Theos-Talk Archives (February 2011 Message tt00043)

Dear friends

My views are:

When writing the below answer I will have to say, that J. Krishnamurti in his life also offered a number of very relevant views and ideas about how the universe operates and what we humans are capeable of, if we just try to seek it out. And he appearntly did it in a calm and peaceful manner. No doubt about that seem to be raised by any.




You wrote:
"Yes, your understanding of 'teachings' is indeed different to say the least. The truly great teachers have never placed much value on book learning by any means. To that extent, Krishnamurti is certainly in exalted company."

M. Sufilight says:
This does, as I see it,  not imply, that those truly great teachers you mention, did not place value on comparative studying - and that they instead emphasised omitting it, (especially when the Societies and spiritual Seekers in them had reached a level of knowledge and behaviour like humanity have had since the 19th century). Even the very old Upanishads are examples on exchanges on comparative studying. During the Adwaita Vedantist Shankara's time, the same occured. Philosophical exchanges were considered very important during his time and the decades following his departure from the physical level. Even the Tibetan Buddhist Tsong-Kha-Pa did an effort on comparative studying.
Secterian teachings can never be the hallmark of the Wisdom teachings - and I find J. Krishnamurti to be an excellent exponent of secterian behaviour in many respects. Although one aught to mention that he did a stronger effort on comparative exchanges or studying in his later years. A main aim of The Theosophical Society was create so "to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities." (The Key to Theosophy, by Blavatsky and The Theosophist, Vol. I, no. I,  1879). So I wonder what you are referring to when you appearntly oppose such a noble aim - while saying that the the quite obvious secterian behaviour performed by J. Krishnamurti  and his present day Krishnamurtian Schools is worthy of much praise?

J.Krishnamurti on Blavatsky in 1934:
"Questioner: What is your attitude to the early teachings of Theosophy, the Blavatsky type? Do you consider we have deteriorated or advanced? 
Krishnamurti: I am afraid I do not know, because I do not know what Madame Blavatsky' s teachings are. Why should I? Why should you know of someone else's teachings? You know, there is only one truth, and therefore there is only one way, which is not distant from the truth; there is only one method to that truth, because the means are not distinct from the end."
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=75&chid=4435&w=Blavatsky

I and many others are saying that there are many Paths and ways to the truth.



You wrote:
"And I don't think the intent of the TS and its founders was to promote comparative book learning exercises worldwide and stop there. If that were the case, the TS would be just another library! Perhaps that is what it became."

M. Sufilight says:
It is very difficult for me to agree with you when I consider that one of the main aims of the Theosophical Society opposes your view. That is as quoted before: A main aim of The Theosophical Society was create so "to reconcile all religions, sects and nations under a common system of ethics, based on eternal verities." (The Key to Theosophy, by Blavatsky and The Theosophist, Vol. I, no. I,  1879 - See:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/theosoph/theos1a.htm#whatistheosophy )

How do you want to achieve such an aim when promoting a secterian doctrine? Or a Krishnamurtian secterian doctrine?




You wrote:
"Very true which in fact is a repetition of what Krishnamurti emphasized. To be stuck on a particular person or book is to stop learning (from life)."

M. Sufilight says:
Then one does not say that a Master is a crutch as if a Master always is a crutch!
As far as I know, that was what J. Krishnamurti did. ( But, these are just my views.) Are you denying these views?


You wrote:
"Yes-which he has warned hundreds of times."

M. Sufilight says:
Are you able to provide some evidence on this by references and/or quotes?



You wrote:
"Brotherhood cannot coexist with hierarchies and a rigid Master/chela structure."

M. Sufilight says:
My views are, that Brotherhood is an ideal, and the existence of the Masters hierarchies is hypothesis for anyone within the Theosophical Society just as the doctrine on a Messiah (it is never sought to be promoted as a dogma). The term the "Masters hierarchies" are by some given the definition: A group of beings operating as a Brotherhood on their level of compassion. Humans do not operate like that, especially when they promote secterian behaviour while they avoid comparative exchanges and/or studying. If one seek the truth about life comparisons are necessary so to verify it. You even use it in these exchanges with me in your answers. The fact is that J. Krishnamurti avoided emphasis on this, and almost seemed to have opposed it since 1929, and at least until late in his life. But, these are just my views.


You wrote:
"It is meaningless to talk of Brotherhood from the stage for a few minutes and then spend the rest of the week fighting, bickering and plotting somebody's downfall. Everybody knows what has been going on actually. Let us be honest with ourselves. Dishonesty and false propaganda is not religion."

M. Sufilight says:
There is a aim on Brotherhood and then there is the fact that Errare Humanum Est (Humans fail).
Look around you, the fact is that only few humans on this planet have any real compassion in their spiritual hearts. If you are saying the opposite, please let me know. If you call secterian behaviour for a Brotherhood, I will have to disagree. A real Brotherhood work for humanity. And such a word implies that disagreements occurs - because when people learn they disagree. When the aim is altruism and Brotherhood - one learns to disagree and still have a heart of compassion in their intents with their words and behaviour. The mere use of prejudices, assumptions, and beliefs can never be telling the individual the truth about a given issue and a given view about various persons behaviour and then call them "fighting, bickering and plotting somebody's downfall". There is always a downfall of egotism and secterian behaviour, when compassion is promoted. But, these are just my views.


You wrote:
"See what happened after Krishnamurti dissolved the order in 1929. For a few years after that, he continued to speak at the annual TS conventions in Adyar. Then he was not invited anymore and no reason was given. He did not enter the campus for about 50 years."


M. Sufilight says:
Yes, but that is a different story, because the Theosophical Society in Adyar had deviated from the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society as it was given in 1875-1891. Try to compare the Constitution and Rules given in 1891 in the Theosopbhist (Among things: "No Fellow, Officer, or Council of the Theosophical Society, or of any Section or Branch thereof, shall promulgate or maintain any doctrinas being that advanced, or advocated by the Society." ) -  with - the later changes of the same Constitution from 1908 until today.



You wrote:
"I am no expert on sacred books and Masters, materializations and flying carpets. But even I am able to see who is genuine and who are the phonies. And who is more qualified to talk about genuine Brotherhood."


M. Sufilight says:
Yes, we all have our views. And not that I disagree much. But, When we document them, they have a tendency to be given more value.



Although I disagree with you, I am not operating through the inflammatory motives, which some sometimes plaster me with. In fact I do care, and seek out the truth on this forum, which as I see it operates through a very loose set of aims.

All the above are of course just my views, and I might be in error.



M. Sufilight 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: sadhak1008 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 3:25 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Re: JK -assumption - The Messiah and Pope crutch...and its Descendants- smile


    
  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "M. Sufilight" <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear friends
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > You wrote:
  > "One is encouraged soon to enquire 'who is the meditator?' rather than be stuck to some practice for a lifetime. It is here that one can see Krishnamuri's greatness in going directly to the central issue rather than dilly dally around. "

  > M. Sufilight says:
  > My view is a bit different. 
  > I would like to say that, no matter how wellmeant they were, pseudo >advaita teachings like the ones J. Krishnamurti often promoted - >just as often rejects and eagerly emphasise the excercise of omitting -any thought of comparative studying and the idea of relating such teachings to past teachings - the most wellknown teachers of the past included. 

  Yes, your understanding of 'teachings' is indeed different to say the least. The truly great teachers have never placed much value on book learning by any means. To that extent, Krishnamurti is certainly in exalted company. And I don't think the intent of the TS and its founders was to promote comparative book learning exercises worldwide and stop there. If that were the case, the TS would be just another library! Perhaps that is what it became.

  >>A human being can learn from anything 

  Very true which in fact is a repetition of what Krishnamurti emphasized. To be stuck on a particular person or book is to stop learning (from life).

  >Even J. Krishnamurti can be seen as a crutch.

  Yes-which he has warned hundreds of times.

  > "The Theosophical Society is absolutely unsectarian, and no assent to any formula of belief, faith or creed shall be required as a qualification of membership; but every applicant and member must lie in sympathy with the effort to create the nucleus of an Universal Brotherhood of Humanity. "

  Brotherhood cannot coexist with hierarchies and a rigid Master/chela structure. It is meaningless to talk of Brotherhood from the stage for a few minutes and then spend the rest of the week fighting, bickering and plotting somebody's downfall. Everybody knows what has been going on actually. Let us be honest with ourselves. Dishonesty and false propaganda is not religion.

  See what happened after Krishnamurti dissolved the order in 1929. For a few years after that, he continued to speak at the annual TS conventions in Adyar. Then he was not invited anymore and no reason was given. He did not enter the campus for about 50 years. But during this time many TS presidents visited him at his residence just across the bridge in Adyar. He was welcoming and friendly. Common courtesy and decency required that he be invited to TS but it never happened. I recall in the 70s when I visited Adyar the then President would regularly attend Krishnamurti talks with a large number of members. Some also met him in personal interviews. Still there was no decorum to reciprocate. After seeing all this, I could only laugh at these people when they spoke of Brotherhood from the podium! And trying to cling to their Masters and their sacred teachings for dear life. Forget 6000 acres, a castle and a large following, they would be unable to give up a wrist watch. Even a broken one! To her credit, the current President took some corrective measures belatedly in the 80s. Krishnamurti was again invited and he visited the campus a few times before his death. 

  I am no expert on sacred books and Masters, materializations and flying carpets. But even I am able to see who is genuine and who are the phonies. And who is more qualified to talk about genuine Brotherhood.



  

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