Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00193)

K does not make distinction between true Gurus and false Gurus.
According to K all Gurus are false including Blavatsky's Masters and
all Gurus are harmful, impediment in knowing Truth. According to K
there is no path.
On the other hand Blavatsky gives extreme importance to Masters and
path of occultism.
My observation tells me that ignorance about Theosophy is because
Krishnamurti's teaching is being promoted as Theosophy in TS. And
because of that members of TS are not studying Blavatsky, Besant or
Leadbeater.  
And Krishnamurti's teaching is such that people study for tens of
years without understanding what he wants to say.
I think that explains why we have Theosophical Society full of members
ignorant about Theosophy.
Anand Gholap


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Reitemeyer" <dzyan@...> wrote:
>
> 
> K's teaching has much of Zen and was as far as good at it was/is a
medicine 
> for the bigot and superstitious poppycock and cant about Masters 
promoted 
> by Leadbeater and Besant within the Adyar part of the Theosophical
Movement.
> 
> Katherine Tingley as Leader very often disclosed this perversion of
pukka 
> theosophy.
> 
> K's teaching in his negative way to reject false gurus fails in the
positive 
> way to recognize true gurus.
> That's why K's teaching is no theosophy, but it's a healing medicine
for 
> pseudo-theosophy and that is betetr than nothing.
> 
> Theosophists of today have still no idea of what a guru makes and
how to 
> find him.
> 
> Certain influences in the German theosophical scene claim, that
gurus and 
> teachers are not necessary within theosophy, which comes only form
within.
> Until now they have not profen their claim by themselves.
> 
> Pukka theosophy says that outer gurus are necessary. You canot get the 
> teachings without an outer guru.
> That teaches also mahayana buddhism and also it's Western child, 
> Christianity.
> 
> Just look at the theosophists. They do not even understand the simple, 
> outlined tenets which are public.
> 
> All the quarrel would be superfluos and brotherliness within the 
> Theosophical Movement would appear as soon as the teachings would be 
> understood.
> Without cant about Masters.
> 
> Theosophists do not even understand, what a messenger is.
> That's the reason, why theosophists do not really know, who H. P.
Blavatsky 
> was.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: Anand
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 6:38 PM
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Failure of Krishnamurti on the path of
occultism
> 
> 
> Many followers of Krishnamurti tried to tell me that Krishnamurti's
> teaching is same as Buddhism. They told me that Guru or Spiritual
> Master does not exist in Buddhism and it is inner Guru, which is the
> only Guru, no other Guru is required. Unfortunately these followers of
> Krishnamurti are grossly wrong about their idea of Buddhism.
> Below I am giving the information about concept Guru as understood in
> Buddhism. It is taken from wikipedia and it confirms what I was told
> by a lama who is international speaker on Buddhism.
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Source: Wikipedia
> Guru in Buddhism
> In the Theravada Buddhist tradition, the teacher is a valued and
> honoured mentor worthy of great respect, and is a source of
> inspiration on the path to Enlightenment.
> Blessed by the guru, whom the disciple regards as a Bodhisattva, or
> the embodiment of Buddha, the disciple can continue on the way to
> experiencing the true nature of reality. The disciple shows great
> appreciation and devotion for the guru, whose blessing is the last of
> the four foundations of Vajrayana Buddhism.
> In the Tibetan tradition, the guru is seen as the Buddha, the very
> root of spiritual realization and the basis of the path. Without the
> teacher, it is asserted, there can be no experience or insight. In
> Tibetan texts, great emphasis is placed upon praising the virtues of
> the guru.
> The Dalai Lama, speaking of the importance of the guru, said: "Rely on
> the teachings to evaluate a guru: Do not have blind faith, but also no
> blind criticism." He also observed that the term 'living Buddha' is a
> translation of the Chinese words huo fuo. In Tibetan, he said, the
> operative word is lama which means 'guru'. A guru is someone who is
> not necessarily a Buddha, but is heavy with knowledge. The term vajra
> is also used, meaning 'master'.
> Tantric teachings include visualizing the guru and making offerings
> praising the guru. The guru is known as the vajra (literally
> "diamond") guru. Initiations or ritual empowerments are necessary
> before the student is permitted to practise a particular tantra. The
> guru does not perform initiation as an individual, but as the person's
> own Buddha-nature reflected in the personality of the guru. The
> disciple is asked to make vows and commitments which preserve the
> spiritual link to the guru, and is told that to break this link is a
> serious downfall."
> -----------------------------------------------
> Wikipedia topic ends here.
> ---------------------------------
> Anand Gholap : This idea of Guru is very similar to idea of Guru in
> Hinduism. And after studying attitude of Christian devotees towards
> Jesus, I think that they give Jesus similar position which Buddhists
> or Hindus give to Guru.
> And one can see that Krishnamurti's condemnation of Guru concept does
> not fit at all in Buddhist or any other major religious tradition.
> Anand Gholap
>