Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00125)

Dear Sampsa,

Thank you for your response. I will leave TS politics aside and
concentrate on the Krishnamurti issue as I perceive that one to be of
higher importance. 

My question to you is: what is your understanding of theosophy and
Krishnamurti that there is no contradiction?

How would you deal with a list of comparisons between the two I made a
while ago, to be found at: 

http://alpheus.org/html/articles/krishnamurti/TSL_Column.htm

Govert

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "sampsakuukasjarvi"
<sampsakuukasjarvi@...> wrote:
>
> Anand: Your expressions about Radha and P. Krishna are very unpolite. 
> For example, "P. Krishna is the biggest threat to the TS" and "Radha 
> does not understand spiritual things well". Do you understand then, 
> Ananda? To me you don't seem to understand in this Krishnamurti case. 
> It is also offending to say that there are no theosophical talents 
> outside India. There certainly are.
> 
> Anand,  I wonder how you still have not understood that there is no 
> contradiction in theosophy and in Krishnamurti's teaching. Please 
> don't look phenomena just at face value. Krishnamurti made a 
> reformation in a manifestation of theosophy. He saved the TS from 
> orthodoxy and dogmatism. The course that was running in the TS after 
> Olcott was insane. There's nothing "satanic" in stopping that 
> pathetic circus and concentrating on observation of your own mind.
> 
> Besant and Leadbeater are "pure theosophy"? Come on! These leaders 
> fancied a lot of things, lifted themselves on the platform and 
> supported the world war. Besant was always busy in changing the world 
> and forgot that Theosophists should change themselves. Of course, 
> these leaders made good things, too.
> 
> I agree with you that Radha has controlled the Society. She has had 
> too much power and she still has too much. Her long ruling is one 
> reason why the TS is not in a healthy condition. This situation in 
> the international administration is like in a former Communist 
> country: no discussion, no information, no competition, no change. If 
> you disagree and want to have alternatives, you are called 
> unbrotherly. I give points to Bland and Warwick that they dare to be 
> transparent now.
> 
> Govert: I agree that a more balanced investigation on Krishnamurti is 
> needed. He was not always honest about his past.
> 
> It is understandable that Krishnamurti is promoted in the TS, because 
> he was found by the leading occultist of the TS. There are of course 
> double standards to Steiner and Bailey, because they got into 
> conflict with the TS leadership. And we know that everything which is 
> presented in the Adyar TS is "real theosophy" (sarcasm)!
> 
> But come on. Ballards, Prophets and others that you mention didn't 
> learn the lesson that Krishnamurti gave to us all. These people 
> continue talking about pathetic initiations, Masters and new occult 
> knowledge, lift themselves on the platform, and their morality 
> teaching is not as theosophical as it could be. There is no certain 
> humility which there should be. I wonder how you can seriously 
> compare their teachings to "more real" (without sarcasm) theosophy 
> like Krishnamurti. I put Bailey to this same new age bunch where I 
> put Ballards.
> 
> To me John Algeo was not a competent successor, because he is also 
> aged and because he didn't want to live at Adyar. There were and are 
> many better candidates, like Vicente Hao Chin Jr. and Linda Oliveira. 
> Btw. it seems that Radha is "bringing up" Linda as her successor 
> because the latter is moving to Adyar. And against Anand's and 
> Govert's hypothesis in my knowledge Linda Oliveira is not 
> especially "Krishnamurtian".
> 
> I don't think Krishnamurti is the only direction which is promoted in 
> the TS. Tibetan Buddhism is promoted as theosophy, too, and often its 
> very exoteric and even superficial forms.
>