Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00259)

Dear Nigel and friends

My views are:

M. Sufilight comments:

Yes. Very good. J. Krishnamurti is a Theosophist in the sense, that he is on the path and his teachings partly are helpful to some Seekers after Truth. Yet, he claimed a Pathless Path.

But he is not a Theosophist in the sense, that he disallows comparative studying
and allows HPB's ideas about Universal Brotherhood to be considered unimportant. (I am here talking about HPB's ideas as well as Ammonious Saccas etc. etc. Ideas about Universal Brotherhood among religions and so on. - And not about the persons).

In my previous e-mail I quoted J. Krishnamurti saying:
"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."

***First: We remember, that these words came from a man, who only 7-10 years earlier
allowed himself to be called the World Teacher of the Age by others, and who
himself also referred to it as a fact, and who never really honestly openly objected to this later on in his life.

And J. Krishnamurti "allowed" himself to be "discovered" as a the coming World Teacher of the Age by a person, CWL, who only three years before was thrown out of the TS because of Phaedophile behaviour. Thereby he created a strange blurred image about who he really was.

And now he, amazingly, says, that he does not know anything about HPB's teachings! - Was he lying all the time?
And he is aksing about why he should know about HPB's teachings. Indeed. Comparative studying is not important to his teachings.

***Second: He dissolved his membership of the TS in 1929. And now he is saying that H. P. Blavatsky's teachings or Ammonius Saccas teachings are unimportant in the above in the year 1936. And, yet, he says that there is only one truth as an answer to the question about the validity of HPB's teachings - obviously not being interested in knowing her teachings. To me this clearly implies, that it is not one which promotes The Theosophical Society's main ideas and views. How can one call such a person a Theosophist? But a theosophist with little "t", yes partly, because on the Path, but as we will later see, a secterian one in nature.

*** Third: J. Krishnamurti by all means avoided comparative study. He only want people to listen to HIM, and his own words and teachings - although this teaching are not useful to beginner seekers in any manner what so ever. How can he claim that HPB's teachings are unimportant, when he, as he admits, are unaware of them?

Is that proper Theosophy?

- - -
Nigel wrote:
"This to me is not the open inquiring mind of the Theosophist, but 
more like an 'I'm right you're wrong' type mindset."

M. Sufilight comments:
It is not a question about who is right or wrong alone. It is also a question  about how individuals react to a given impact or for instance an e-mail at this forum. For instance this e-mail.

Yet we remember, that, HPB as an example among others rejected the teachings given by the Spiritists as being wrong. In HPB's day a number of members got thrown out of the TS, because they slandered or attacked the TS. J. Krishnamurti dissolved, the Order of the Star in the East - and three the TS down the drain, that is the simple truth. And now you claim that J. Krishnamurti's teachings are Theosophical in nature? - And non-secterian?
- - -


In another e-mail  I posted J. Krishnamurti asked: 
"What does it seriously matter whether there is a White Lodge or not? And who talks or writes about these mysteries except those who, consciously or unconsciously, wish to exploit man in the name of brotherhood, love, and truth?"


M. Sufilight comments:
And we answer the first question with: Yes it does indeed! Because that is theosophical teaching. Yet we also recognise, that all illusions are not permanent. - The second question we answer like this: J. Krishnamurti is here presenting a narrowminded view. I disagree with him. I say, that what can be learned from these mysteries are important and some of those who writes about them are actually Initiates with no intentions at all of exploiting the Seekers after Truth.  Let the Seekers learn. - And I have another word for J. Krishnamurti's own words and J. Krishnamurti's own mystery-teachings. That is: Secterian.

- - -

And, We are talking about a World Teacher of the Age, who never had anything good to say about HPB's teaching because as he claims: "I do not know what
Madame Blavatsky' s teachings are. Why should I? "

And that is the TORCHBEARER OF TRUTH, who Annie Besant proclaimed would arrive 50 years earlier than HPB and her Master predicted as a likely possibility. A TORCHBEARER OF TRUTH, who "may be sent by the Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya". (The Masters J. Krishnamurti rejected.)

Nonsense we say.

- - -
But all the above are only my views.


M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: nigel_healy 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:47 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World A beacon of sanity, in a mad world


  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]
  >


  

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