Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00280)

Dear friends and Pedro

My views are:

Pedro wrote:
..."I did not say, nor do I believe, that Krishnamurti should "lead
the Theosophical Movement back to its original spirit and therefore
may occupy now a preferential position." 

I see Theosophy, the Perennial Wisdom, as essentially a stream of
inquiry into the deeper aspects of life. This Wisdom-Teaching is an
inquiry-based teaching, not a belief-based one."

My M. Sufilight comment:
Neither do I and I think neither would H. P. Blavatsky. And yes "a stream of
inquiry into the deeper aspects of life", agreed.

But, that only leads to the following question and problematic issues surrounding the present day TS Adyar and thier Annie Besant, CWL, J. Krishnamurti followers, - about the VALIDITY of their activites.


>>>Because as H. P. Blavatsky said<<<

H. P. Blavatsky in her E.S. Instruction No. I., 1889 wrote:
". . . A new and rapidly growing danger. . . is threatening . . . the 
spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge. . . . I 
allude to those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and 
Theosophy. . . . By pandering to the prejudices of people, and 
especially by adopting the FALSE IDEAS of a personal God and A 
PERSONAL, CARNALIZED SAVIOUR, as the groundwork of their teaching, 
the leaders of this 'swindle' (for such it is) are endeavoring to 
draw men to them and in particular to turn Theosophists from the true 
path." Caps added.

M. Sufilight asks politely:
I would like to know how TS Adyar and the followers of CWL, Annie Besant and J. Krishnamurti - also Alice A. Bailey can reconcile the above view by H. P. Blavatsky with their very own Messiah "scheme" or plan? Have their teachings any true validity?Remember H. P. Blavatsky rejected the Spiritists doctrines. I bet she would reject the above J. Krishnamurti "belief" doctrines on meditation without a guru and the "Nobody"-But-Krishnamurti doctrines as well.
No answer is also an answer in my book.

>>>Because as H. P. Blavatsky wrote in "THE ESOTERIC CHARACTER OF THE GOSPELS"<<<

"Two things become evident to all in the above passages, now that their false rendering is corrected in the revision text: (a) "the coming of Christ," means the presence of CHRISTOS in a regenerated world, and not at all the actual coming in body of "Christ" Jesus; (b) this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor "in the inner chambers," nor in the sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ--the true esoteric SAVIOUR--is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being."
http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/EsotericCharacterOfTheGospels.htm

>>>And because as H. P. Blavatsky wrote in december 1887<<<

I"n CARNALIZING the central figure of the New Testament, in imposing
the dogma of the Word MADE FLESH, the Latin Church sets up a doctrine
diametrically opposed to the tenets of Buddhist and Hindu Esotericism
and the Greek Gnosis. Therefore, there will always be an abyss
between the East and the West, as long as neither of these dogmas
yields. Almost 2,000 years of bloody persecution against HERETICS
and INFIDELS by the Church looms before the Oriental nations to
prevent them from renouncing their philosophic doctrines in favor of
that which degrades the CHRISTOS principle. [372-373]

...when one legend based upon these mysteries attempts to arrogate
exclusive rights to itself above all the rest; when it declares
itself an infallible dogma to force the popular faith into a dead
letter belief, to the detriment of the true metaphysical meaning,
such legend must be denounced, its veil torn away, and itself
displayed in its nakedness to the world! [374]. . .

Whether it be Krishna, Buddha, Sosiosh, Horus or Christos, it is a
universal PRINCIPLE. . .

...the Christians, by localizing and isolating this great Principle,
and denying it to any other man except Jesus of Nazareth (or the
Nazar), CARNALIZE the Christos of the Gnostics; that alone prevents
them having any point in common with the disciples of the Archaic
Wisdom. . . . [374]

. . . I have not the slightest intention of hurting the feelings of
those who believe in Jesus, the carnalized Christ, but I feel myself
compelled to emphasize our own belief. . . .

. . . It is in this ancient wisdom, and in the Christos of the
Gnostics under its various names, that the Theosophists, disciples of
the Mahatmas, believe. . . . [385]

. . . true Theosophists will never accept ...a Christ made
Flesh. . . .[390]


Quoted from H.P. Blavatsky's COLLECTED WRITINGS, Volume VIII.http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v8/y1887_048.htm 

- - -

M. Sufilight asks politely:
So if various theosophical groups so to speak "CARNALIZE"
J. Krishnamurti as a (read carefully) non-ortodoks theosophical Saviour above the Masters OR a assumes the coming of the Christ at some period in time, either willingly or unwillingly to be the Word made Flesh, then I will have to ask WHO and WHAT are they helping?
The theosophical cause? What kind of a theosophical group would promote such a Messiah or World Teacher - instead of an AGENT of the Mastersknow as the Torchbearer of Truth? 
Indeed who? - Silence to this question is also answer.

To keep muddling these issues will not help the theosophical Seekers and the theosophical cause if you ask me.




M. Sufilight




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Pedro Oliveira 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:10 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky & Krishnamurti (3)


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

  > Dear Pedro,
  > 
  > Thanks for taking some time while facing deadlines.
  > 
  > Before responding I like to reconstruct your argument, just to be
  sure I understand it.Your argument seems to go as follows:
  > 
  > The original writings of Marx were distorted by the emerging
  ideology and political activism of Marxism. Marx had to be saved from
  Marxism.
  > 
  > Parallel to this:
  > 
  > The spirit of HPB's original thought has to be saved from the
  Theosophical Movement as the latter became fundamentalist
  Blavatsky-ism. HPB has to be saved from Theosophy.
  > 
  > To retrieve the spirit one can do so through the analogous idea that
  any set of writings has a body, soul and spirit and that by careful
  differentiation between the three the spirit can be discerned and
  assimilated. 
  > 
  > Applied to HPB: the body of her writing is the whole of the
  Perennial Wisdom, its soul is Selflessness, and its spirit is Freedom,
  especially the freedom from the illusion of separateness, as the
  concept of the Tao and HPB's TRUTH indicate. 
  > 
  > Different authors of the Perennial Wisdom have given different
  emphases on the different parts, but all have indicated the need to
  transcend the mind, and this has to be done by oneself.
  > 
  > Therefore (and this seems to be the underlying conclusion and aim of
  your argument):
  > 
  > Krishnamurti--being a thinker within the Perennial Wisdom Tradition
  emphasizing liberation from mentation, images, outer authority and
  other separateness inducing activities--is closer to the spirit of
  HPB's teachings than any fundamentalist Blavatskyite or
  neo-Theosophist might be aware of (even to the point that it is
  Krishnamurti par excellence who can lead the Theosophical Movement
  back to its original spirit and therefore may occupy now a
  preferential position). 
  > 
  > Fair reconstruction?

  Not really, Govert. As I wrote in plain English I don't see a need to
  apply a hermeneutic approach to what I said. Having said that, you are
  nonetheless free to do so as long as it is clear that the above is
  your reading of what I wrote.

  Your last paragraph is a case in point. While saying that Krishnamurti
  shares some similar emphasis with other teachers in the Perennial
  Wisdom I did not say, nor do I believe, that Krishnamurti should "lead
  the Theosophical Movement back to its original spirit and therefore
  may occupy now a preferential position." 

  I see Theosophy, the Perennial Wisdom, as essentially a stream of
  inquiry into the deeper aspects of life. This Wisdom-Teaching is an
  inquiry-based teaching, not a belief-based one. If what HPB wrote in
  The Secret Doctrine (vol. 1, Summing Up) is correct, this
  Wisdom-Tradition has come to us from the hoary past through "countless
  generations of initiated Seers" who fathomed the "soul of things".
  Every successive generation of Seers, Madame Blavatsky added, would
  not just accept what the previous generation had discovered, but would
  themselves check and verify it for themselves.

  Therefore I would say, tentatively again, that what can "lead"
  Theosophical work in the world, in whatever organisation, is not a
  particular teacher or teachers, but this spirit of free inquiry into
  life's mysteries. For example, this is what Madame Blavatsky wrote
  when asked about the future of the TS:

  "Its future will depend almost entirely upon the degree of
  selflessness, earnestness, devotion, and last, but not least, on the
  amount of knowledge and wisdom possessed by those members, on whom it
  will fall to carry on the work, and to direct the Society after the
  death of the Founders." (The Key to Theosophy)

  Another way of saying the same thing would be, perhaps, to suggest
  that what can truly lead one into this work is the light of Buddhi,
  intuitional wisdom. The following passage from The Mahatma Letters
  presents the case quite eloquently:

  "Once separated from the common influences of Society, nothing draws
  us to any outsider save his evolving spirituality. He may be a Bacon
  or an Aristotle in knowledge, and still not even make his current felt
  a feather's weight by us, if his power is confined to the Manas. The
  supreme energy resides in the Buddhi; latent - when wedded to Atman
  alone, active and irresistible when galvanized by the essence of
  "Manas" and when none of the dross of the latter commingles with that
  pure essence to weigh it down by its finite nature. Manas, pure and
  simple, is of a lower degree, and of the earth earthly: and so your
  greatest men count but as nonentities in the arena where greatness is
  measured by the standard of spiritual development." (Letter 111,
  chronological ed.)

  Finally, I remembered what the late Ianthe H. Hoskins told me at Adyar
  in 1994, during her last visit: "Belief is the tomb of Truth."

  Pedro 


  

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