
> 
> (Govert Schüller, "Krishnamurti: An Esoteric View of his 
Teachings")
> 
> Blavatsky was a strong adherent of the progresive path, or lamrim,
> and recommended it to the theosophists. There are so called fast
> paths, but these are intended for "people of high capacities" which
> means that they have already acquired needed qualities in previous
> lives, not necessarily in buddhist schools.
> 
> I may not agree with some other points of Schüller, but these are
> obvious. Yet is would be OK to hold such an opinion inside
> Theosophical Society, but many of his followers are too agressive,
> intolerant to other teachings and picture theosophists as
> hallucinating monsters. And yet leaders of the TS disseminate
> his teachings.
> 
> > If any technique alone and any guru is supposed be the path for
> > the truth all India would be enlightened by now
> 
> Not "alone". These are prerequisites but they are not enough.
> Free thinking is yet another prerequisite. Those who emphasize
> any of them, denying other, are both wrong, IMHO.
> 
> Buddhist teachers emphasize combination of method and wisdom,
> as they call it, and importance of both absolute and relative
> truth. Without the latter we may come to one of the extremes:
> negate the earthly life as an illusion or regard it as of
> prime importance.