Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00285)

I don't look at this subject the way you do.   
  HPB tells us " The sole advantage which the writer has over her predecessors, is that she need not resort to personal speculations and theories.  For this work is a partial statement of what she herself has been taught by more advanced students, supplemented, in a few details only, by the results of her own study and speculation"
   
  Without the input of the "more advanced students" this work would obviously not have occured.  This tells me that when the planet needs a spiritual impetus, the masters look out across the sea of souls and take those souls that glimmer.  HPB was the best of a bad bunch but capable of doing what the world needed at that time.  
   
  Krishnamurti's work was to teach us about the Ego.  One does not need a master or a religion to do this.  He taught us about ourselves as Personality Egos.  He taught us to look at ourselves and to cleanse our egos because I am sure he was aware that until this first initial step is taken, i.e. control of our ego selves, we will never reach higher conscious awareness.  
   
  Unfortunately the TS did not do this and as HPB's message was to show that Nature is not a "fortuitous concurrence of atoms," and to assign to man his rightful place in the scheme of the Universe, to rescue from degradation the archaic truths which are the basis of all religions, and to uncover, to some extent, the fundamental unity from which they all spring; finally, to show that the occult side of Nature has never been approached by the Science of modern civilization" the two teachings parallel each other.
   
  If one wants to cleanse the ego one doesn't need a Master, a Society, a Religion, or books.
  My personal opinion is that Krishnamurti saw the corruption in the TS and wanted no part of it.
   
  Cass

supreme_1l <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org> wrote:
          When Blavatsky founded Theosophical Society, she had certain vision
of what TS will be in future. There were some major concepts central
in Blavatsky's writing. These concepts also formed major portion of
the Mahatma Letters. Here are some major concepts with Blavatsky gave
- path of occultism, Masters, discipleship, study of scriptures,
books, reincarnation, man's constitution with it's many subtle bodies.
Krishnamurti's position was exactly opposite. According to
Krishnamurti one should not follow any Master, there is no path, books
corrupt minds of people, don't talk of reincarnation and future past
lives, live in the present. This Krishnamurti's teaching was promoted
through the Theosophical Society after the death of TS President C.
Jinarajadasa. (Jinarajadasa did not promote Krishnamurti's speeches,
because he knew it was very different.) After his death
Krishnamurti's speeches were promoted as Theosophy. 
How can students of Blavatsky and Masters accept this change in TS ?
If they accept Krishnamurti's speeches, will they forget teaching of
Blavatsky and Mastrers, which is exactly opposite of Krishnamurti's
speeches ? Students of Blavatsky doen't accept small deviation from
teaching. Now Krishnamurti made complete U turn on major policies of
Blavatsky. How can this change be digested by students of Blavatsky ?
Anand Gholap



         

       
---------------------------------
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us.

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