Theos-Talk Archives (May 2009 Message tt00497)

Dear Morten,

The way out is to interpret K as being only critical of the CWL-AB neo-theosophical TS, not as anti-primordial, transcendental Theosophy nor necessarily anti HPB-Theosophy (of which he knew little or nothing). 

It's quite a contradictory contortion from my pov, but for some it works. And we have to acknowledge, or take it from me, that for some this fusion of K and Theosophy is of great importance as they derive enormous transformational and existential advantage from both. (I do too, but I solved the accompanying conundrum in a different way) 

Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Morten Nymann Olesen 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 7:43 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Poor logic and wisdom in Revelation or Realization by J.J. van der Leeuw





  Dear friends

  My views are:

  The following words might help to understand the text given by J.J. van der Leeuw much better.

  *** I ask ***
  Is there anything anti-theosophical?
  Why promote something, which is anti-theosophical? 

  I find it safe to say, that Kirshnamurti was not a theosophist, because he said it himself more than one time.

  Krishnamurti said in "The Mirror of Relationship: Love, Sex and Chastity":
  "Now, in discussing the Theosophical Society - of course, you understand, I am not concerned with it, I am out of it completely. You want to know if what I am saying, teaching, and the central fact of Theosophy and the Theosophical Society are the same. I say obviously they are not. You would like to patch it up and say we have produced you, and therefore you are a part of us, as a baby is part of the father and mother. That is a very convenient argument, but actually the boy is entirely different from the father when he grows a little older.
  Surely, sir, when you are becoming more and more, spiritually climbing the ladder, you are denying truth, are you not? Truth is not at the top of the ladder; truth is where you are, in what you are doing, thinking, feeling, when you kiss and hug, when you exploit - you must see the truth of all that, not a truth at the end of innumerable cycles of life. To think that you may be a Buddha someday is but another self-projected aggrandizement. It is immature thinking, unworthy of people who are alive, deeply thoughtful, affectionate. If you think that you will be something in the future, you are not it now. What matters is now, not tomorrow. If you are not brotherly now, you will never be brotherly tomorrow because tomorrow is also the now."
  .......
  "You have come together as a society, and you ask me if you and I meet. I say we do not. You can make us ``meet,'' you can twist anything to suit your convenience. You can pretend that white is black; but a mind that is not straight, that is incapable of direct perception of things as they are, merely thinks in terms of vested interest, whether in belief, in property, or in so-called spiritual status. I am not saying you should leave your society. I am not at all concerned whether you leave it or don't leave it, but if you think you are truth seekers and have come together to find reality, I am afraid you are going about it very wrongly. You may say, ``That is your opinion.'' I would say that you are perfectly right. If you say, ``We are trying to be brotherly,'' I would say again that you are going the wrong way because brotherhood is not at the end of the passage; and if you say you are cultivating tolerance, brotherhood, I would say that brotherhood and tolerance do not exist. They are not to be cultivated; you do not cultivate tolerance. When you love someone, you do not cultivate tolerance. It is only the man who has no love in his heart that cultivates tolerance. It is again an intellectual feat. If you say your society is not based on belief at all, inwardly or outwardly, then I would say that from your outward as well as your inward actions, you are a factor of separation, not of unity. You have your secret rituals, secret teachings, secret Masters, all indicating separation. It is the very function of an organized society to be separate in that sense."
  ( February 6, 1949 )

  *** I ask ***
  So why sell his books, when he is in clear opposition to the theosophical teachings?
  Please tell me why we should promote such a nasty attack on the original programe of the theosophical teachings? 

  "...Contrast alone can enable us to appreciate things at their right value; and unless a judge compares notes and hears 
  both sides he can hardly come to a correct decision." H.P. Blavatsky. The Theosophist, July, 1881, p. 218.

  We do for instance not call it suppression of ideas when people are not mass-producing and propagandizing Imhoteps diaries are we?
  (More on Imhotep here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imhotep)

  C. Jinarajadasa also suppressed books.
  http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/additional/AFTERMATH-10-PartSeries/ArticleNumber2of10.html

  But let at least people at the various TS branches know about these above words by J. Krishnamurti, and let the leaders of the branches be aware of the clear attack, this man created. Not to mention the attack on theosophical teachings versus blind belief created by Annie Besant and CWL.

  Annie Besant - the Theosophist april 1927:
  "The Divine Spirit has descended once more on a man, Krishnamurti, one who in his life is literally perfect as those who know him closely can testify. During the last year, since December 28, 1925, when the Christ spoke through him ... he has been undergoing swift changes.... 

  "In him the manhood had been taken up into Divinity, and we beheld his glory, full of grace and truth. The Spirit had descended and abides on him. The World Teacher is here."

  Was it wise or stupid fanatism, which made Besant claim this, which she must have been aware of that virtually no member had the slightest chance of verifying? Or had she gone mad?

  - - -

  We quite often witness a strong unwillingness among the TS leaders to engage in to fully answering these - vital questions - questions and clear selfcontradictions. Even so they claim to be Seekers after Truth.

  M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anand 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2009 11:22 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Poor logic and wisdom in Revelation or Realization by J.J. van der Leeuw

  J.J. Van der Leeuw had won Subba Rao medal. He was one of the leading members of TS. If we study first part of the book, we find that his own thoughts are considerably influenced by J. Krishnamurti in just three years or so, after J.K. started teaching independently. And he has criticized many of the ideas which traditional Theosophy had given. Influence of JK's teaching can be seen on many officers in TS since JK started teaching. So, after 1928, many officers were teaching and spreading a combination of Theosophy plus JK's teaching. Party continues drinking this cocktail and many are not awake enough to know that this cocktail is not quite healthy. 

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
  >
  > Following passages written by J.J. Van der Leeuw are important, the answers of which are not sought by most students of Theosophy, who consider themselves as scholars. I hope promoters of "original teaching" will provide some explanation of this phenomenon.
  > J.J. Van der Leeuw writes:
  > "Yet even in the time of H.P.B. the element of revelation was present in the Theosophical Society. Thus, in the Mahatma Letters we find messages coming from an unseen authority through an appointed channel. Later on, when letters were no longer forthcoming, messages came directly through certain recognized theosophical authorities. In these messages, the Masters would express their desires as to what should be done or not done, what activities undertaken or opposed, and give hints guiding the lives of prospective pupils. Here we find real revelation: messages from an unseen authority, inaccessible to others. Theoretically, of course, the unseen authority is accessible to all who succeed in raising their consciousness to its level; practically it is not, and should any claim to have come into touch with the same authority from whom messages were previously received through another, that authority usually speaks through him with a very different voice. We only need to compare the letters from the Master K.H. produced in the time of H.P.B. and written in her Bohemian manner interspersed with French expressions, often somewhat racy in style, with the messages revealed as coming from that same Master in recent years. They breathe an utterly different spirit; where the former denied the existence of God in any form, seen or unseen, personal or impersonal, the latter have reintroduced him in a very personal way indeed. Where in the Mahatma Letters the Master K.H. speaks of religion as being the greatest evil in human civilisation, and denounces all churches, priesthoods and ceremonials in definite terms, his more recent messages speak with great reverence about religion and church and endorse ceremonial and priesthood most vigorously. One is therefore inclined to think that the source of unseen authority for each is a strictly individual and subjective one, an exteriorisation of their own unconscious motives. This is still more evident with regard to all messages revealed as coming from the World Teacher during the last fifteen years.
  > 
  > When Krishnamurti began speaking in his own authority, and in his own name as the World Teacher, the things he said were widely different in spirit and purpose from all messages thus received."
  >

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



  

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