Theos-Talk Archives (January 2012 Message tt00025)

For several reasons it is very hard to assess the truth of K?s statements
about his own past. First, he claims to have forgotten much, if not most, of
his pre-1929 life. So, if he makes a statement in 1932 about his formative
years, such statements cannot be taken at face value. His statement that he
didn?t read anything by Blavatsky is not therefore necessarily true.
Secondly, some of his friends and acquaintances are on record with their
observations that K was actually perfectly capable of remembering his past.
Therefore his statement that he didn?t read anything by Blavatsky is not
necessarily false either.  Thirdly, K sometimes uses something particular
from his own past to bolster a deeper thought, but whether his memory is
true or not is not relevant to the possible truth of the deeper idea. In
this case, whether he read HPB or not, is not relevant to his idea that one
could live an enlightened life without Theosophy. The prudent way to find
out if K ever read HPB would be to look for other person?s testimony. So far
I am not aware of anybody claiming to have seen K read HPB, which doesn?t
mean he didn?t.  The more important point is how much K?s pre-1929 worldview
was Theosophical. K claims that as a boy his mind was vacant and that no
Theosophical or other ideas ?stuck? with him. But reading his early works it
is quite clear that he was eloquently and enthusiastically expressing a
whole slew of Theosophical ideas.  Again, K is not a reliable guide to his
own past.  I think that all K?s statements regarding his past have to be
carefully contextualized and checked against the record, if possible, and if
no record exists, then the truth-value of his statements have to be regarded
as problematic. 

 

From: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:theos-talk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of M. Sufilight
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 7:02 AM
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel

 

  

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
<http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/view-text.php?tid=75&ch
id=4435&w=Blavatsky> &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 <mailto:theos-talk%40yahoogroups.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]



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4724 - Release Date: 01/05/12



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