Theos-Talk Archives (February 2011 Message tt00021)

Thanks much. I appreciate the feedback.

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:41 AM, M. Sufilight
<global-theosophy@YfLYuj7D4DcOz3aIsZe3wSq34r8kPcry_rCV01CfLdBRCR42MfMnC6eye44c9XC8OqllIqzaTXYReh52xZxN6m1N.yahoo.invalid>wrote:

>
>
> Dear Joshua and friends
>
> My views are:
>
> Here are a few examples on it in the below quotes...Of course preliminary
> meditation is safe and without dangers. But very soon the problems arrive.
> It is however from time to time possible to go far on the Path without a
> guide - or at least without really knowing that one has a guide - and not
> seldom a non-physical one. - My own experiences tells me this.
>
> Let us see what H. P. Blavatsky co-founder of the Theosophical Society had
> to say - Remember H. P. Blavatsky was one who had learned at least the ABC
> of occultism, and who could and can materialise and dematerialise her own
> body, and who showed all the signs on being a real esoteric occultist. This
> can be compared with other theosophists, the proclaimed Messiah named J.
> Krishnamurti included.
>
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
> "ENQUIRER. But why could not a man of well-balanced mind and singleness of
> purpose, one, say, of indomitable energy and perseverance, become an
> Occultist and even an Adept if he works alone?
>
> THEOSOPHIST. He may; but there are ten thousand chances against one that he
> will fail. For one reason out of many others, no books on Occultism or
> Theurgy exist in our day which give out the secrets of alchemy or mediaeval
> Theosophy in plain language. All are symbolical or in parables; and as the
> key to these has been lost for ages in the West, how can a man learn the
> correct meaning of what he is reading and studying? Therein lies the
> greatest danger, one that leads to unconscious black magic or the most
> helpless mediumship. He who has not an Initiate for a master had better
> leave the dangerous study alone. Look around you and observe. While
> two-thirds of civilized society ridicule the mere notion that there is
> anything in Theosophy, Occultism, Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other
> third is composed of the most heterogeneous and opposite elements. Some
> believe in the mystical, and even in the supernatural (!), but each believes
> in his own way. Others will rush single-handed into the study of the Kabala,
> Psychism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, or some form or another of Mysticism.
> Result: no two men think alike, no two are agreed upon any fundamental
> occult principles, though many are those who claim for themselves the ultima
> thule of knowledge, and would make outsiders believe that they are
> full-blown adepts. Not only is there no scientific and accurate knowledge of
> Occultism accessible in the West ânot even of true astrology, the only
> branch of Occultism which, in its exoteric teachings, has definite laws and
> a definite systemâbut no one has any idea of what real Occultism
> means."......."One and all of those who put their theory into practice are
> rapidly drifting, through ignorance, into black magic. Happy are those who
> escape from it, as they have neither test nor criterion by which they can
> distinguish between the true and the false. "
> (The Key to Theosophy, 2ed., 1890, p. 21-22)
> http://www.phx-ult-lodge.org/aKEY.htm
>
> H. P. Blavatsky wrote:
> "A Christian--breaking "of the laws of nature," notwithstanding--while
> believing firmly in the miracles, because said to have been produced by God
> through Moses, will either scout the enchantments performed by Pharaoh's
> magicians, or attribute them to the devil. It is the latter whom our pious
> enemies connect with Occultism, while their impious foes, the infidels,
> laugh at Moses, Magicians, and Occultists, and would blush to give one
> serious thought to such "superstitions." This, because there is no term in
> existence to show the difference; no words to express the lights and shadows
> and draw the line of demarcation between the sublime and the true, the
> absurd and the ridiculous. The latter are the theological interpretations
> which teach the "breaking of the laws of Nature" by man, God, or devil; the
> former--the scientific "miracles" and enchantments of Moses and the
> Magicians in accordance with natural laws, both having been learned in all
> the Wisdom of the Sanctuaries, which were the "Royal Societies" of those
> days--and in true OCCULTISM. This last word is certainly misleading,
> translated as it stands from the compound word Gupta-Vidya, "Secret
> Knowledge." But the knowledge of what? Some of the Sanskrit terms may help
> us.
>
> There are four (out of the many other) names of the various kinds of
> Esoteric Knowledge or Sciences given, even in the esoteric PurÃnas. There is
> (1) Yajna-Vidya,1 knowledge of the occult powers awakened in Nature by the
> performance of certain religious ceremonies and rites. (2) Maha-vidya, the
> "great knowledge," the magic of the Kabalists and of the Tantrika worship,
> often Sorcery of the worst description. (3) Guhya-Vidya, knowledge of the
> mystic powers residing in Sound (Ether), hence in the Mantras (chanted
> prayers or incantations) and depending on the rhythm and melody used; in
> other words a magical performance based on Knowledge of the Forces of Nature
> and their correlation; and (4) ATMA-VIDYA, a term which is translated simply
> "knowledge of the Soul," true Wisdom by the Orientalists, but which means
> far more.
>
> This last is the only kind of Occultism that any theosophist who admires
> Light on the Path, and who would be wise and unselfish, ought to strive
> after. All the rest is some branch of the "Occult Sciences," i.e., arts
> based on the knowledge of the ultimate essence of all things in the Kingdoms
> of Nature--such as minerals, plants and animals--hence of things pertaining
> to the realm of material nature, however invisible that essence may be, and
> howsoever much it has hitherto eluded the grasp of Science. Alchemy,
> Astrology, Occult Physiology, Chiromancy, exist in Nature and the exact
> Sciences--perhaps so called, because they are found in this age of
> paradoxical philosophies the reverse--have already discovered not a few of
> the secrets of the above arts. But clairvoyance, symbolised in India as the
> "Eye of Siva," called in Japan, "Infinite Vision," is not Hypnotism, the
> illegitimate son of Mesmerism, and is not to be acquired by such arts. All
> the others may be mastered and results obtained, whether good, bad or
> indifferent; but Atma-Vidya sets small value on them. It includes them all
> and may even use them occasionally, but it does so after purifying them of
> their dross, for beneficent purposes, and taking care to deprive them of
> every element of selfish motive. Let us explain: Any man or woman can set
> himself or herself to study one or all of the above specified "Occult Arts"
> without any great previous preparation, and even without adopting any too
> restraining mode of life. One could even dispense with any lofty standard of
> morality. In the last case, of course, ten to one the student would blossom
> into a very decent kind of sorcerer, and tumble down headlong into black
> magic. But what can this matter? The Voodoos and the Dugpas eat, drink and
> are merry over heca-tombs of victims of their infernal arts. And so do the
> amiable gentlemen vivisectionists and the diploma-ed "Hypnotizers" of the
> Faculties of Medicine; tube only difference between the two classes being
> that the Voodoos and Dugpas are conscious, and the Charcot-Richet crew
> unconscious, Sorcerers. Thus, since both have to reap the fruits of their
> labours and achievements in the black art, the Western practitioners should
> not have the punishment and reputation without the profits and enjoyments
> they may get therefrom. For we say it again, hypnotism and vivisection as
> practiced in such schools, are schools, are Sorcery pure and simple, minus a
> knowledge that the Voodoos and Dugpas enjoy, and which no Charcot-Richet can
> procure for himself in fifty years of hard study and experimental
> observation. Let then those who will dabble in magic, whether they
> understand its nature or not, but who find the rules imposed upon students
> too hard, and who, therefore lay Atma-Vidya or Occultism aside--go without
> it. Let them become magicians by all means, even though they do become
> Voodoos and Dugpas for the next ten incarnations.
>
> But the interest of our readers will probably centre on those who are
> invincibly attracted towards the "Occult," yet who neither realise the true
> nature of what they aspire towards, nor have they become passion-proof, far
> less truly unselfish.
>
> How about these unfortunates, we shall be asked, who are thus rent in twain
> by conflicting forces? For it has been said too often to need repetition,
> and the fact itself is patent to any observer, that when once the desire for
> Occultism has really awakened in a man's heart, there remains for him no
> hope of peace, no place of rest and comfort in all the world. He is driven
> out into the wild and desolate spaces of life by an ever-gnawing unrest he
> cannot quell. His heart is too full of passion and selfish desire to permit
> him to pass the Golden Gate; he cannot find rest or peace in ordinary life.
> Must he then inevitably fall into sorcery and black magic, and through many
> incarnations heap up for himself a terrible Karma? Is there no other road
> for him?
>
> Indeed there is, we answer. Let him aspire to no higher than he feels able
> to accomplish. Let him not take a burden upon himself too heavy for him to
> carry. Without ever becoming a "Mahatma," a Buddha or a Great Saint, let him
> study the philosophy and the "Science of Soul," and he can become one of the
> modest benefactors of humanity, without any superhuman powers.".......and
> more.......
> (OCCULTISM VERSUS THE OCCULT ARTS by H. P. Blavatsky, 1888)
> http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v9/y1888_036.htm
>
> M. Sufilight says:
> Other theosophists might have written similar words.
> Various Eastern authors have also in their books warned against these
> things in the essentials.
>
> And J. Krishnamurti adviced meditation, but forgot in the beginning years
> after 1929 to tell about the dangers of it. Later he became more careful,
> yet is seem to avoid telling about the so-called dangers.
>
> Herer are some interesting words on meditation from J. Krishnamurti, which
> leads to the conclusion, that a guide must be necessary:
>
> The Observer is the Observed
> Ojai, California. 7th Public Talk 1945
>
> http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1945-1948-observer-is-observed/krishnamurti-the-observer-is-the-observed-45-07
>
> Such teachings can be found in southern Buddhism, certain Adwaita
> teachings, and I believe the present day Eckhart Tolle teaches something
> similar. Krishnamurti did not tell people about this, and because of that
> people find his teachings to be very unique. Blavatsky is a bit more
> cautious, because she remembers to tell people to - never walk alone.
> Krishnamurti disallowed Masters and called them crutches more than one time,
> despite they are important, like chelas are important form time to time in
> helping people on the path. (This is in opposition to many age old teachings
> - in the sense, that anything and anyone can be a crutch, and anything and
> anyone can be a help. But those who are more wiise will in general always
> help more than the opposite). And Krishnamurti's teachings was and is a kind
> of pseudo-Adwaita Vedanta - which not all Westerners spiritually need to
> learn about, even when they desire it. Most Westerners learn more from
> Patanjali's Yoga Sutras or similar. - Others learn from "emptiness" and
> non-duality teachings given in Adwaita Vedanta or Gelug-pa Buddhism. - And
> all the Krishnamurti-Messiah promotions and proclamations given by Annie
> Besant and Leadbeater, and the inducing of young kids to wear silver-bagdes
> with a Kirshnamurti photo and silk-scarfs in special colors - was not in
> accordance with the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society. And - all
> these things are some of the main differences about this issue as I see it.
>
> The question about whether Krishnamurti was overshadowed by Maitreya or
> not, and for how long, is pure guess-work for most people. And if preessed
> about it, they will admit it.
>
> And I am not the one, who favour emotional Messiah doctrines. To me and a
> number of old teachings from the East - we all of us are embodiments of the
> Divine. Some have realised who they are, - and - some know who they are, but
> have not realised it, - and some think that by pretending they have realised
> it - they will be admired, - and some do not know who they are and have not
> realised it yet. And some say like Fox Mulder from the X-Files movies: I
> Want to Believe. (smile.)
>
> ________________________________________
> One of the objects of the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society
> was:
> "The chief aim of the Founder of the Eclectic Theosophical School was one
> of the three objects of its modern successor, the Theosophical Society,
> namely, to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system
> of ethics, based on eternal verities."
> (The Key to Theosophy, p. 3)
>
> And therefore comparative studying is always important - and not a doctrine
> rejecting comparative studying.
>
> All the above are however just my views.
>
> M. Sufilight
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joshua
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2011 3:53 AM
> Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: JK -assumption - The Messiah and Pope
> crutch...and its Descendants- smile
>
> Dear Morten,
>  Please accept my apologies for ignorance, but i dont recall ever reading
> anything on "dangers" of meditation without a guide. Just curious if you
> have anything worth reading regarding that as I would be interested.
>
> Joshua
>
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:28 PM, M. Sufilight
> <global-theosophy@YfLYuj7D4DcOz3aIsZe3wSq34r8kPcry_rCV01CfLdBRCR42MfMnC6eye44c9XC8OqllIqzaTXYReh52xZxN6m1N.yahoo.invalid <global-theosophy%40stofanet.dk>>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Dear Govert
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > I agree on the below views by you except the following words:
> >
> >
> > "The fourth possibility left over is that both Theosophy and
> Krishnamurti,
> > as inspiring as they might be, are seriously flawed. "
> >
> > Theosophy is as we know defined as the exact science on Psychology by the
> > founders of The Theosophical Society.
> >
> > Krishnamurti's teachings are flawed no doubt there, since it can be
> proven,
> > when compared to other theosophical versions - and age old teachings from
> > various traditions. Yet, one cannot reject the fact that some of his
> > teachings are very helpful to some Seekers after truth, despite some the
> > dangers it contains with regard to meditation without a guide and a
> blurred
> > stance on Messiah-emotionalism etc..
> >
> >
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Govert Schuller
>  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:45 PM
> > Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: JK -assumption - The Messiah and Pope
> > crutch...and its Descendants- smile
> >
> > Dear Morten,
> >
> > In this instance the words conviction, assumption and conclusion would
> all
> > be interchangeable. It doesn't matter too much whether he had the idea of
> > methodless enlightenment as an assumption, opperative in the background,
> or
> > as a conclusion, openly propagated. The crux is that Krishnamurti didn't
> > have any proof for his position and from a Theosophical pov was
> dangerously
> > wrong. He might have thought he himself got there in the (non-)way he
> > advocated others to get there, but, if you read his biography and take
> > Theosophical ideas into consideration, it looks like he went through many
> > steps before he 'liberated' himself.
> >
> > On the other hand, if you really belief he liberated himself, you'll have
> > to take his pronouncements about Theosophy serious, and come to terms
> with
> > his wholesale denouncements.
> >
> > A reconciliation between the two creates too many contradictions and
> > so-called 'cognative dissonances' that I don't see that as a serious
> > alternative anymore.
> >
> > The fourth possibility left over is that both Theosophy and Krishnamurti,
> > as inspiring as they might be, are seriously flawed.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: M. Sufilight
>  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 1:47 PM
> > Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: JK -assumption - The Messiah and Pope
> > crutch...and its Descendants- smile
> >
> > Dear Govert
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > You quoted:
> > "he was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma
> and
> > present limitations, could instantly reach that point which he himself
> had
> > only reached through lives of effort, and by the aid of those Cosmic
> Forces
> > apportioned to him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age. "
> >
> > The question that come to my mind is whether Krishnamurti really assumed
> > this or just communicated as if people could understand it - and thereby
> -
> > perhaps deliberately tagetting only a certain audience?
> > I find that he at least, later in his life it seems to me, that he did
> not
> > assume it.
> > However, many beginner seekers lost a lot in the years just after 1929
> > because of the angle of communication of more or less pseudo-Adwaita
> > teachings he choose. That is what I get out of it all.
> >
> > When considering Krishnamurti's teachings, I did not find a
> multi-cultural
> > angle on comparative studying, and not a teachings on the problems with
> Mind
> > Control (coercive techniques) despite this science was in its infancy
> > already in the 1920-ties, and no importance given on what other teachers
> of
> > the past have said, no importance given to myths and legends and
> allegorical
> > thinking - and their capabilities to convey higher levels of knowledge
> (not
> > after 1929 or so), and no importance given to extra sensory perception
> and
> > the dangers of meditation, and primary emphasis on the use of a
> terminology
> > which is dry and which lack words talking to the heart compared talking
> to
> > the mind. Yet he could be affectionate form time time, as we can see on
> > record film-clips. - But maybe I have not been digging hard enough into
> his
> > strange formulations?
> >
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Govert Schuller
>  > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 5:34 PM
> > Subject: Re: theos-talk Re: The Messiah and Pope crutch...and its
> > Descendants- smile
> >
> > Sadhak asked:
> >
> > "Do these folks have a memo to this effect from Maitreya as well?!"
> >
> > To which I can answer: Yes, they do!
> >
> > See:
> >
> > Chapter IX in Through the Eyes of the Masters: Meditations and Portraits
> > (London: Routledge, 1932, 2nd Ed. 1936, 3rd Ed. 1947) by David Anrias
> [Brian
> > Ross], pp. 65-69.
> >
> >
> http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/scott_anrias/maitreya_da.html
> >
> > You who have studied the horoscope of Krishnamurti know that he is
> > incapable of compromising with the past; also that he was reinforced in
> his
> > seemingly destructive work by those great Devas of the Air, who, under
> > direction of the Lords of Karma, are helping Man to polarize himself
> towards
> > spiritual rather than material conquests.
> > In order to co-operate more completely with the Devas, Krishnamurti took
> > initiations along their line of evolution. The essential nature of these
> > Devas, used as agents of the Great Law, being perforce impersonal and
> > detached, it came by degrees to influence his whole point of view, making
> > him appear unsympathetic and even inhuman. Furthermore, since he had
> > attained these initiations in the causal body by a positive effort of
> > consciousness, it became all but impossible for him to be used any longer
> as
> > my medium.
> >
> > Every astrological sign has its limitations, and that of the Aquarian is
> > the tendency to become too introspective and self-sufficient, thereby
> losing
> > contact with other types of men and their lines of development. Thus
> > although Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for
> independent
> > thought, he was wrong in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past
> > Karma and present limitations, could instantly reach that point which he
> > himself had only reached through lives of effort, and by the aid of those
> > Cosmic Forces apportioned to him solely for his office as Herald of the
> New
> > Age.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: sadhak1008
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:10 PM
> > Subject: theos-talk Re: The Messiah and Pope crutch...and its
> Descendants-
> > smile
> >
>  > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com><theos-talk%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "M.
> > Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > I find it interesting because oriental languages (especially Sanskrit
> and
> > Tibetan) are far better in revealing subjective expressions - especially
> > philosophical ones according to many who have learned these languages.
> And
> > the heavy use of western expressions which now fills volumes of volumes
> on
> > the bookshelves in various so-called theosophical groups - must therefore
> > certainly lack something vital.
> >
> > For what it is worth, in the case of Master KH, instructions were given
> > soon after discovery that the boy Krishnamurti must be well versed in
> > English first and foremost, then other languages like French. Sanskrit
> was
> > deliberately avoided, IMO, precisely because of the enromous amounts of
> > gobbledygook built up over centuries which makes it easy for every street
> > corner teacher to come up with his own translation/interpretation.
> >
> > > "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. Better if he had retired from public
> > life to meditate in
> > > seclusion, as Arhats did 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
> > question," he explained; "
> >
> > Very happy to learn that the Lord Maitreya himself had given such a
> > detailed explanation about why/how he stopped using Krishnamurti as a
> > 'medium'. Do these folks have a memo to this effect from Maitreya as
> well?!
> >
> > > "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."
> >
> > Ah,knew this was coming. It always does. Repudiated all of US. The
> > important US! If only he had not done that, WE would hail him as the
> > pristine World Teacher!
> >
> > >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
> >
> > So the NEW teaching was already known to these people ( then how was it
> > going to be NEW) and they figured out (by repudiating US) he was not
> giving
> > the new teaching. Great stuff, this.
> >
> > > 58
> > > flaw in this pseudo-Advaita which Krishnamurti is giving out,>
> >
> > Sheesh! The least these people could have done before sticking their
> > collective feet in their mouth was to listen to a great Advaita master
> like
> > Ramana Maharshi. He found the same Krishnamurti teachings to be beyond
> his
> > expression. Seems for most of these characters in this article, it was
> way
> > beyond their comprehension.
> >
> > [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]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>  
>

T


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