Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00300)

If K attacked the mayavic Masters of Besant's and Leadbeater's striving for power, then he is a good man and has developed power of discrimination.
Then he helds the same position as HPB, when she wrote to Franz Hartmann about the vivid phantasy of Olcott abou the Masters.
>From that point of view, K is a healing medicine for an occult illness at Adyar, but that does not mean that one should accept K on a general basis as he teaches not theosophy.
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: nhcareyta 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World was promotion of Krishnamurti's teaching a big mistake


Dear Cass
You write, "My personal opinion is that Krishnamurti saw the 
corruption in the TS and wanted no part of it."

Yes indeed. Moreover when he utterred the famous words "The Masters 
are poison" he was referring to the "masters" created by Bishop 
Leadbeater and Dr Besant.

Kind regards
Nigel

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
>
> 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@...> 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]
>



 

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