Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00126)

While showing contrast between Theosophy and Krishnamurti's teaching
following point may be added.
Krishnamurti- "I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you
cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect."
[Lutyens "Awakening", Farrar, Straus hardcover, ch 33]

Blavatsky-
"There is a road, steep and thorny, and beset with perils of every
kind, but yet a road, and it leads to the heart of the Universe. I can
tell you how to find Those who will show you the secret gateway that
leads inward only, and closes fast behind the neophyte for evermore.
There is no danger that dauntless courage cannot conquer; there is no
trial that spotless purity cannot pass through; there is no difficulty
that strong intellect cannot surmount. For those who win onward, there
is reward past all telling: the power to bless and serve humanity. For
those who fail, there are other lives in which success may come." 
[Editorial in Lucifer, vol. 9 ]

Best
Anand Gholap


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> >
>