Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00256)

Dear Morten

Thank you for sharing your views on this topic.

You recently posted;
 "So I find it safe to conclude that J. Krishnamurti was not a
Theosophist."

I wonder if this is true? 

Is there not a great difference between adhering to the views of 
a society, lodge or any kind of theosophical group, and actually 
BEING a Theosophist. Living a Theosophical life.
I know a number of individuals who, by their livelihoods, I would 
consider Theosophical though they have never heard of the 
Theosophical Society, or Theosophy for that matter!

And yet there are many who belong to theosophical groups such as 
the T.S. and display blatantly 'unTheosophical' behaviour.
This group can often reveal unmoving mindsets with cherished ideas 
on a topic (such as J.K.), held very closely.
This to me is not the open inquiring mind of the Theosophist, but 
more like an 'I'm right you're wrong' type mindset.

In saying this though, this group makes for some very good reading 
and a lot can be learned here. So I do thank you for your and 
everyone else's input into these topics.

Kind regards,
NigelH

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear JB and friends
> 
> My views are:
> 
> Yes. Very good.
> 
> Try the below article, where I have quoted a few excerpts...
>
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=75&chid=4435&w=Blavatsky
> 
> Verbatim Reports of Talks and Answers to Questions by Krishnamurti
Auckland, New Zealand 1934
> Talk to Theosophists, Auckland
> 
> 
> J. Krishnamurti answered the Questioner about H. P. Blavatsky:
> 
> "Questioner: What is your attitude to the early teachings of
Theosophy, the Blavatsky type? Do you consider we have deteriorated or
advanced?
> Krishnamurti: I am afraid I do not know, because I do not know what
Madame Blavatsky' s teachings are. Why should I? Why should you know
of someone else's teachings? You know, there is only one truth, and
therefore there is only one way, which is not distant from the truth;
there is only one method to that truth, because the means are not
distinct from the end.
> 
> Now you who have studied Madame Blavatsky' s and the latest
Theosophy, or whatever it is, why do you want to be students of books
instead of students of life? Why do you set up leaders and ask whose
teachings are better? Don't you see? Please, I am not being harsh, or
anything of that kind. Don't you see? You are Christians; find out
what is true and false in Christianity - and you will then find out
what is true. Find out what is true and false in your environment with
all its oppressions and cruelties, and then you will find out what is
true. Why do you want philosophies? Because life is an ugly thing, and
you hope to run away from it through philosophy. Life is so empty,
dull, stupid, ignominious, and you want something to bring romanticism
into your world, some hope, some lingering, haunting feeling; whereas,
if you really faced the world as it is, and tackled it, you would find
it something much more, infinitely greater than any philosophy,
greater than any book in the world, greater than any teaching or
greater than any teacher.
> 
> We have really lost all sense of feeling, feeling for the oppressed,
and feeling for the oppressor. You only feel when you are oppressed.
So gradually we have intellectually explained away all our feelings,
our sensitiveness, our delicate perceptions, until we are absolutely
shallow; and to fill that shallowness, to enrich ourselves, we study
books. I read all kinds of books, but never philosophies, thank
goodness. You know, I have a kind of shrinking feeling - please, I put
it mildly - when you say, ``I am a student of philosophy,'' a student
of this, or that; never of everyday action, never really understanding
things as they are. I assure you, for your happiness, for your own
understanding, for the discovery of that eternal thing, you must
really live; then you will find something which no word, no picture,
no philosophy, no teacher can give."
> 
> 
> 
> <--- and also earlier in the article the following --->
> 
> 
> "Questioner: If a person finds the Theosophical Society a channel
through which he can express himself and be of service, why should he
leave the Society?
> 
> Krishnamurti: First of all, let us find out if it is so. Don't say
why he should or should not leave; let us go into the matter.
> 
> What do you mean by a channel through which he can express himself?
Don't you express yourself through business, through marriage? Do you
or don't you express yourself when you are working every day for your
livelihood, when you are bringing up children? And as it shows that
you do not express yourself there, you want a society in which to
express yourself. Is that not it? Please, I hope I am not giving some
subtle meaning to all this. So you say, ``As I am not expressing
myself in the world of action, in the everyday world, where it is
impossible to express myself, therefore I use the Society to express
myself.'' Is it so, or not? I mean, as far as I understand the question.
> 
> How do you express yourself? Now, as it is, at the expense of
others. When you talk about self-expression, it must be at the expense
of others. Please, there is true expression, with which we will deal
presently, but this idea of self-expression indicates that you have
something to give, and therefore the Society must be created for your
use. First of all, have you something to give? A painter, or a
musician, or an engineer, or any of these fellows, if he is really
creative, does not talk about self-expression; he is expressing it all
the time; he is at it in the outside world, at home, or in a club. He
does not want a particular society so that he can use that society for
his self-expression. So when you say ``self-expression,'' you do not
mean that you are using the Society for giving forth to the world a
particular knowledge or something which you have. If you have
something, you give it. You are not conscious of it. A flower is not
conscious of its beauty. Its loveliness is ever present."
> 
> - - -
> 
> 
> 
> So I find it safe to conclude that J. Krishnamurti was not a
Theosophist.
> 
> 
> 
> M. Sufilight
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: new7892001 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:59 PM
>   Subject: Theos-World A beacon of sanity, in a mad world
> 
> 
> 
>   The authentic teachings of J. Krishnamurti:
>   http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/
> 
>   Investigating the scope of the talks of J. Krishnamurti:
>   http://www.beyondthemind.net/krishnamurti-index.html
> 
>   Group for discussion/inquiry into the teachings:
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/J-Krishnamurti_andLife/
> 
>   Regards,
>   Jb. 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>