Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00351)

I agree with you Frank, if your mission is to make theosophy known, then you may see it as a waste of time.   However, as a tool for understanding lower manas, there is no better teacher, imo.  I do not believe that K consciously set out to attack what he saw as psuedo theosophy, I think it was simply a result of teaching that before man can know he is a god, he must know what it means to be a man, and the only way to do this is to understand the ego controls our thinking because it has been conditioned to think a certain way based on false values and fear.
   
  Many Krishnamurtians believe that his teachings are intellectually based whereas I believe they are pointed towards understanding our emotional selves.  What is jealousy, what is envy, what is war, what is rejection,etc etc.  If we understand ourselves at an emotional level it helps us to understand why we feel such and such away about certain events in our life.  Not only does he point to the question he also gives us the solution - right thinking.  I only depart from him in his view that this can be a revolutionary moment, my personal experience, was to trowel through every emotional attachment I have and still have, until I can come to the point where I am no longer attached to that emotion.
   
  But, I take your point.  Krishnamurti is not for everyone.
   
  Regards
  Cass   
   
  Regards
  Cass

Frank Reitemeyer <dzyan@online.de> wrote:
          Cass & MKR,
ok, K teaches us about ourselves.
But I am a theosophist and interesting in Theosophy, both for myself and for the world at large.
I need all my free time to help a little bit to make Theosophy known.
Why should I deal with K, when he obviously teaches no Theosophy, but attacks and corrects only pseudo-theosophy?
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: M K Ramadoss 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World was promotion of Krishnamurti's teaching a big mistake

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]

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



         

       
---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
 Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. 

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