Theos-Talk Archives (June 2009 Message tt00007)

Dear John,

Thanks for your extended reflection on HPB and her sources. 

Question: you stated:

"In the recent post I think by Daniel there was the statement of one of the Mahatma' in replying to A. P. Sinnett that he had never known about or was aware of the "rounds, circles etc prior to Sinnetts letters to him and he had to learn new ideas he had not previosly had from what he received from Sinnett. I thougth whoa! What is this? Is the Mahatma actually saying that Sinnett was the person that the "Rounds, Globes etc, originally came from and that Blavatsky got that from Sinnett?"

Did you hear from Daniel? Do you have another source?

Govert

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Augoeides-222@comcast.net 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:02 AM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Krishnamurti at 114






  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Govert Schuller" <schuller@alpheus.org> 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 8:19:58 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Krishnamurti at 114 
  Govert, 
  Thanks for your reply and comments. I don't really have a view that Blavatsky should be viewed as the paramount authority on ancient teachings such as the Prajna Paramita Sutra such as the example I posted of the Tang Dynasty version. In spite of assertions that she taught the esoteric versions of so many ancients teachings to us from cross cultural schools I simply see no real correspondence to fact. How many have ever read The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch of the Mahayana School? I have strong reservations to claims that extinguish all other known contributors and then place authority in a single modern personage. I do see her referencing throughout aphroisms, slokas, metaphysical ideas , concepts etc, but she was taking most of these from known texts she had access or exposure to some that were obscure in the west at that time but not today. At the most she gives partial extracts in small parts but not the complete teaching or texts that have been taught in known schools for centuries in complete form. They were there when she was given access for long before she saw them. In the recent post I think by Daniel there was the statement of one of the Mahatma' in replying to A. P. Sinnett that he had never known about or was aware of the "rounds, circles etc prior to Sinnetts letters to him and he had to learn new ideas he had not previosly had from what he received from Sinnett. I thougth whoa! What is this? Is the Mahatma actually saying that Sinnett was the person that the "Rounds, Globes etc, originally came from and that Blavatsky got that from Sinnett? Saying Blavatsky taught everything is not rational to me at all. I see Blavatsky using concepts of the Non-Dual as primary but that has always been a principle for centuries in the hindu, buddhist, and other teachings and she only gives smal portions and not a full teaching, she only points to kowledge by small but criticly important quotes or extracts or concepts . The difference is most people have zero interest or exposure to anything other than Christianity so cannot know what is old and what is new. 

  For instance on the page for the "worldteachertrust that is use of the word "Path" gives an adwaita view and one can compare to KM uses. I Have Krama Kashmir Adwaita, Siva' Adwaita, some Vedanta Adwaita and the work of So. Indian Tirumantiram by Tirumular as well as the Nag Hammadhi Library ( there are Adwaita Nondual Texts in the Nad hammadhi ) and Gnostic works the Senior metaphysical Principles are much the same or even identical in each due to the reality that origin is beyond the mind of mankind as source. In Blavatskys works are small excerpts of these works. Another thing is the Kalachakra Teaching which is in the Tantric paradigm and which Blavatsky was taught and then taught in certian small portions particular to the cycles and also the Dalai Lama and Tashi Lama taught this teaching which is from the Tantric School , not all tantric teaching are aligned to sexual ideas contrary to what theosophists are happy to tell otherwise. 

  If one read over time comparitive works from Mahayana, Tibetan Lamaism, Hindu Schools of various advocacies even G.R.S. Meads Upanishads and other works which Blavatsky makes brief excerpts of, one can then connect a fuller teaching than the "gloss". I don't seem to be convinced that even in the inner group or the esoteric sections that profound teachings are there. In fact the mutilations I have read by some personages are major to me based on just what this small mite can cognize about. The "arhat" thing is one example In Mahayana there are four stages of the Arhat realizations and one can get a fuller reality by reading several Mahayana Sutras, all are called stream swimmers. Another thing is the Bodhisattva ideas. In Mahayana like in many other comparitive sytems cross culturally there is the Triple kingdom characterized in Mahayana by three stages of Nirmanyana, Bodhisattva , and Buddha each having different habitations, Nirmanakaya can be Physical, Subtle realms, but Bodhisattva in Mahayana Ch'an in full stage ten of the Bodhisattva Mind has residence in the Sambhogakaya vehicle and resides in Sambhoga Realm and no longer has extension to earth plane, for this reason Maitreya B odhisattva resides in the Tushita heaven awaiting his incarnation at a future time as a future Buddha. And then there is the Dharmakaya Vehicle which has habitation restricted to the Dharma Realm in it's absolute form Here is a link for just one of the Buddhist Glossarys of many online where one can read the defintions and compare to what Theosophical appropiators make claims of; 

  Buddhist Door Glossary A - E 

  >>>http://www.buddhistdoor.com/OldWeb/bdoor/common/sources/glossa-e.htm<<< 

  You know in the entire History of Buddhism from 600 B.C. to Theosophical Society there was realized and attained there are only 16 recognized "Arhats" by Canon after the three turnings of the wheel ( plus two there are not on the recognized who are Hindu that are alledged to peretually reside in a certain Village in India ) . Only 16 out of many millions of stream swimmers, monks nuns , lay people. And then Besant appropiates at will claiming the king of the world told her to make 12 more lol ! Yet no one here seems to think that is any radical departure or even rediculous and offensive because basically 0ver 90 % haven't any basis to make a judgement in their personal copmparitive study exposure so they align to Patanjali's "Ignorance" . 

  Well, I am probably most boring here so I will zip it up for now, I have to resist the ideas arising one after another lol. 

  Regards, 
  John 

  Dear John, 

  Yes, sounds like a worthy investigaton. Compare and compare. 

  Any congruencies you found which stand out? 

  My interest in this context would be Advaita as the claim is made that K 'reverted back' to that philosophy when no longer overshadowed. 

  At the same time I learn from HPB that there is erroneous exoteric and correct esoteric Advaita and when I apply the few examples she gave I found that Theosophy seems to correspond to the esoteric version and K to the exoteric one. 

  This was very helpful in my quest for an esoteric understanding of K. 

  Govert 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Augoeides-222@comcast.net 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:55 PM 
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Krishnamurti at 114 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Govert Schuller" < schuller@alpheus.org > 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 3:43:23 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
  Subject: Theos-World Krishnamurti at 114 
  Govert, 
  I would rather see people who wanted to locate historical precedent that aligned to his pov philosophy that contain contents there state the simular such as adwaita, dattatreya, prajna paramita hrdhyam. 

  >>> http://www.purifymind.com/PrajnaParamita.htm <<< 

  >>> http://www.worldteachertrust.org/bk/dattatreya/index.html <<< 

  >>> http://www.kheper.net/topics/Trika/Pancakrtya.html <<< 

  Just my personal pov, here and there in things Krishnamurti says I can relate to when reading things I recall reading in works that long precede he and also Madame Blavatsky. 

  Regards, 
  John 

  Wow, 

  Just realize it's Krishnamurti's birthday today. 

  He saw the light of day 114 years ago. 

  May he rest in peace, and come back to finish the job. 

  Meanwhile I'm sure that a whole new civilization will crystalize around the complex phenomenon that he was. Somewhere I depicted that phenomenon as consisting of a series of concentric rings with in the middle his experience of the sacred, then his charisma, then his teachings (first the videos than the books), his relations and audience, the formal organizations like the foundations and the schools run by his friends, then the communities that will arise around those and, when sufficiently multiplied, their politic interactions, and, when the globalized Judeo-Greco-Christian civilization disintegrates, it might provide the new political and cultural leadership to step in the vacuum as the Catholic Church and the monestaries and local Christian communities did in the West when the Roman Empire crumbled. These rings are thus both spatial, from K's head to the whole globe, as well as temporal, as a sequence of historical and futural occurences. I hope scholars of all kind will warm up to the idea as they can investigate the gestation and growth of a brand new civilization from up close. 

  Govert 

  P.S.: Just in case Krishnamurtianity will be run by fundametalists who feel irritated by Theosophists based on a narrow reading of K's anti-theosophical remarks, I hereby propose the formation of a secret society to help any and all esotericists when the heat of prosecution might become a little much. We might need something like that in a future incarnation. 

  [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]