Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00014)

Dear Anand,

Interesting and usefull analogy indeed. Made me think of a story from the Dalai Lama. He was taught that according to Tibetan cosmology the moon was like the sun also a light emitting object. When he saw through a telescope shadows on the moon he realized that Tibetan cosmology was not correct on that point and then he decided that on issues where science and theology have a different perspective he'd go from then on with what science would show. 

To extend this to K and Theosophy I'd say that Theosophy is the sun and K the moon with people believing the moon is emitting its own unique light, evenwhile it is reflecting a de-esotericized version of Theosophy. K used to be the sun and we merely candles, but now he's the moon and only a few see on its surface the anti-esoteric shadows and infer that it's not emitting any light by itself. 

Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 5:02 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky & Krishnamurti (3)


  Indirectly Pedro is saying that Sun and Moon both are same because
  both are spherical. Agreed that quality of sphericalness is common in
  the Sun and moon. But just because two things have one common quality
  does not mean they are same. There are many vast differences between
  Sun and moon, and so they can not be considered as same.
  Similarly there are vast differences between Theosophy and
  Krishnamurti's views. So they can not be considered as same.
  I think Krishnamurti had said that these two are diametrically
  opposite. It is strange that despite Krishnamurti's express rejection
  of Theosophy and it's ideas, officers in TS are spreading erroneous
  idea that both are same.

  Anand Gholap 

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Pedro,
  > 
  > Thanks again for taking time to elucidate some of your points. I
  especially appreciate your interpretation of Theosophy as a "stream of
  inquiry," where every seer and beginner will have to check all claims
  for himself and where mere belief is counter-productive.
  > 
  > Now, coming back to your response as far as it addresses my original
  question to you, which was whether I made a "fair reconstruction" of
  your argument. You seem to say "no." 
  > 
  > Maybe, for clarity's sake, we'll have to break up my post in two
  sections: 1) my attempted reconstruction of your argument about the
  HPB-inspired, analogical, tri-partite structure of meaning of a body
  of spiritual writings as applied to HPB and K, and 2) my own
  interpretation of the underlying intent of your original article.
  > 
  > I'm glad that on the second point you state explicitly that it's not
  K who could or should "lead the Theosophical Movement back to its
  original spirit and therefore may occupy now a preferential position"
  and that it is the spirit of free inquiry that would trump that idea. 
  > 
  > Meanwhile I do detect the tendency within the TS to give K
  preferential treatment and I say so on empirical grounds, one of which
  is the recent attempt by our explicitly pro-K PTS to 'give' away the
  PTS position to another Krishnamurti-ite, and another the hanging of
  an almost life-size portrait of a young K in the hallway of Olcott
  where all the photographs hang of TS-luminaries like all past and
  present PTSA's, and the third example, to bring this back to our
  conversation, the publication of your own article on the alleged
  "timeless dialogue" between HPB and K. (More examples could and will
  be given in due course)
  > 
  > So, back to your response. Let me ask then on what grounds you come
  to the conclusion on the basis of this (hermeneutic) construct of
  body-soul-spirit, that both HPB and K, as far as their 'body' of
  teachings is concerned are part of the perennial tradition (I'd agree,
  but with the caveat that HPB belongs also to the western esoteric
  tradition and K not), that the 'soul' of their teachings is in both
  cases selflessness and their spirit freedom? It sounds nice and
  plausible, but to me it looks like just your own interpretation (which
  is fine as long as you can justify it), as almost any other set of
  transcendental concepts could work as well. For example, the case
  could be made that the soul of their teachings is 'transformation' and
  their spirit 'truth,' or 'inquiry' and 'enlightenment,' and so on. 
  > 
  > Maybe all these concepts hang-together to such an extent that they
  actually intimately imply each other and that to pick out 2 amongst
  them might be a matter of personal preference, which, again, is fine
  with me as long as there is some justification.
  > 
  > The problem though is that this hermeneutic device you apply here
  might paper over some of the very perturbing differences within the
  body of their teachings by just stating that their soul and spirit are
  basically similar, or at least, compatible, the justification for
  which apparently based on the semi-superficial similarities that you
  present in your original article. I use 'semi-superficial' in an
  empirical sense as, so far, most of the similarities, when looked at
  in depth, seem to break down and turn into their opposite and, so far,
  without any protest. But that's my interpretation and nobody has to
  follow into its muddy depths. 
  > 
  > Anyway, thanks again for letting me tease your brain. Another
  installment of my interpretation of your article will soon be posted. 
  > 
  > Govert
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: Pedro Oliveira 
  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:10 PM
  > 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]
  >



  

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