Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00385)

My views are:
   Some where Madison Square Garden and JK's  personal repudiation of CWL and AB before the entire world on Radio seems to have been lost in the scuffle.

Regards

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> 
To Nigel and all readers

My views are:

Thanks for answering.
I have reached the conclusion, that we disagree a whole lot about the stance J. Krishnamurti aught to be given.

1.
Your first comment In your below answer:
It is not answering my questions at all. You just ask me to read books and find my own conclusion. And perhaps read some more until we perhaps we agree. :-)

2.
Your second and third comments in your below answer:
In these two comments you have divided two sentences wich came just one after the other.

I would say, that I have every right to judge a teachings impact on humanity, just like anyone else has. I do it on my level through communication. If another disagree, then let him or her show us why. Is that a wrong path to follow?

And as long as it is true, that we shall know people on their spiritual fruits, I can simply not agree upon putting J. Krishnamurti upon a pedistal as a Messiah and thereby create an emotional cult - within the theosophical groups, like some persons in the TS Adyar section have been seeking to do for years now. 

Yet each his or her own God or Parabrahman, - or Messiah of you will.

Let us face the facts and recognise truth when it is proven to us. It is a pitiful impact J. Krishnamurti have made so far as a promoted Messiah and Avatar. H. P. Blavatsky and others have done much more than he without being promoted as Messiah's and Avatars of the age. There is no religion higher than Truth.

Emotional cults gathered around a Messiah and some so-called "learned" apostles to interpret his teachings - using J. Krishnamurti as the only allowable Crutch - after his physical death is not theosophical teaching. 

The theosophical teaching clearly states, that we all learn from everything in life. We learn from a rock, from the landscape, various worlds, from people around us, and from a our Master when we walk the path. The difference being that the Master guides you and a rock does for instance not. Quite opposite J. Krishnamurti teachings says that others are not allowed to guide anyone, because he will be a Crutch himself if he did so. And that must of course include J. Krishnamurti. Either his teaching was just very clumsy - or we have to ask if he in fact taught this even if there is nothing in his collected writings that tell us this? 

- - - - - - - -H. P. Blavatsky said:"The Society founded to remedy the glaring evils of Christianity, to shun bigotry and intolerance, cant and superstition and to cultivate real universal love extending even to the dumb brute".(The Collected Writings of H. P. Blavatsky, vol. 7, p.246)Master KH wrote in a Mahatma Letter:For the opposition represents enormous vested interests, and they have enthusiastic help from the Dugpas -- in Bhootan and the Vatican!(Here is all of Mahtama Letter, No. 55. Dugpas are the same as selfish Magicians.)
M. Sufilight

----- Original Message ----- 
From: nhcareyta 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Madame Blavatsky and Jiddu Krishnamurti; a conducive "marriage?"

Dear Morten

Thank you for your reply.

You write, "H. P. Blavatsky also taught about 
illusions,maya and the like. Others did the same. 
So why is J. Krishnamurti important when compared 
to others?

To this I can only suggest you make a careful 
study of his works, if you haven't already done 
so. If you have, we will simply have to agree to 
disagree as to the importance and practical 
relevance of his works.

You write, "H. P. Blavatsky is and was stages above 
J. Krishnamurti."

It is surprising you claim the ability to judge 
whom is "higher" than whom. From my understanding 
only a high degree adept with genuine seership 
has the ability to make this determination. 

You write, "And the difference of level of 
spiritual impact of these two are quite obviously 
telling me, that H. P. Blavatsky was operating on 
a much higher level than J. Krishnamurti."

Once again you seem to be professing the powers 
of an adept. To judge someone's level of spiritual 
attainment, and moreover to compare it with another, 
is perhaps just a little presumptuous?

Regards
Nigel

> 
> Dear Morten
> 
> Thank you for your response and questions.
> 
> One of the major components of the Tibetan 
> Buddhist tradition involves occult study and 
> training leading to the Geshe degree, which can 
> often require twenty five years to complete. 
> Madame Blavatsky was trained in certain of 
> these teachings and practices.
> 
> Included in this study and training is profound 
> and prolonged meditation practice designed for 
> the candidate to achieve the various states of 
> sunyata, emptiness or void. 
> 
> Two of these forms of meditation practice in 
> Tibetan schools are termed Dzogchen and 
> Mahamudra. 
> 
> Sunyata refers to states of consciousness that 
> are outside ordinary mental functioning and 
> which recognise the illusory nature of thought. 
> During the process of awakening these states, an 
> awareness arises within whereupon we realise the 
> profound effect that skandhas, biology, 
> upbringing, peers, culture and society have on 
> our perception and judgements of the world 
> around us. 
> 
> A component of Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' 
> role was to introduce occult knowledge. Another 
> was to present this knowledge in such a manner as 
> to assist in the transformation of our ordinary 
> thought processes, or mindset, towards recognising 
> the illusory states and discerning the Real.
> 
> "The Mind is the great Slayer of the Real. Let the 
> Disciple slay the Slayer." 
> "Thou hast to study the voidness of the seeming 
> full, the fulness of the seeming void. O fearless 
> Aspirant, look deep within the well of thine own 
> heart, and answer. Knowest thou of Self the 
> powers, O thou perceiver of external shadows?" 
> Voice of the Silence. 
> 
> Whilst it was Madame Blavatsky's predominant role 
> to bring specific academic, occult teachings, 
> albeit in the format explained above, it was 
> Jiddu Krishnamurti's teaching role to focus almost 
> entirely on the illusory nature of mind thereby 
> exposing the impediments to true Knowledge. 
> 
> In doing this, and as he steadily matured, he 
> apparently saw the need to challenge the manner 
> in which "theosophical" teachings were producing 
> a mindset of holy writ. This was largely due to 
> the reductionist and religious mindsets of later 
> commentators on the writings of Madame Blavatsky 
> and her teachers. These included Bishop C W 
> Leadbeater, Dr A Besant, Bishop G Arundale and 
> Rev. G Hodson, each a leading light and putative 
> authority on "theosophy" in the Adyar Theosophical 
> Society.
> 
> For these reasons, the roles and teachings of 
> Madame Blavatsky and Jiddu Krishnamurti are 
> mutually supportive for occult training and 
> awakening and are therefore theosophically 
> compatible.
> 
> Kind regards
> Nigel
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
> theosophy@> wrote:
> >
> > To all readers
> > 
> > My views are:
> > 
> > Thanks Nigel!
> > 
> > On J. Krishnamurti:
> > I do not understand how J. Krishnamurti can be said to be in 
> support of Esoteric Buddhism and Blavatsky's version of theosophy 
on 
> the teaching of Master-Chelaship. Krishnamurti rejected guru's 
and 
> called them a crutch.
> > Are you able to explain this?
> > 
> > I do find, that various persons can and do benefit from J. 
> Krishnamurti's writings, but I will never find them to be in 
support 
> of the continuation af The Theosophical Society as it was given 
by H. 
> P. Blavatsky.
> > 
> > And J. Krishnamurti's allowance of himself being called 
Maitreya by 
> Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater is nothing but a doctrine, 
which 
> was creating - emotionalism within the Theosophical Society. 
> Theosophy is based not belief. It is based on Truth. There is no 
> religion higher than TRUTH.
> > So I have my difficulties with accepting J. krishnamurti as a 
> useful teacher within the Theosophical Society's - H. P. 
Blavatsky 
> branch.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > M. Sufilight
> > 
> > 
> > H. P. Blavatsky said:
> > "The Society founded to remedy the glaring evils of 
Christianity, 
> to shun bigotry and intolerance, cant and superstition and to 
> cultivate real universal love extending even to the dumb brute".
> > (The Collected Writings of H. P. Blavatsky, vol. 7, p.246)
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: nhcareyta 
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
> > Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:03 AM
> > Subject: Theos-World Madame Blavatsky and Jiddu Krishnamurti; a 
> conducive "marriage?"
> > 
> > 
> > Dear Morten and all
> > 
> > Morten, thank you for bringing to us what is to 
> > me an inspired understanding of Theosophy.
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/44047
> > 
> > Your friend has touched the core of Theosophy, 
> > that of mindset.
> > 
> > Of infinitely greater significance than what we 
> > think, is how we think.
> > 
> > All too often, epistemology is virtually ignored 
> > by we students.
> > 
> > And, as your friend alludes, as long as we remain 
> > programmed by the predominant mindset of our era 
> > we will rarely touch that which was offered. 
> > We will merely run hither and thither, dominated by 
> > our mental and emotional predispositions.
> > 
> > Through profound insight, Jiddu Krishnamurti, along 
> > with many others including Madame Blavatsky and her 
> > teachers, self-realised this and attempted to 
> > expose the nature of free mind for all to consider.
> > 
> > Sadly, most later commentators and students of 
> > Madame Blavatsky and her teachers' works fell for 
> > the letter rather than the spirit or mindset of 
> > their words, adjusting and contradicting them 
> > towards their own mindsets' predilections. 
> > 
> > This latter mindset, driven largely by fear, is 
> > insidious and pernicious. Through our desperate 
> > desire for security, safety, predictability and 
> > certainty we revert to our established ways of 
> > linear and objective thinking. 
> > 
> > Whilst these modalities may have intrinsic value, 
> > they are manifestly limited in apprehending the 
> > vastness of Truth.
> > 
> > The nature and method of much of Madame Blavatsky's 
> > writings by necessity demand we think outside the 
> > square. Similarly with the nature and method of 
> > Jiddu Krishnamurti's works. 
> > 
> > Whilst Madame Blavatsky encouraged the "free mindset", 
> > ensconced within and through essential occult 
> > teachings, Jiddu Krishnamurti focused more particularly 
> > on mindset itself. 
> > 
> > Herein for me lies the harmonious confluence of these 
> > writers and teachers and supports much of what your 
> > friend has written.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Nigel
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [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]


 

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