Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00307)

Absolutely, I think he has been given such a raw deal by Theosophists who jumped on the Leadbeater/Besant bandwagon.  To this day "Krishnamurti" is whispered about in most Theosophical groups.  He may have been a World Teacher, but he was not the World Teacher the theosophists wanted.
   
  "All authority of any kind, especially in the field of thought and understanding, is the most destructive, evil thing. Leaders destroy the followers and followers destroy the leaders. You have to be your own teacher and your own disciple. You have to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary."
   
  People will argue that I take HPB as an authority, but it is not so, HPB lays out the details and leaves it up to ourselves to accept or reject it.  All the wise ones have done that.
   
  That got me
  Warm regards
  Cass

nhcareyta <nhcareyta@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
          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]
>



         

       
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. 

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