Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00360)

Thanks for your insightful input John.  I never got into the nitty gritty of the non-duality in K's teachings, as I took the view that he was the living example of non duality consciousness and what we can expect to achieve in the future.  So for him, non-duality, was a fact, and like you say his message crosses paths with HPB when she talks about living through  higher manas.
   
  I think though that for others who are living in duality, it is impossible to achieve that level of consciousness in one lifetime, and this, imo,is the flaw that has caused many of his followers into have to deal with the mental dilemma of not being able to live in non-duality.
   
  Just a guess though.
   
  Regards
  Cass

Augoeides-222@comcast.net wrote:
          mkr,
Hi again my friend. My viewpoint is the Mahatma's chose to utilize Madame Blavatsky as the sole Agent to originate specific teachings and to organize individuals whose inherent instinctual affinities would bring them to find intellectual and spiritual uplift of mind and consciousness as a group dynamic called Theosophical Society. In this thread that is discussing differential aspects relative to the express purposes of Mahatma's and Krishnamurti what is essential in my view to hold in mind is the primary focus of each one. Blavatsky as the Traducere Illuminati of the Mahatma's places before mankind in her many published works what can be mainly characterized as Teaching as pertains to Dualism in terms of the receiving consciousness of mankind. Krishnamurti in contrast seems to me to present the difficult to apprehend instruction of Non-dual teaching Adwaita as is in "kernel" core form found in Tibetan, Hindu, Mahayana, Zen and the Mahatma's. Non-dual recognizes the "Space"
 that 
one is never without of whether incarnate, astral, mind, buddhic, atmic or monad. Primordial original Space that is non-space as the field of all that has been, is, or will be. The formula is"Find Out Where You Really Are" then "Find Out Who You Really Are." This is fundamental basis of what is referred to as Universal Brotherhood. Original Primordial Self Unity is Native State. The Conditioned Mind of Patanjali is incapable of acceptance of Unity Non-dual realizations because to do so is to recognize self postulated extinction, and it resists by any and all reasonings to be receptive as such to this Awareness. Krishnamurti placed Bhijna of Non-Dual Adwaita into the heart of people and this did stimulate them even if they could not bring the "Why" to conscious level. They felt it's energy.The two methods are distinctly focused to two different results but in the stream of consciousness they complement and provide a basis of future growth and expansion of Beingness. Be - Do
 - Have
is one triangle. Affinity- Reality -Communication is a second triangle. Before they were opposed, one up, one down. Now we are on the upcline and ascent so they are both "up" now. But the "S" or "Sat" remains. Also the Seven Fold Economy is maintained organizationally. The "game" is start in "Mystery" and ascend to "Know" the Patanjali consciousness is in mystery. The Realized Consciousness is in "Know." There are states in between. Just a viewpoint eclectic as it is.

Regards,
John

---------- Original message -------------- 
From: "M K Ramadoss" <mkr777@gmail.com> 

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]



         

       
---------------------------------
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!

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