Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00355)

I don't mean to debate every point you make Anand, but we never seem to be able to find common ground, which flies against everything you have stated.
   
  You say, "truth can be known, self realization can only be known once we go beyond thoughts".  How do you suggest we apply this.  We are thinkers, that is how we operate. The Masters use "thought" as a tool to explain self realisation.  One can sit and meditate, cross legged, for twenty years and still not reach self realisation, they may find a sense of peace as they quiet the mind, but it is not self realisation.
   
  This is self realisation 
  It was there, in August 1922, that Krishnamurti went through an intense, "life-changing" experience.[28][29] It has been simultaneously, and invariably, characterised as a spiritual awakening, a psychological transformation, and a physical "conditioning". Krishnamurti and those around him would refer to it as "the process", and it continued, at very frequent intervals and varying forms of intensity, until his death.[30][31] Witnesses recount that it started on the 17th, with extraordinary pain at the nape of Krishnamurti's neck, and a hard, ball-like swelling. The next couple of days, the symptoms worsened, with increasing pain, extreme physical discomfort and sensitivity, total loss of appetite and occasional delirious ramblings. Then, he seemed to lapse into unconsciousness; actually, he recounted that he was very much aware of his surroundings and while in that state, he had an experience of "mystical union".[32] The following day the symptoms, and the experience,
 intensified, climaxing with a sense of "immense peace".[33]
  "...I was supremely happy, for I had seen. Nothing could ever be the same. I have drunk at the clear and pure waters and my thirst was appeased. ...I have seen the Light. I have touched compassion which heals all sorrow and suffering; it is not for myself, but for the world. ...Love in all its glory has intoxicated my heart; my heart can never be closed. I have drunk at the fountain of Joy and eternal Beauty. I am God-intoxicated."[34]
  I am sure that the right guru may be able to assist on the pathways to self-realisation, as was the case with say a Lobsang Rampa.  It wasn't that way for Krishnamurti, he had been schooled in Theosophy, yet realisation did not come from this schooling, but from a personal experience.  We still have to do all the hard yards on our own, we have to prepare ourselves for when we can be of assistance to the Masters.  It is not, imo, a matter of gaining spiritual advancement by the intercession of others, this flies in the face of the meaning of SELF-REALIZATION.
   
  

Anand <AnandGholap@AnandGholap.org> wrote:
          Much before Krishnamurti's attacks on dogmatism, TS promoted freedom
of thought. I found that there are few right principles which
Krishnamurti gave. Followers of Krishnamurti often flaunt those
principles e.g. how he taught to free mind and etc. The fact is for
thousands of years it was known that Truth can be known,
self-realization can happen only after we go beyond thoughts. Reality
is beyond thought and mind. It was well known for thousands of years
before Krishnamurti was born. So K does not deserve credit for that.
In Patanjali's yoga aphorisms also there are methods to go beyond
mind. In TS also it was well known that book-reading and actual
experience was different.
Reading books does not bring obstacles in self-realization. Many of
great, self-realized people were learned including Lord Buddha,
Shankaracharya. It is a false statement of K that books hinder
self-realization.
There are some right statements in Krishnamurti's teaching, but they
were already known for hundreds of years.
And there are so many views in Krishnamurti's teaching which are just
false, and they are not supported by facts. For example take the
topic of Masters. You will get hundreds of testimonies from disciples
in India and abroad that Guru helped them on the path. So facts prove
that Krishnamurti's statements are false.
Anand 

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> 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@...> 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@... <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]
>



         

       
---------------------------------
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]