Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00016)

This arguing between Krishnamurti and Blavatsky reminds me of the 
famous alleged schism between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism in the 
Theosophical Society in the 1880s. T. Subba Row represented Advaita 
vedanta in his writings and Madame Blavatsky Buddhism respectively. 
In my opinion HPB proved well then that esoterically these two 
schools come the same source: theosophy. So in the same way 
Krishnamurti and Blavatsky are not the same; there certainly are 
conflicts between them. But IMO these teachers draw on the same 
source. Krishnamurti doesn't draw on theosophy of the TS, but he does 
on the real theosophy, which is everywhere, i.e, also outside the TS. 

I liked the article by Pedro on these teachers.

I'll answer to Govert's comparative Krishnamurti criticism when I 
shall have time. You truth-seekers here have also given me some great 
new ideas to ponder on this topic on this nice forum. Thanks.

Sampsa




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