Theos-Talk Archives (May 2008 Message tt00504)

Yow Cass, we are all our own Path, first we live in
the past, then in the future to be followed by the
now. However in the end we will live in the Eternal.
Past = attachment, Future = longing, Now = balance and
Eternal = Truth.



--- Cass Silva <silva_cass@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello Aryel and thanks for your response.
>   My views are that the Masters/HPB said that one
> had to have in control the lower
> self/ego/personality, but never gave clear
> directions on how this could be achieved.  I believe
> that Krishnamurti focused entirely on the cleansing
> of the Lower Self through cleansing the
> ego/id/psyche of its falsely held "ideals" - its
> inherited value systems.  He tore them apart in a
> clear and consise way and pointed the way, certainly
> for me, to realise that my thinking had been
> societal driven rather than individually driven.  
>    
>   So I guess you could say I cherry picked this part
> of his philosophy.  As far as living in "the now",
> in my case, it is moments of spontaneity (and is
> somewhat the same as what Gurdgieff speaks of).  Our
> thoughts as we all know need to be mastered,
> however, I believe that it would take a supreme act
> of consciousness to attempt this while the ego still
> has some control over our day to day existence.  To
> die to every day is a feat which I believe is
> accomplished only by those further along the path
> than I.
>    
>   Cass
> 
> Aryel Sanat <asanat@mac.com> wrote:
>           To all readers,
> 
> My name is Aryel Sanat, & I am introducing myself to
> all of you, 
> since I'll be participating in some of the
> discussions. For health 
> reasons, I may not be able to stay long. I am
> particularly 
> interested in comments made by a number of you about
> Krishnamurti & 
> his relationship to theosophy & the TS, which
> strikes me as a central 
> issue in the present elections. I'd like to share
> with you my five 
> cents' worth on the subject, hoping also to learn
> something in the 
> process. Before I jump in to respond to some
> comments & issues 
> raised on this subject, I'd like to make a brief
> statement.
> 
> My perception is that it is extremely difficult,
> perhaps impossible, 
> to make any sense of what K might mean in a
> theosophical context 
> unless one understands the difference between what I
> have called 
> Theosophy (with a capital T) and theosophy (small
> t), based on the 
> distinction made by HPB & her teachers between
> "esoteric" and 
> "exoteric." Capital T Theosophy is a system of
> thought that was 
> created around teachings given initially by HPB &
> her teachers, & 
> then further elaborated on by others, both in & out
> of the TS. Small 
> t theosophy refers to the process of psychological
> transformation 
> that has always been at the center of every single
> perennial school 
> in the world.
> 
> So Theosophy & theosophy have some points in common,
> but they are 
> radically different in essence. When one speaks (in
> the present 
> context) of such things as reincarnation, karma,
> life after death, 
> root races, & the like, one is speaking in
> Theosophical terms. When 
> one speaks of the psychological rigors implicit in
> what used to be 
> called "initiation" in every single perennial
> school, one is speaking 
> of theosophy. In this context, anyone engaging in
> the death of the 
> me that theosophy consists of, would be almost
> certain to understand 
> someone who is engaged in Theosophy, which is a
> system of ideas. On 
> the other hand, someone engaging exclusively in
> Theosophy might find 
> it very hard to understand theosophy. A Theosophist
> might find it 
> difficult to understand someone trying to convey
> some of the 
> implications of theosophy. A Theosophist might
> expect to see his 
> ideas & expectations, based mostly on reading books
> & listening to 
> "knowledgeable" people, confirmed in some way or
> another. A 
> Theosophist might even be shocked to hear what a
> theosophist might 
> say on some subjects.
> 
> For instance, a theosophist --- being someone
> engaged in dying to the 
> known --- might shun beliefs of any kind, given that
> all beliefs can 
> become forms of attachment, crutches in important
> ways. In the 
> process of being a theosophist, she had to face the
> reality that 
> beliefs --- like any other "possessions" of the me
> --- need to be 
> transcended, & are ephemeral. So when a Theosophist
> hears this, he 
> might be shocked. Conceivably, he might say things
> like: "You mean 
> I must not believe in reincarnation? Preposterous!
> You must be crazy!"
> 
> According to HPB & her teachers, they were
> attempting to make the 
> world aware of the existence of theosophy throughout
> the ages. 
> Unfortunately, they had a very big problem in being
> able to 
> accomplish this: The majority of people were of the
> world, worldly, 
> & the last thing these worldly people would be
> likely to be 
> interested in would be for someone to tell them that
> in order for 
> there to be true wisdom/compassion, they had to die
> to all their 
> attachments based on their conditioning. After all,
> this is 
> precisely what all candidates in the world, for
> millenia, had to do, 
> in every single perennial school we know of. In
> Egypt, a candidate 
> is said to have been put in a sarcophagus (a coffin)
> for several days 
> on end, so as to face his own mortality, & so as to
> see directly the 
> lack of substance in the candidate's various
> attachments in "the 
> outside world." This also is part of the purpose of
> Tibetan lamas 
> meditating while sitting on the bones of some
> formerly wise lama, now 
> physically gone: Meditation under such circumstances
> brings home the 
> point that even if you're very wise & compassionate,
> important 
> components of why people remember you after you die
> are also gone. 
> theosophical realities can be ruthlessly clear about
> some realities 
> of life.
> 
> People in "the outside world" don't want to hear
> about any of this, 
> finding it rather loony & "impractical" & even
> "fantastical." & if 
> such a reaction is true today (when we've been
> exposed to Buddhism, 
> transpersonal psychology, mythology, Krishnamurti, &
> a great deal 
> more), imagine what the reaction would have been in
> the late 19th 
> century, when HPB, at the behest of her teachers,
> was trying to point 
> out the existence & reality of this "other world" to
> people who were 
> snobishly certain that they already knew all that
> was important to 
> know. For instance, in 1895 (4 years after HPB died)
> Lord Kelvin 
> (whose work is still relevant in the field of
> physics) made the 
> statement that perhaps the Chair of Physics should
> be closed, since 
> everything that needed to be known in physics was
> already known! & 
> please look at the fact that Lord Kelvin was a
> particularly smart guy 
> of the times.
> 
> In such environment of unmitigated hubris, HPB's
> teachers had no 
> other choice than to provide people with something
> they might be more 
> likely to accept. This is why various "teachings"
> were presented to 
> such an audience, in the hope (perhaps a "forlorn
> hope," as KH called 
> it at one point) that perchance a few would see the
> importance of 
> theosophy, of engaging in a transformative
> lifestyle. 
=== message truncated ===