Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00467)

The point I was making Frank was that when the pupil is ready, the guru will find him.  If we accept and believe this then it invalidates the need to find a guru.  I can't see how he opposed the Masters plan, perhaps you can explain your thinking in this area.  
   
   
  Cass

Frank Reitemeyer <dzyan@online.de> wrote:
          Maybe, but K did not teach theosophy.
Theosophy means organizing bodies to collect candidates.
K did not teach how to find a guru, he only taught how not to find him.
He opposed organizations, so he also opposes the Masters plan.
Frank

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Cass Silva
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:40 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: Failure of Krishnamurti on the path of 
occultism

But Frank, and Krishnamurti probably knew and also understood, that when the 
pupil is ready, the guru comes to him. So therefore from K's point of view 
no point in wasting time looking for one.

Cass

Frank Reitemeyer <dzyan@online.de> 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

---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it 
now.

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



                           

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

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