Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00322)

That is what i also got out of K's material. he also emphasized that a
single person could make a difference as against how some theosophists feel
that obedient (sheepish, perhaps blind) following the leaders is a necessity
for spiritual growth and on and on...

mkr


On 7/23/07, Cass Silva <silva_cass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   You are right Frank, but he (Krishnamurti) teaches us about ourselves,
> and that is the first step on the road to theosophy.
>
> Regards
> Cass
>
> Frank Reitemeyer <dzyan@online.de <dzyan%40online.de>> 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 <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.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 <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.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]
>
> ---------------------------------
> Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
> Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo!
> Games.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 
>


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