Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00013)

   >I imagine that even when the lower ego has been 'mastered' it is really just laying low until it can re-emerge!<

      Yes, that's for sure!, and if one was able to "kill it off," totally in all its aspects, they wouldn't have anything to live for, period.
         Krishnamurti certainly wasn't free of the lower self or ego, as witness a long-term, and pretty well documented relationship with a friend's wife ("Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti," Rhada Sloss), probably with the husband's knowledge.  But this isn't so bad, considering what else goes on, and at least it was heterosexual!  ('haven't read the book)
      I haven't read Krishnamurti in about 30 years, but used to have a pretty good opinion of him, but can't say now.   On practical and individual matters, Theosophy is "self-induced and devised efforts," and if one can find something they need in Krishnamurti, more power to them, although he hated the "theosophy" he got from Besant and Leadbeater ("An evil man." - K)   I've personally gotten things I can use from all over, and not just Theosophy, although many/most of the systems out there are at base antithetical to it.  I "weigh" teachings and systems against Theosophy generally, myself, and see where they fit in.

           I don't know where Sufilight is coming from for sure on his "totally non-sectarian" society.  Its obvious when it was hijacked by Leadbeater's "made up" liberal catholic church, - but is "Blavatsky Theosophy" a "sect?"  It seems common sense that the Society should be oriented basically to the Founders basic philosophy.
                   - jake j.



-----------
>Yes, ultimately, but he needed to explain the method in order for us to then rise above >it. I imagine that even when the lower ego has been 'mastered' it is really just laying low >until it can re-emerge! It is not an easy critter to kill off lol
>Cass



>________________________________
> From: Govert Schuller <schuller@o0A3dHasS3_PjACUqFHmjaBJ-YB1aTfcKB_rt-lrrQ1aJnTbBzBtxrJLPgwMF9YeKoo_zEE8XXRuuBw.yahoo.invalid>
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
>Sent: Sunday, 1 January 2012 6:32 AM
>Subject: RE: theos-talk Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
> 
>
> 
>Though you might be right here, K would still see your idea of "psychological journey" and the idea of an implied higher ego as confabulations of the one and only ego. 
>
>From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cass Silva
>Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 6:04 PM
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Re: theos-talk Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
>
>My thinking on JK was that he was an intermediary.  HPB told us the why but not the 'how'.  Krishnamurti focused on the lower ego, how it operated and how it needed to be dismantled in order to be mastered.  The first step if you like on a long psychological journey.  I have much to thank him for as he awakened my thinking on how I became the ego that was and for the most part, still is, but at least now I am aware of the ego's confabulations.
>
>Cass
>
>>________________________________
>> From: Govert Schuller <schuller@o0A3dHasS3_PjACUqFHmjaBJ-YB1aTfcKB_rt-lrrQ1aJnTbBzBtxrJLPgwMF9YeKoo_zEE8XXRuuBw.yahoo.invalid <mailto:schuller%40alpheus.org> >
>>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> 
>>Sent: Saturday, 31 December 2011 6:25 AM
>>Subject: RE: theos-talk Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
>> 
>>
>> 
>>Dear Jayananda,
>>
>>Thanks for sharing your interesting thoughts on the relationship of Krishnamurti to Theosophy. I'm very interested in that myself. 
>>
>>I have observed a tendency with many Theosophists of the Adyar stream, that they try to harmonize the two. My position has been to promote a vigorous critique of Krishnamurti from a Theosophical point of view as you can read in my pamphlet " <http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/krishnamurti/onk.html> Krishnamurti: An Esoteric View of his Teachings." One could say that I was trying to protect Theosophy from K's iconoclasm. 
>>
>>Meanwhile I'm experimenting with another view: protecting K's teachings from Theosophy, because it now looks to me that Theosophy blunts or softens K's radicalism, or, as the Germans would say, there is some "Verharmlosung" going on, that is, Theosophy makes K somewhat harmless. 
>>
>>One helpful tool for both positions is the following comparison between the two: <http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/krishnamurti/TSL_Column.htm> Comparison between Theosophy and Krishnamurti
>>
>>Hope this will provoke some further thoughts
>>
>>Govert
>>
>>From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>  [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jayananda Hiranandani
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:22 PM
>>To: theos-talk; theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> 
>>Subject: Re: theos-talk Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
>>
>>Dear MKR and Readers of the Forum:
>>
>>MKR, you cited a very important and relevant matter.
>>
>>I wish to supplement it as follows.
>>
>>During my 25 years in the San Francisco area and the association with the TS, I cam in contact with Dr. John Hamaker.
>>
>>He used to say that theosophy is not static, but theosophists are.
>>
>>I would add two points for amplification.
>>
>>Firstly, I will say that SOME members of the Theosophical Societies (I am using it in the plural to include Adyar and other groups) are static.
>>
>>Secondly, my father used to say that he is a member of the TS, not a theosophist.
>>
>>Based on the foregoing points, there is a four-fold classification. It is:
>>
>>One, there are those who are, and have been theosophists, but not members any TS. This should be apparent from the fact that theosophy is an ancient philosophy that has been there well before the TS.
>>
>>Two, those who are members of the TS but not theosophists.
>>
>>Three, those who are both members of the TS and theosophists.
>>
>>Four, those who are neither.
>>
>>Krishnamurti has amply worked on the three objects of the TS.
>>
>>In the first object, he in his discussions has said that the problems are, to state roughly, not Indian or Western but human. He also says something like this that this is not the Russian or American earth, but our earth. More examples may be cited. But in short, he transcends the divisions stated in the first object.
>>
>>For the second object, and this has relevance in context of the passage you have quoted, there is the comparative study of religion, philosophy and science.. His observation is that traditional religions have not gone far enough to help.
>>
>>For the third object about about latent powers he has expounded awareness and insight, and may be others.
>>
>>Yours cordially,
>>Jayananda H. Hiranandani
>>
>>
>>--- On Wed, 12/14/11, MKR <mkr777@pElGBlc3XHT3AOEZOPKhqNclM2yt0dDoDFNKIjS1JiQGti8cim8MD9pr5nStVNm4qTsUOrBlOGkG.yahoo.invalid <mailto:mkr777%40gmail.com>  <mailto:mkr777%40gmail.com> > wrote:
>>
>>From: MKR <mkr777@pElGBlc3XHT3AOEZOPKhqNclM2yt0dDoDFNKIjS1JiQGti8cim8MD9pr5nStVNm4qTsUOrBlOGkG.yahoo.invalid <mailto:mkr777%40gmail.com>  <mailto:mkr777%40gmail.com> >
>>Subject: theos-talk Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religious Organizations
>>To: "theos-talk" <Theos-talk@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com>  <mailto:Theos-talk%40yahoogroups.com> >
>>Date: Wednesday, December 14, 2011, 6:12 AM
>>
>>Jiddu Krishnamurti is known to be a very keen observer of the world around
>>him. Frequently, his comments wake us up to see situations as they really
>>are. Here is a quote, I saw this morning which made my day.
>>
>>+++
>>
>>To Climb High One Must Begin Low
>>
>>Religious organizations become as fixed and as rigid as the thoughts of
>>those who belong to them. Life is a constant change, a continual becoming,
>>a ceaseless revolution, and because an organization can never be pliable,
>>it stands in the way of change; it becomes reactionary to protect itself.
>>The search for truth is individual, not congregational. To commune with the
>>real there must be aloneness, not isolation, but freedom from all influence
>>and opinion. Organizations of thought inevitably become hindrances to
>>thought.
>>
>>As you yourself are aware, the greed for power is almost inexhaustible in a
>>so-called spiritual organization; this greed is covered over by all kinds
>>of sweet and official-sounding words, but the canker of avariciousness,
>>pride and antagonism is nourished and shared. From this grow conflict,
>>intolerance, sectarianism, and other ugly manifestations.
>>
>>Would it not be wiser to have small informed groups of twenty or
>>twenty-five persons, without dues or membership, meeting where it is
>>convenient to discuss gently the approach to reality? To prevent any group
>>from becoming exclusive, each member could from time to time encourage and
>>perhaps join another small group; thus, it would be extensive, not narrow
>>and parochial.
>>
>>To climb high one must begin low. Out of this small beginning one may help
>>to create a more sane and happy world.
>>
>>J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life
>>
>>+++ ETC.
----------------


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