Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00575)

That it was not Cass that wrote but me, nice to know there is an agreement on that. Of course we cannot compare Puruker writings with Krishnamurit. But thinking about Krishnamurti's position he did what he was supposed to do, to break completly his connection with the Theosophical Society. Even so Krishnamurti when asked did not denied the existence of the Master but he created his line, which I believe to be helpfull as well for the students of Blavatsky. 

It does not contradict the teachings of Blavatsky, but emphasize the need for self knowledge. And I am sure that at the time if any person would have the opportunity to contact the Master they would say without second thought stop praising us, we are not gods.

Erica

Frank Reitemeyer <ringding777@t-online.de> wrote:

Cass wrote:
Krishnamurti teachings helped in a great level the 
T.S. to be free of the astralism Leadbeater was 
promoting.


Obviously K was able to be the medicine for the 
Adyar astralism or to tell them what is not. But 
he seem to have failed to tell them what is the 
pukka theosophical doctrine.
K's worth therefore is limited within the broad 
Theosophical Movement to the mayas of Adyar. A 
theosophist which accepts other schools may feel 
no need to study K's doctrines.
Take for example someone wo studies Gottfried de 
Puruckers lectures and books. Would he also feel 
the need to study K?
Frank




Yahoo! Groups Links









Erica Letzerich .'.







---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'

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