Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00316)

Krishnamurti attacked the very concept of Masters, he did not make
distinction between Blavatsky's Master and Leadbeater's Master.
According to Krishnamurti path of occultism does not exist. He does
not make distinction between Blavatsky's path of occultism and
Leadbeater's path of occultism. 
If you do research on Krishnamurti, you will find that he completely
destroyed many major concepts of Blavatsky- concepts like Masters,
path of occultism, importance and role of organizations, study of
books and scriptures.  His statements are exactly opposite of
Blavatsky's policies. So different and opposite, that some thought he
was used by dark powers to attack the Theosophical Society and Theosophy.
Anand Gholap
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
>