Re: Theos-World Re: A beacon of sanity, in a mad world
Feb 19, 2009 09:29 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
Agreed.
But Sectarian behaviour aught to be avoided within TS. In the Esoteric Section the theosophists have their teachings, and Yes they coinside with J. Krishnamurtis to a certain extend. But his teaching will never be very capeable of ending the strife among the world religions - like HPB and Master (and earlier on in time Ammonious Saccas and others) sought to do by creating the Cornerstone for the future Wisdom-Religion. J. Krishnamurti's teachings are simply too sectarian and non-comparative to be helpful in solving this.
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: Joseph P. Fulton
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:35 PM
Subject: Theos-World Re: A beacon of sanity, in a mad world
To Morten and all,
I always looked at Krishnamurti as being closer to Ayn Rand than HPB.
He is, for lack of a better term, a "spiritual existentalist". And I
agree, his methodology is not Theosophy, at least in the terms
discussed in the writings of HPB/Olcott/Judge/Mead, and others. On
the other hand, in the proper circumstance his philosophy may be
quite useful.
Joe
--- 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]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application