Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00023)

Dear PB and friends

My views are:

J. Krishnamurti said that he never read Blavatsky's teachings in 1934 in the below article. And in fact he said that he was ignorant.


_________________________________________________________________________________________

Try the below article, where I have quoted a few excerpts...
http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=75&chid=4435&w=Blavatsky

Verbatim Reports of Talks and Answers to Questions by Krishnamurti Auckland, New Zealand 1934
Talk to Theosophists, Auckland

J. Krishnamurti answered the Questioner about H. P. Blavatsky:

"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.

Now you who have studied Madame Blavatsky' s and the latest Theosophy, or whatever it is, why do you want to be students of books instead of students of life? Why do you set up leaders and ask whose teachings are better? Don't you see? Please, I am not being harsh, or anything of that kind. Don't you see? You are Christians; find out what is true and false in Christianity - and you will then find out what is true. Find out what is true and false in your environment with all its oppressions and cruelties, and then you will find out what is true. Why do you want philosophies? Because life is an ugly thing, and you hope to run away from it through philosophy. Life is so empty, dull, stupid, ignominious, and you want something to bring romanticism into your world, some hope, some lingering, haunting feeling; whereas, if you really faced the world as it is, and tackled it, you would find it something much more, infinitely greater than any philosophy, greater than any book in the world, greater than any teaching or greater than any teacher.

We have really lost all sense of feeling, feeling for the oppressed, and feeling for the oppressor. You only feel when you are oppressed. So gradually we have intellectually explained away all our feelings, our sensitiveness, our delicate perceptions, until we are absolutely shallow; and to fill that shallowness, to enrich ourselves, we study books. I read all kinds of books, but never philosophies, thank goodness. You know, I have a kind of shrinking feeling - please, I put it mildly - when you say, ``I am a student of philosophy,'' a student of this, or that; never of everyday action, never really understanding things as they are. I assure you, for your happiness, for your own understanding, for the discovery of that eternal thing, you must really live; then you will find something which no word, no picture, no philosophy, no teacher can give."


<--- and also earlier in the article the following --->


"Questioner: If a person finds the Theosophical Society a channel through which he can express himself and be of service, why should he leave the Society?

Krishnamurti: First of all, let us find out if it is so. Don't say why he should or should not leave; let us go into the matter.

What do you mean by a channel through which he can express himself? Don't you express yourself through business, through marriage? Do you or don't you express yourself when you are working every day for your livelihood, when you are bringing up children? And as it shows that you do not express yourself there, you want a society in which to express yourself. Is that not it? Please, I hope I am not giving some subtle meaning to all this. So you say, ``As I am not expressing myself in the world of action, in the everyday world, where it is impossible to express myself, therefore I use the Society to express myself.'' Is it so, or not? I mean, as far as I understand the question.

How do you express yourself? Now, as it is, at the expense of others. When you talk about self-expression, it must be at the expense of others. Please, there is true expression, with which we will deal presently, but this idea of self-expression indicates that you have something to give, and therefore the Society must be created for your use. First of all, have you something to give? A painter, or a musician, or an engineer, or any of these fellows, if he is really creative, does not talk about self-expression; he is expressing it all the time; he is at it in the outside world, at home, or in a club. He does not want a particular society so that he can use that society for his self-expression. So when you say ``self-expression,'' you do not mean that you are using the Society for giving forth to the world a particular knowledge or something which you have. If you have something, you give it. You are not conscious of it. A flower is not conscious of its beauty. Its loveliness is ever present."

- - -



So I find it safe to conclude that J. Krishnamurti was not a Theosophist. Comparative studying was apperently not something he would recommend.


_____________________

Try also this one...if...you are interested in the truth about the matter.


J. Krishnamurti, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society by Radha Burnier (The Theosophist - 2005)
http://www.austheos.org.au/tsia-article-krishnamurti-theosophy-and-ts.html
(I disagree with her to a certain extend, and have written about it here on Theos-talk in 2009 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/50746 - Perhaps especially.....Theosophist Magazine September 1932-December 1932, p. 378-379 ---- That is why I tend to recommend - comparative studying of the Science of Psychology - and especially the psychological Science of Subtle Mind Control become a new Object of the Theosophical Society added to the comparative study object of the TS constitution. Preferably the - original - one.)

As Blavatsky said with regard to the ORIGINAL PROGRAME of THE THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY:
"Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way of thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the same magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of mutual development and progress in Theosophical thought may be best achieved. "Self-culture" is for isolated Hatha Yogis [OR GURU's ARE A "CRUTCH" FOLLOWERS; M. Sufilight], independent of any Society and having to avoid association with human beings; and this is a triply distilled SELFISHNESS."
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v7/yxxxx_019.htm


To follow Krishnamurti's use of words a little...
Loveliness is ever present in a Flower even if you do not see it.
Even when you are igorant or clouded in your consciousness to the fact.
The same with all other things. Loveliness all around you.





M. Sufilight



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: paulobaptista_v 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:25 AM
  Subject: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel


    
  I have a couple of questions about Krishnamurti and Heindel that I would like to ask:

  1-I have read a biography about K written by Mary Lutyens. I don´t recall her mentioning Blavatsky. The question here is: did K ever read Isis, the SD, the "Key" or the "Voice of Silence"? Was he familiar with the history or with the literary output of the TS between 1875 and 1891?
  Could he have been traumatized with the "Avatar" novel to a point where he rejected those writings, without having the full knowledge of them?

  2-I have some of Max Heindel books, for example "The rosicrucian cosmo-conception", but never had the time to read them. I know that Heindel praised Blatavsky's work (but so did Alice Bailey) 
  I very much agree with the criticisms that Cleather and Crump made to Bailey's work, it certainly appears to exist a strong interference of christianity in her work and there are many differences in comparison with the teachings of HPB/Masters. What I ask is if we can establish some sort of parallel with Heindel's books, because in them we detect a very strong emphasis in that sort of language we usually find in the Christian World. For instance, Annet Rich, by Heindel's request, wrote a book called "Christ or Buddha?" where in the introduction she says that the most advanced religion is Christianity, the "most sublime form of worship".

  PB



  

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