Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00219)

Morten, 
Thank you for your reply and comments. 

>>>So you are saying, that J. Krishnamurti actullay said that he was not the World Teacher in 1929. Would you be so kind to tell me and others, where you have the words on that from?<<< 

Well, I read it many years ago around 2000-2003 somewhere in a Theosophical Publication that contained the description I posted here you inquire of. I can't remember where or the name of the article and date. Online it seems to have been "sanitized" by someone, but it does exist as I stated.YES he did say to the World and a filled to standing room only Madison Gardens in New jersey USA "I am not the World Savior!" all present heard this, and it was Broadcast to the World instant to his voice. There may be a Radio Recording of the event some where archived, I haven't tried that avenue yet, and there surely must be a record in some Theosophical Archive maybe even in the Krishna Murti Trust Documents. But my memory is clear as reading this made an indelible impression as a defining benchmark so important in many regards to the whole controversy about Leadbeater and Besant's Project. I will try to find time to do more search to find a record of the event. I don't remember which year it was even in today. It may have been in my personal library, I am not sure where if it is. What I read was a Theosophist's description of the event in some detail. There must also be some Newspaper Archive reporting about the event. Wish I had the specific date before me it would be a great aid to nailing the records. 

>>>I am glad to read that you find comparative study important, and that you - appearntly - agree upon that J. Krishnamurti did a bad job on promoting the importance this.<<< 

No, I don't agree at all to your characterization, in fact I find it hard to understand why you "distort" the obvious seen by almost anyone with cursory exposure to Krishna Murti. It is plain he never had intention at any point in his life to involve himself in any way with "Comparitive Studies" 
he seemed to me entirely focused upon teaching his view in a Adwaita form of expressions and statements, nothing more or less. Just the way it strikes my mind. I can't think of any reason one reading him would start thinking about comparitive studies being his devotion or purpose or goal. 


>>>I am in no manner agreeing upon that J. Krishnamurti was very well in promoting the view, that guidance was and is necessary to the Seekers on the Path or Pathless Path of transformation. - To me he did a very good job of promoting the opposite view, - saying repeatedly that NO Gurus are allowed. Because of that I would hold my horses on giving him too much importance as a genuine theosophical teacher. Blavatsky and great many others was clearly against muddling this view.<<< 

If as I state in my posts Krishna Murti became Receptacle and receiver of a Higher Agency then it follows he is given continued guidance inseperate from that presence. So I don't think a Guru was absent as it was the Guru who spoke through him. The purpose and nature and type of guidance varies as you have many times stated, and the people meant to receive may also have been guided to find him or his words. 

>>>It is to me, not important whether you dislike Cyril Scott, it is the actual "words" in the book, I am talking about.<<< 

I never said I didn't like Cyril Scott. I have no opinion of him based on serious writings which I have not read. I do recall reading a few years ago someone posted about him as a possible source to Blavatsky as one of the concealed Mahatma's. I don't think that is a true case personally. I did say his naming his dog Khoot Hoomi was negative and I consider it inappropiate and an oblique insult to Theosophy and H.P.B. if anything. Just my POV. 

>>>What are your view upon the actual words about J. Krishnamurti in that quote? Is your answer silence?<<< 

Hmmm, no not silence. I just don't give much credence at this point in time. The atitude is both Glib and Arrogant mixed with self-conceited chuckles and innuendos which I never appreciate myself. What proof can he put in front of me that his grandiose allusions have any basis in fact? I don't accept his hand controls the stream of consciousness of the collective humanity's actions and deeds in any meaningful context. If they had such empowerment the world in their time wouldn't have been going through all it did and they can't blame KM for it either! 

Kinji Namparshespa! 

Your links were broken and did not execute because you didn't palce ">>>" and "<<<" at beginning and end of them. 

Happiness is the differentiation of infinite views thja Beings are capable of. 

Regards, 
John 









----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-theosophy@stofanet.dk> 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 12:29:03 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: Theos-World Path or Pathless - and No Gurus? 






Dear John and friends 

My views are: 

So you are saying, that J. Krishnamurti actullay said that he was not the World Teacher in 1929. Would you be so kind to tell me and others, where you have the words on that from? 

I am glad to read that you find comparative study important, and that you - appearntly - agree upon that J. Krishnamurti did a bad job on promoting the importance this. 

I am in no manner agreeing upon that J. Krishnamurti was very well in promoting the view, that guidance was and is necessary to the Seekers on the Path or Pathless Path of transformation. - To me he did a very good job of promoting the opposite view, - saying repeatedly that NO Gurus are allowed. Because of that I would hold my horses on giving him too much importance as a genuine theosophical teacher. Blavatsky and great many others was clearly against muddling this view. 

1. 
I would rather listen to the words given by Sir Thomas in the following link, where I quoted from in my earlier e-mail a few days ago. 

It is to me, not important whether you dislike Cyril Scott, it is the actual "words" in the book, I am talking about. 

What are your view upon the actual words about J. Krishnamurti in that quote? Is your answer silence? 

Here is the quote from Cyril Scotts book where Sir Thomas is given the word: 
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html 

The whole book is online here. Try reading the chapter on page 56-59: 
"The Initiate in the Dark Cycle" 
http://home1.stofanet.dk/theos-octagon/The%20Initiate%20In%20The%20Dark%20Cycle.pdf 

- - - 

2. 

******* 
The following quote might tell us that even Radha Burnier is agreeing upon that guidance is needed on the Path. 
Are the words genuine? Anyone? 
******* 

"From the relative point of view so many things appear to be true, but from the absolute point of view... 
This is why Buddhists and Hindus spoke about the two truths: there are things which are true from their relative point of view and which have no place at all from the absolute point of view. One of the great difficulties in understanding Krishnamurti is that he spoke always or almost always from the absolute mind. Ramana did not. 

Ramana had commented that what Krishnamurti advocatesâthat there is no guru and all thatâis OK only for a few. But the rest do need guidance up to a point. When we start distinguishing between illusion and reality, then the guru is seen as internal, no longer seen as embodied. But until that point guidance is necessary. 
So did Krishnamurti, if one understands him rightly. If he believed that no guidance was necessary, why did he speak at all?" 

http://www.lifepositive.com/Spirit/new-age-path/theosophical-society/theosophy.asp 
--- 

M. Sufilight 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Augoeides-222@comcast.net 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 8:55 PM 
Subject: Re: Theos-World Path or Pathless - and No Gurus? 

Morten 
As I said previously, KM repudiated the chosen role appointed to him by others in a moment of ultimate humiliation to Leadbeater and Besant before the whole world. He later dissolved the Order of the Star. So after turning on his heels and leaving it all behind him then at Madison Gardens---- Are there some who demand his mind and consciousness be physically excised from his Being and body? Does he not have life? Is he not as Human Being? Does he not have the intrinsic right to think and communicate to anyone about him who is there? Should his tongue have been pulled from his body for the offense of others? Hasn't he also karma to undergo catharsis as we all have? If what he says has impact upon others are others supposed to beleive it is only because of Leadbeater and Besant that he could speak words others found rewarding and healing and rejuvenating in spite of all that occurred before, when he was only the prop and center peice of their master plan. I don't think he had choice as a very young boy. There is a record of the protests of his parents against their approbation of him followed by the legal battle which the parents lost. He must have been much conflicted, confused and perhaps to him in a hopeless situation. But in any case, to me, he remains a precious human being entitled to live and grow and originate and to become "All that He is with All that is about Him' as a unique sovreign self determined thinking and acting Human being. So what if there was a "Trust"? A Trust is created to remove the hand from actions or involvement. 

As to Cyril Scott I personally haven't read any of his books so I can't comment on their contents. But he was only 12 years old when H.P.B. died. Should Theosophists hold him in high regards because he named his dog Khoot hoomi? I don't, it is a negative if anything. Besides Harry truman said "The buck stops here" and what ever a guru or master may do to over shadow, assist protect is only as good as the conscious active actions and mindful awareness of those they want to see advance on any path. If the person choses otherwise they are helpless, so only when the subject does the right action and right inner work is the "Path" found for them and maybe that is what KM meant by "The Pathless Path". 

And H.P.B. I seem to recall made comment that each and everyone of the 12 inner group members failed and were opposite of success. So in my view KM had a better result in some aspects. 

I agree about study, science, comparative inquiry, but it seems to me after 10 years here most members don't have any inclinations to do that ans instead restrict themselves to Theosopical Writings in it's full spectrum. I tried to read or acquire most of H.P.B.'s "Q" sources she mentioned in her works to learn what basis they contributed to the SD but how many other here do that? Not many if one must depend on what they openly state here. Life has many demands that have stronger urgings and necessities. 

Inspite of all the prestigious names listed in your extract here in the real world no one is raising the dead in the phenomenal way of Apollonius or creating alchemical gold like St. Germain, but Science is accomplishing similar acts by advance of natures knowledge and permissions. 

Regards, 
John 
PS: I have a new E-mail system whose spell-checker is yet arcane to me---patience. 
Message ----- 
From: "Morten Nymann Olesen" < global-theosophy@stofanet.dk > 
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:41:18 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Theos-World Path or Pathless - and No Gurus? 

Dear friends 

My views are: 

A few words about how to walk the Path or perhaps the Pathless Path... 

H. P. Blavatsky wrote in The Key to Theosophy: 

"ENQUIRER. Are we to understand that the inner group of the T. S. claims to learn what it does from real initiates or masters of esoteric wisdom? 

THEOSOPHIST. Not directly. The personal presence of such masters is not required. Suffice it if they give instructions to some of those who have studied under their guidance for years, and devoted their whole lives to their service. Then, in turn, these can 

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




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