Re: Failure of Krishnamurti on the path of occultism
May 29, 2008 11:28 PM
> You may have to consider that disciples are not, necessarily,
> Masters. For example, you may wish to consider the following passage
> from the Mahatma Letters:
> "The fact is, that to the last and supreme initiation every chela ?
> (and even some adepts) ? is left to his own device and counsel.
In general it is true. I think teaching given by the disciples through
the TS had been approved by the Masters in general, if not every
I was saying that Masters gave certain ideas through the TS using
disciples like HPB, AB, CWL. These ideas included God. It will be very
strange if we assume that these disciples invented God, when Masters
did not approve it.
> As far as I can see, in the Mahatma letter which I quoted K.H. is not
> attacking the wise teachers who left a legacy of wisdom.
According to wise teachers like Jesus, Shankaracharya and most other
teachers God exists. In fact Indian spiritual writings tell that God
is the only one who exists and forms which we see are maya or
illusion. Do you want to say that these teachers made a mistake of
inventing God ? In Jesus' teaching God, the Father is most important.
Same is true in all Indian spiritual writings and Hinduism. In Gita
Shree Krishna shows to Arjuna how everything exists in God, how
everything and everyone lives and ceases to exist in God. Do you want
to say that Shree Krishna was telling false things to Arjuna ? With
the exception of Buddhism, in all great religions God is central. But
how many followers of Buddhism are there in the world ? As compared to
followers of Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism combined,
followers of Buddhism are very few. It appears that their no-God idea
is not appreciated by the intuition of large number of people.
> denouncing what happens to religion when it becomes
Without institution religions don't spread and become ineffective. TS
is also an institution created by the Masters. So,
institutionalization is not a problem. As I understand that letter,
Masters were attacking bad things that have crept in religions. But
the language of the letter is too exaggerated. It is like throwing
baby with the water.
I also see one more meaning in the letter. Masters might be saying
that dependence on old religions should lessen and advanced people
should rely on new and better religions like Theosophy, LCC. However I
don't think Theosophy and LCC can be understood by common people.
These can become religion for more advanced souls. For common people
Christianity will still be very useful in keeping people on the path
> And I find his views resonant with what
> Krishnamurti and many others have said. For example, Rubem Alves, a
> Brazilian theologian, once said that "most of the religions which
> exist today are like fossils of a spiritual experience which has
> disappeared long ago."
Spiritual experience has not disappeared long ago. You will get some
people in every century who have witnessed God and spiritual truths.
In 20th century also there were people who testify from their
experiences that God exists. Certain things in religions have become
irrelevant, for example caste system in India. But that does not mean
that whore religions are useless now. Bible, especially New Testament,
is extremely wise and useful in guiding conduct today also.
>David Tacey, a scholar from La Trobe
> University, Melbourne, Australia, has written in a similar vein. He
> says that many of the students that come to his classes at the
> university say they are completely disillusioned with religion.
Interest in spirituality is not lessening though interest in
oversimplified exoteric religions is going down among people because
of some improbable statements and impractical things in religions.
That is one reason why more advanced religions like Theosophy are given.
> last but not the least, Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" has
> had very successful sales in Australia.
I think Krishnamuriti's speeches have influenced large number of
thinkers directly or indirectly, and these authors are telling the
same ideas, many times without knowing that origin of their ideas was
in Krishnamurti's teaching.
> It all depends on how you view the concept of God. To translate the
> word "Theosophy" as "Wisdom of God" does not seem correct to me. As a
> matter of fact, HPB spoke clearly against this kind of translation
> in "The Key to Theosophy". The word "theos", in Greek, means "a god",
> not God in the sense that theologians use the word. And the
> word "theos" comes from "thein", 'to grow, to expand'. Interestingly
> enough, the word "Brahman" comes from the Sanskrit verbal
> root "brih", 'to expand'. So, in view of the above, we could say that
> Theosophy or Divine Wisdom is a way of seeing things which is
> constantly growing, expanding, and is never static, dogmatic, fixed.
> Personally, I think that is the legacy of the Founders through the TS.
I think Besant has more knowledge of the origin of the word as well as
about the intention of the founders when they used word Theosophy.
Here are passages from the book 'Theosophy' by Annie Besant.
" Theosophy is derived from two Greek words ?Theos , God; Sophia,
Wisdom ?and is therefore God-Wisdom, Divine Wisdom. Any dictionary
will give its meaning : "A claim to a direct knowledge of God and of
Spirits", a definition which is not inaccurate, though it is scanty
and affords but a small idea of all that is covered by the word,
either historically or practically.
The obtaining of "a direct knowledge of God" is ?as we shall see
in dealing with the religious aspect of Theosophy ?the ultimate object
of all Theosophy, as it is the very heart and life of all true
Religion; this is "the highest knowledge, the knowledge of Him by whom
all else is known"; but the lower knowledge, that of the knowable "all
else", and the methods of knowing it, bulk largely in Theosophical study.
This is natural enough, for the supreme knowledge must be gained
by each for himself, and little can be done by another, save by
pointing to the way, by inspiring to the effort, by setting the
example; whereas the lower knowledge may be taught in books, in
lectures, in conversation, is transmissible from mouth to ear."
This book was written before Krishnamurti taught anything. Also notice
the words "the supreme knowledge must be gained by each for himself,
and little can be done by another" So Krishnamurti's attacks on
Theosophy and the TS are wrong because Theosophy and TS did not say
that this knowledge comes from outside as can be understood from the
above words of Annie Besant.
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application