Theos-Talk Archives (May 2005 Message tt00586)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand Gholap" <AnandGholap@A...> 
wrote:


> > > Another thing is CWL and AB have shown problems in Blavatsky's 
> > > writing in their usual polite manner. If you have read their 
> > writings let me know where these have come. Otherwise read again 
> > carefully in case you want to know them.
> > 
> > 
> > They attempted to make complex teachings more available to a 
wider 
> > readership, and if they succeeded in this or not is for anyone to 
> > judge. They may have seen certain topics differently from her, 
but as 
> > I said before the essence of their contribution upholds the core 
> > principles as presented by HPB: the unity of all life, the 
lawfulness 
> > of the universe and the evolutionary pilgrimage for every soul 
> > towards full Self-identity.

> These basic principles were known for centuries. They are in Vedas, 
> Upanishads, Shankaracharya's writing and writings of many yogis. 
> Blavatsky does not deserve credit for that. 

That is true, as HPB said, for India. That was certainly not the case 
in the western world at the end of the 19th century and she deserves 
a lot of credit for making them known, a credit you obviously will 
never give it to her.

It is time to rest my case, Anand. I know you think the current 
debate on the Internet about Theosophy is like a war. One of the 
great epics of your country - the Mahabharata - also speaks about 
war, the great war, the cosmic struggle between the forces of the 
Spirit and those of matter.

But there is also another kind of war, one that an Indian author once 
called "Hinabharata", the small war, the one that aims at the 
survival of the personal self at all costs. I think one is stuck in 
such a "war" when one attempts to uphold, relentlessly, one of least 
important aspects of existence: our personal point of view, although 
there is nothing wrong in having one.

Remember the words of Winston Churchill: "a fanatic is one who cannot 
change his mind and will not change the subject", and as I said some 
time ago here, there may be a fanatic within everyone of us.

When Annie Besant joined the TS in May 1889 and publicly accepted HPB 
as her teacher, her former colleagues were very disappointed and 
viewed that as step that contradicted her former anti-religious 
stance. In 1929, soon after Krishnaji dissolved the Order of the 
Star, a journalist from Reuters asked her opinion about what he had 
just done, after all she was the one that nourished him, paid for his 
education and announced him to the world as the vehicle of the World 
Teacher. In her reply she said: "I feel inclined to sit and listen 
rather than pass judgement on the actions of one whom I consider by 
far my superior." From that time onwards, as the photographs of that 
time show, everytime K. would speak in public Besant would never 
share the platform with him, but would sit in the audience and listen 
to him.

Later in life, when he was in his mid-80s, Krishnamurti said to some 
friends that of all the people from that time (1920s) the one who was 
really close to transformation was AB. When asked why he said: "You 
have no idea what her capacity for love was."

I am sorry for the reverie. 


pedro