Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00410)

Govert,

After having read your comments below directed to Morten, I will try to convey a few thoughts of my own.

Concerning your pov on the WT project, I think the problem to be confronted or at least one of the problems to be confronted is what lead you to this thesis that "...the WT project was genuine.....".

Your WT thesis is maybe more complex than most of your readers might view it.   The way I see it is that you have erected this edifice of "thought", speculation but one must wonder on what floor of this building or edifice you are at when you say that the WT project was genuine.   What underlying assumptions, previous conclusions, etc. etc. have you made by which you built this theory or speculation or conclusion?   

Maybe you are on the 25th floor of this building but how did you get there?  What are on the 24 floors below?  In other words, what are the assumptions you initially accepted or made and how many previous conclusions did you make and how did you arrive at those various conclusions, what was the evidence that your accepted or rejected, etc. etc.?

For comparison sake, we could highlight Frank R.'s differing view of all of this or what Morten might think about this and his "competing" views or Ernest Pelletier's views as given in his huge book on the Judge Case and his resulting conclusions about Annie Besant.  

I am not suggesting your view is therefore wrong [or right] or anything about what Frank R. or Morten or Ernest advocates/believes/thinks.  

But I only point out that all of you come to quite differing conclusions and an interested bystander might ask, how do you sort it all out?  Who is right?  

Think of it:  If you are mistaken in just one of your conclusions or assumptions, the whole edifice might collapse.

That is why I take a chrono approach to this whole matter.  Begin at the beginning....   

Since HPB was the first person to claim contact with these particular masters, what were the claims she made about them and what is the evidence for their existence, etc., and from the earlier primary sources what can we learn about the masters, their activities, how they work, their goals, etc. etc.

And if one accepts the reality of the Masters, based on the evidence founded on HPB's claims and life, how does one then approach any claims of the Masters AFTER HPB DIED?  

It seems like every Tom, Dick and Jane has claimed to be in contact with her Masters and claim that they are carrying on the Master's work, etc.

How does one sort thru all the claims, etc. etc.?

It seems that one needs to see your thesis on the WT project within this larger context and against the competing theses and assertions of, for example, Frank R., Morten, Ernest P., and others.

I don't have time to rework what I have just written so it is a rough first draft but maybe, just maybe I have conveyed some of what I was thinking about.....

Daniel
http://hpb.cc





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Govert Schuller" <schuller@...> wrote:
>
> Morten,
> 
> I'm with you on the HPB-K comparison.
> 
> But I'm still convinced that the WT project was genuine, which implies that 1) whatever changes were made in the TS-ES relationship, 2) whatever sins CWL committed, 3) whatever mistakes AB and CWL made, all this did not prevent the Masters to proceed with the project. (i.e. its actuality is proof of its sufficient possibility conditions)
> 
> You and others seem to reason other way around: that because of the grave nature of these changes, sins and mistakes the WT project could not be genuine. (i.e. the insufficient possibility condition is proof of its non-actuality)
> 
> I can see from your pov that the Masteres might have dropped the Adyar TS as a hot potato because of all the shenanigans going on, but I like to invite you to imagine that the Masters did not do that as the project was paramount on their mind and it just had to be guided into fruition and that the obstacles were not as grave as construed by your pov.
> 
> Govert
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 4:38 AM
>   Subject: Re: Theos-World New Krishnamurti Blog
> 
> 
>   Yeah. Thanks.
>   And on top of that the Krishnamurti vs. HPB (+ Ammonious Saccas + Plotin + Pot Amun) views. There is after all no religion higher than truth.
> 
>   When reading The Key to Theosophy, the TS beginners book by Blavatsky the co-founder of the TS it self; I find it - in comparison - hard to shwallow J. Krishnamurtis teachings when taken all in all.
> 
>   And we wonder why most of the members of the ES and leading members of the TS resigned either in loud protest or silently, when Annie Besant got C. W. Leadbeater back into the camp again. I think, it was about that time, that it all went terribly wrong for the TS. Annie Besant and her friends changed the structure around 1907-1912. A structure with an INDEPENDANT Esoteric Section which HPB and Master in 1888 had laid down just af few years before so to avoid a new Coulomb disaster. (Here is a page relating to the matter: http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v10/y1888_078.htm . The question is whether the Compiler is right or wrong in his assumptions.)
> 
>   M. Sufilight
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Govert Schuller 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 7:00 PM
>   Subject: Re: Theos-World New Krishnamurti Blog
> 
>   Dear Morten,
> 
>   Your question below still stands unanswered. 
> 
>   ====================
> 
>   Sir Thomas words by Cyril Scott.
>   http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
> 
>   I am aware of, that some readers dislike Cyril Scotts books.
>   Yet I would really honestly like to know where Sir Thomas words are missing the theosophical point of view.
>   Anyone?
> 
>   =========================
> 
>   The only one so far who engaged the Scott/Anrias material was Jean Overton Fuller in her K-biography "Krishnamurti and the Wind," chapter 20 "Scott and Anrias: Wood and the Blind Rishi"
>   http://alpheus.org/html/source_materials/scott_anrias/blind_rishi.pdf
> 
>   Earlier I corresponded with her on this issue, which is posted on the Alpheus web site:
>   http://alpheus.org/html/communications/krishnamurti/fuller.html
> 
>   An analysis of her reasoning in her K-bio is forthcoming and will hopefully get some more people engaged in what I call the Krishnamurti-Scott-Anrias issue. 
> 
>   Govert 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:39 AM
>   Subject: Fw: Theos-World New Krishnamurti Blog
> 
>   Dear friends and all
> 
>   My views are:
> 
>   Radha Burnier wrote:
>   "According to Theosophy, the Wise Ones never impose their will on a disciple.
>   They do not tell him what he must believe, because believing has no meaning. They want the disciple's consciousness to awaken to the truth, which is something different."
>   http://www.theosophical.org/resources/articles/masters.pdf
> 
>   And we entirely agree.
> 
>   Yet, why on earth keep people down in the Krishnamurti circles?
> 
>   In the below e-mail I wrote:
>   "And I will gladly challenge any J. Krishnamurtian to show us by examination and examples, where Sir Thomas perhaps was missing the target.
>   So far we only hear, that one is not allowed to criticize a teaching leading people unto a pathless path of a most often disasterous highway."
> 
>   Sir Thomas words by Cyril Scott.
>   http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
> 
>   I am aware of, that some readers dislike Cyril Scotts books.
>   Yet I would really honestly like to know where Sir Thomas words are missing the theosophical point of view.
>   Anyone?
> 
>   ***********************************
> 
>   M. Sufilight
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:44 PM
>   Subject: Re: Theos-World New Krishnamurti Blog
> 
>   Dear Govert
> 
>   My views are:
> 
>   The project was I perceive it was from the beginning a failure. The Law of Karma was and is real - even when it comes to wishful thinking.
> 
>   A perfect Avatar would as I understand it NEVER allow it self to be chosen by C. W. Leadbeater who three years earlier was thrown out of the Masters more or less literal conerstone ( the Theosophical Society) for wisdom teachings of the the future - because of admitted immoral phaedophile behaviour or similar. Something like that would never happen in this cycle.
> 
>   Yet, After some years in the 1920'ties as far as my own "readings" go, someone or "something" appeared a few times and in part overshadowed or sought to overshadow J. Krishnamurti. This appearence was quite extraordinary, and happended only for karmic reasons seeking to protect the theosophical teachings of all ages past - the organisation chosen - more or less litterally - as the cornerstone for the wisdom teachings. In my own "readings" I count at least two or three occasions. At other times I bet that another kind of "overshadowing" was at play. But that is my view and my own "readings" in the layers of time.
> 
>   Seeking to protect dis-organising would never be the Avatars teaching in that cycle.
> 
>   Let us remember that W. Q. Judge called Annie Besants project, one directed by Dugpas.
>   W. Q. Judge was as we know a member who was original member and a genuine initiated and who meet the Masters. I am saying this with the view, that he also had some shortcomings. W. Q. Judge and some of his friends did a good job promoting theosophy in USA. No doubt there! - The idea of his succesion was and is a problem until this day. Using our sound reasonings, we will have to understand and agree upon, that Esoterical teachings not - necessarily operate through the idea of succession - immediately after a given teachers death.
> 
>   If you ask me, J. Krishnamurtis helpers of a high level were not many as far as his proclaimed apostles are concerned. They never did much. Although Ernest Wood was a good man in many repsects. G. Hodson was very young back then in the 1920'ties and had later to crawl himself away and out of the cluthes of it all. Something he never really did quite succeed with.
>   Yet he succeded at least in part to promote theosophy, for instance through his litterary outputs.
> 
>   Remember these are just my views.
> 
>   Yet I agree entirely with the below words by Cyril Scott.
>   And I think you also do so to a high degree. And I am happy for that.
> 
>   ***********************************
> 
>   Here is the quote from Cyril Scotts book where Sir Thomas is given the word:
>   http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
> 
>   Here it is:
>   "
>   That Lunch was a memorable occasion. There were only four of us present-Sir Thomas, J.M.H., myself and one of the other men. The latter was a few minutes late, and came in when the rest of us were already seated. In his hand was Krishnamurti's Star Bulletin. He opened it, then handed it to Sir Thomas, indicating a certain passage. The old gentleman read it, vouchsafed no comment, beyond his usual non-committal "Tut, tut..." and passed it on to J.M.H., who glanced at it, smiled significantly at Sir Thomas, then put it aside. But I was not going to let such an opportunity slip. At last I might be in the position to hear something really authoritative on the vexed question of Krishnamurti.
> 
>   "The Star Bulletin. ... I take it myself. But as you see" I added, smiling, "I still believe in Masters."
> 
>   "I'm glad somebody does," Sir Thomas remarked with good-natured irony; "dear, dear, if Krishnamurti's ideas were universally 
> 
>   135
> 
>   accepted, some of us might as well take our departure to other planets."
> 
>   I instantly pricked up my ears and glanced at J.M.H., who only said in an undertone: "Many a true word--'' leaving me mentally to complete the saying.
> 
>   "Then I take it, Sir Thomas," I ventured to ask, "you don't altogether approve of Krishnamurti's methods?"
> 
>   "Unfortunately he has no proper methods since he took the Arhat initiation, and ceased to be the medium for the Lord Maitreya.(1) Better if he had retired from public life to meditate in seclusion, as Arhats did in bygone days."
> 
>   "I'm a bit hazy about that Arhat initiation," I whispered to the man beside me.
> 
>   "It's the one in which the Master withdraws all guidance from His pupil, who may have to negotiate the most difficult problems without being allowed to ask any questions." he
> 
>   1 The Lord Maitreya is He who, every two thousand years, fulfils his office of World-Teacher by overshadowing a specially prepared medium in order to give forth a new Teaching suitable for the future development of mankind. The last time, two thousand years ago, Jesus became His medium and yielded himself up for the purpose at the age of thirty. A similar destiny was anticipated for Krishnamurti. 
> 
>   136
> 
>   explained; "he has to rely entirely on his own judgment, and if he makes mistakes, must bear the consequences."
> 
>   "And so what did Krishnamurti do!" my host interpolated, obviously having heard. "Like the proverbial manservant who knows he's about to be given notice, he gave notice first. In other words, he cut himself adrift from the White Lodge, and repudiated all of us."
> 
>   "And unfortunately," J. M. H, added, "he induced others far below him in spiritual evolution to do likewise. Also instead of giving forth the new Teaching so badly needed, he escaped from the responsibilities of his office as prophet and teacher by reverting to a past incarnation, and an ancient philosophy of his own race with which you are familiar, but which is useless for the Western World in the present Cycle."
> 
>   "Then we were right!" I exclaimed. "It Is Advaita he is teaching?"
> 
>   He nodded.
> 
>   "But those to whom he speaks think they are receiving a new message, and as such it carries undue weight." Sir Thomas contributed. "The message he should have 
> 
>   137
> 
>   delivered, he has failed to deliver--or only partly delivered. Nothing about Art--no plans for the new sub-race--educational schemes dropped--and in place of all this: Advaita, a philosophy for chelas, and one of the most easily misunderstood paths to liberation."
> 
>   "Then are we to assume," I hazarded, "that Krishnamurti's mission has been a complete failure!"
> 
>   "Friend," said the old gentleman, "you ask many questions, to what use will you put the answers if we give them to you?" It was on the tip of my tongue to apologize, but instead I felt impelled to speak what was in my mind. "Sir Thomas," I replied, "because of Krishnamurti, many people are in great distress; if you'll be gracious enough to enlighten me a little, perhaps I may be able to enlighten them."
> 
>   "Good!" he exclaimed, "the motive is pure; your questions will be answered."
> 
>   I began to express my gratitude, but he waved it aside with a kindly gesture, and proceeded: "He who attempts to teach Advaita, and omits all Sanscrit terms, courts failure. Sanscrit words engender an occult vibration 
> 
>   138
> 
>   which is lost when translated. Western words not suitable to describe subjective states of consciousness, because their associations are mainly mundane." He paused a moment to continue his lunch, then added: "Well did my Brother Koot Hoomi say that Krishnamurti had destroyed all the many stairways to God, while his own remains incomplete."
> 
>   "And would never be suitable for all types, in any case," J.M.H. put in.
> 
>   "Also, being incomplete," the old gentleman took up the thread again, "it may lead to dangers unforseen by those who attempt to climb it. Danger Number One: Krishnamurti's casting aside of time-honoured definitions and classifications leaves aspirant without true scale of values. Danger Number Two: climbing his particular staircase necessitates constant meditation, which in its turn necessitates constant protection from Guru--and Guru not allowed by Krishnamurti." he concluded with a twinkle.
> 
>   "But" I asked, "is the Guru's protection always necessary for meditation--I mean even when its done in small doses?"
> 
>   "0f course, a moderate degree may be practiced in safety without a Guru." J. M. H. 
> 
>   139
> 
>   replied, "but as Sir Thomas says, long continued meditation leads to states of consciousness and excursions on to other planes where the Master's guidance is absolutely indispensable. Another flaw in this pseudo Advaita which Krishnamurti is giving out, is that he addresses the personality, the physical-plane man, as if he were the Monad or at least the Ego. Of course the Monad, the divine Spark, is the Absolute Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, and hence eternally free, but that doesn't mean that the personality down here, immersed in endless-seeming karmic difficulties, can share its consciousness, or even that of the Ego--the link between the personality and the Monad. Krishnamurti's Advaitism, which is not to be confounded with the recognized form of that noble philosophy, will, I fear, lead his followers nowhere except perhaps to hypocrisy and self-delusion." Sir Thomas nodded assent." And while he has directed them to repudiate all Masters, he refuses to act as Guru to them himself." The old gentleman was silent for a moment, then shook his head mournfully. "Children crying in the night of spiritual darkness, and 
> 
>   140
> 
>   no one to comfort them. ... He who could help, won't, and we who might help, can't, for Doubt has poisoned their belief in our very existence. No wonder Koot Hoomi's face looks a little sad." He turned to the large dog which, all this while, with remarkable canine self-control, had sat perfectly still, gazing up at him; and as he patted him, he said. "My friend, if even the King told you your master were superfluous, I don't think you'd believe him, eh!"
> 
>   The dog wagged his tail, and touchingly snuggled up against Sir Thomas's knee.
> 
>   http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
>   ***********************************
> 
>   And I will galdly challenge any J. Krishnamurtian to show us by examination and examples, where Sir Thomas perhaps was missing the target.
> 
>   So far we only hear, that one is not allowed to criticize a teaching leading people unto a pathless path of a most often disasterous highway.
> 
>   M. Sufilight
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Govert Schuller 
>   To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 6:15 AM
>   Subject: Re: Theos-World New Krishnamurti Blog
> 
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
>   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>