Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00692)

Dear Anand,

I have not read any Krishnamurti in many years as he was really not to my taste.  I remember feeling at the time that he took a long time to get to the point, and usually that point was pretty obscure, at least for my mind.  I may have perceived it as a bit on the rambling side, but that is me.

As for followers of Krishnamurti, I have not really met any and can therefore not comment on what those followers might be like.

My point is that theosophy is not supposed to have any sacred cows.  I don't think that is the case today with the Society, but it certainly was how Blavatsky and Olcott originally constructed the constitution of the Society.  Theosophists were supposed to question anything and everything that they did not understand -- that included the writings of Blavatsky or even the Masters.  How else are we to learn?

I think that human nature being such that it is, everyone has favorite writers, and it is now almost always the case that the private lives of these writers get dragged into debates and thereby debase all of theosophy.  I think there is a lot of room for raising the level of debate here and elsewhere within the theosophical world.  We should be able to analyze the teachings of different writers and not feel threatened by that process.  That we seem to have an inability to do this does not reflect poorly on theosophical writers, it reflects poorly on us.

Sincerely,
Bruce 



--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Bruce,
> You apparently defended J. Krishnamurti's teaching. Can you tell in what way it is useful. 
> I observed many people who praise J. Krishnamurti's teaching and I found that these people were hypocrites. For example these followers of J. Krishnamurti would have Gurus, they read many books on religions and spirituality. All these things are condemned by J. Krishnamurti. These followers of J. Krishnamurti praise J. Krishnamurti and do exactly opposite of what he taught. Why do they praise his teaching then?
> There are few good things in his teaching. But to learn those person does not need to read Krishnamurti's rambling. For example he talks something like Vipassana. In that case I would suggest a person to read standard books on Vipassana, instead of Krishnamurti's rambling.
> Best
> Anand Gholap
>