Theos-Talk Archives (September 2008 Message tt00250)

Hi Anand,

I feel quite useless trying to talk to you, because you are very
convinced or your position. So I'll try to let one of the many things
Blavatsky said on this issue convince you (still feels pretty
hopeless, but less give it a try).

Blavatsky said in 1878 (C.W. Vol. 1, p. 301) :
>>Theosophists have no dogmas, exact no blind faith. Theosophists are
ever ready to abandon every idea that is proved erroneous upon
strictly logical deductions;>> see:
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/blavatsky/articles/v1/y1878_007.htm

She repeated that point during her whole life. Of course she also
continued to teach her own position during her whole life. However she
never claimed the TS was made merely to spread her own ideas. In fact
she constantly warned against 'dogmatism'. 

Dogmatism means: believing something because someone you trust or a
book you trust says something. Like you do with Besant and Leadbeater.
Like others here do with Blavatsky. Like dogmatic Christians do with
the Bible - the latter are usually called 'fundamentalist' in this
century. 

If you look at old issues of the Theosophist, made when Blavatsky was
editor, you will see much that isn't 'theosophy' by any of our current
definitions (except the widest). In fact you will see that her
contemporaries told her: make the magazine more theosophical. Print
only that which you agree with. She never caved. 

This is hard. I've tried following that procedure for my own website,
but I'm not sure I succeeded. It is however one of the reasons why I
have Buddhist material as well as Sufi material. It's also the reason
why I haven't deleted the material on Jiddu Krishnamurti after I
became somewhat disillusioned with his teachings. 

Krishnamurti and Blavatsky have (at least) this much in common: a
fight against blind belief. And one of Blavatsky's fears for the TS
was that it would become too dogmatic: too much attached to the dead
letter of her teachings. 

One of the reasons why I would personally like to have someone like P.
Krishna in charge is that he would not have a problem with the above. 

Katinka Hesselink
http://www.allconsidering.com/
http://www.katinkahesselink.net/
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> Katinka,
> When Blavatsky founded the TS, there were certain ideas and knowledge
> she wanted to give through TS. This knowledge consists of knowledge
> about Masters, evolution, immortality of the soul, reincarnation, path
> of occultism. Krishnamurti rejected all of these. You can either
> follow ideas similar to Blavatsky, Besant, Leadbeater or you can
> follow Krishnamurti. You can not follow both, because even according
> to Krishnamurti his teaching and Theosophy were diametrically opposite. 
> If person likes Krishnamurti's teaching, he may go to Krishnamurti
> Foundation. 
> TS should run along the lines given by Blavatsky, Besant and Leadbeater.
> 
> Anand Gholap
> 
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Anand,
> > 
> > We will have to agree to disagree. I think Krishnamurti was precisely
> > the medicine the TS needed at that time. His teachings aren't as
> > balanced as I might like, but some of the best theosophists of the
> > past century were influenced by him. 
> > 
> > Anyhow: the TS is supposed to be an nonsectarian body and the fact
> > that we have embraced people who were his students does show that this
> > attempt is still alive to some extent. 
> > 
> > Why can't we just learn where wisdom is found instead of relying on
> > labels? 
> > 
> > Katinka Hesselink
> > http://www.allconsidering.com/
> > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Katinka,
> > > I am glad most people reject him. What makes me sorry is your
> > > involvement in disastrous teaching of J. Krishnamurti. 
> > > 
> > > Anand Gholap
> > > 
> > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Katinka Hesselink" <mail@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Anand,
> > > > 
> > > > I think you're overreacting. Anyhow, my poll (
> > > > http://www.squidoo.com/theosophical-organisation-08 )so far
> shows that
> > > > a majority would not want P. Krishna to be the next president,
> so you
> > > > don't have to worry. 
> > > > 
> > > > Katinka Hesselink
> > > > http://www.allconsidering.com/
> > > > http://www.katinkahesselink.net/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > P. Krishna is the greatest danger to the Theosophical Society.
> He is
> > > > > appointed as head of Krishnamurti Foundation of India (KFI)
> This KFI
> > > > > is promoting ridiculous and anti-Theosophical ideas of J.
> > Krishnamurti
> > > > > like "masters are exploiters, religions and spiritual books
> corrupt
> > > > > minds of people, there is no path of occultism, there is no
> > > evolution" 
> > > > > It is most unfortunate P. Krishna has connection with the
> > Theosophical
> > > > > Society. P. Krishna should live thousand miles away from the
> > > > > Theosophical Society. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anand Gholap
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>