Re: Theos-World A beacon of sanity, in a mad world
Feb 20, 2009 01:32 PM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
Thank you for your kind answer.
Nigel wrote:
"Yes I wonder about J.K.'s comments regarding H.P.B.'s teachings too
but quite frankly the T.S. imposed the whole "world teacher" business
on him in the first place and it's a wonder he emerged a sane as he
did! Another person might have a lot worse to say about the matter."
Yes, one can say that. And perhaps it is quite true.
But, I am sure he also went along with it to a certain degree himself.
Nigel:
"From my own studies of J.K. and H.P.B., I see a lot more in common
than in difference between these two. "
They had something in common, I agree upon that.
But, what about the very important differences I touched upon in my previous answer to you?
Nigel wrote:
>>>
"Then you are against gurus and followers?"
It's not a matter of being against something, but of
perceiving that conformity, which is desire for security,
with it's fears, prevents the experiencing of the timeless.
<<<
Yes. But at other times we find J. Krishnamurti to be directly against any talk about Master-Chela relationsships. As mentioned in my previous letter, he even refused the idea of the Himalyan Lodge or Masters of wisdom with their chelas.
Analogically speaking: Is the dog not the chela af its human?
---
"Ideal laws can be perceived by the intuitive faculty alone;
they are beyond the domain of argument and dialectics, and
no one can understand or rightly appreciate them through the
explanations of another mind, though even this mind be claiming
a direct revelation."
(H.P.Blavatsky; 'What are the Theosophists' CW vol.II)
So how can beginners understand J. Krishnamurti, when they have not developed any sense of intuition at all or even a certain intellect?
J. Krishnamurti was teaching to the audiences as if they already had been through the initiation, which made them understand the non-dual teachings of Adwaita or verisons of Esoteric Buddhism. - The problem was, that a great number of his listeners were not on a level to benefit from his teachings. - And the result from this we all know. Look at his World Teacher level. It is only on a level comparable to great many other teacher of eastern philosopy. - As HPB often said: We shall know them on their fruits.
How very precise Sir Thomas mentioned this issue in Cyril Scott's book - "The Initiate in the Dark Cycle By his Pupil ", 1932:
An few excerpts:
"Danger Number One: Krishnamurti's casting aside of time-honoured definitions and classifications leaves aspirant without true scale of values. Danger Number Two: climbing his particular staircase necessitates constant meditation, which in its turn necessitates constant protection from Guru--and Guru not allowed by Krishnamurti."
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
or the whole book...
http://www.alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html
(It is the words written, and not the author behind the book, I have in mind here.)
Nigel wrote:
"I personally am much more interested in the writings of H.P.B., but
enjoy from time to time J.K.'s no nonsense approach to the very
important subject, the human mind, and the abyss between the states of
the free thinking mind and the programmed automaton."
Well put.
Almost the same view here, although I would add: J. Krishnamurti is more often an obstacle to beginner seekers than a real help. And he can become a real danger if his meditation preactises are carried out to the dead-letter!
M. Sufilight
----- Original Message -----
From: nigel_healy
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Theos-World A beacon of sanity, in a mad world
Dear Morten and all
Thank you for your response Morten.
Yes I wonder about J.K.'s comments regarding H.P.B.'s teachings too
but quite frankly the T.S. imposed the whole "world teacher" business
on him in the first place and it's a wonder he emerged a sane as he
did! Another person might have a lot worse to say about the matter.
From my own studies of J.K. and H.P.B., I see a lot more in common
than in difference between these two. I recommend to all interested in
unbiased investigation into this matter to search through the writings
of these two and find the many commonalities therein.
Picking up two books, I found (what I consider to be) a common thread
straight away!
"What is truth? Is it a common ground to be trodden
Or is it a subjective, individual experience?"
By whatever name it may be called, truth must ever
be new, living; but the words 'new' and 'living' are used
only to convey a state that is not static, not dead, not
a fixed point within the mind of man. Truth must be
discovered anew from moment to moment, it is a timeless
state. The division between the many and the one must
cease for truth to be. It is not a state to be achieved,
nor a point towards which the mind can evolve, grow.
If truth is conceived as a thing to be gained, then the
cultivation of knowledge and the accumulations of memory
become necessary, giving rise to the guru and the follower,
the one who knows and the one who does not know.
"Then you are against gurus and followers?"
It's not a matter of being against something, but of
perceiving that conformity, which is desire for security,
with it's fears, prevents the experiencing of the timeless.
"I think I understand what you mean. But is it not immensely
difficult to renounce all that one has gathered? Indeed, is it
possible?"
To give up in order to gain is no renunciation at all. To see
the false as the false, to see the true in the false, and to see
the true as the true - it is this that sets the mind free."
(Krishnamurti; Commentaries on Living, Third Series)
"Be what he may, once that a student abandons the old and
trodden highway of routine, and enters upon the solitary path
of independent thought - Godward - he is a Theosophist; an
original thinker, a seeker after the eternal truth with
"an inspiration of his own" to solve the universal problems.
With every man that is earnestly searching in his own way
after a knowledge of the Divine Principle, of man's relations to
it, and nature's manifestations of it, Theosophy is allied."
"Ideal laws can be perceived by the intuitive faculty alone;
they are beyond the domain of argument and dialectics, and
no one can understand or rightly appreciate them through the
explanations of another mind, though even this mind be claiming
a direct revelation."
(H.P.Blavatsky; 'What are the Theosophists' CW vol.II)
There are plenty more comparable passages such as these to be found
with little effort and an inquiring, independent mind.
I personally am much more interested in the writings of H.P.B., but
enjoy from time to time J.K.'s no nonsense approach to the very
important subject, the human mind, and the abyss between the states of
the free thinking mind and the programmed automaton.
Kind regards,
NigelH
--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
<global-theosophy@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Nigel and friends
>
> My views are:
>
> M. Sufilight comments:
>
> Yes. Very good. J. Krishnamurti is a Theosophist in the sense, that
he is on the path and his teachings partly are helpful to some Seekers
after Truth. Yet, he claimed a Pathless Path.
>
> But he is not a Theosophist in the sense, that he disallows
comparative studying
> and allows HPB's ideas about Universal Brotherhood to be considered
unimportant. (I am here talking about HPB's ideas as well as Ammonious
Saccas etc. etc. Ideas about Universal Brotherhood among religions and
so on. - And not about the persons).
>
> In my previous e-mail I quoted J. Krishnamurti saying:
> "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."
>
> ***First: We remember, that these words came from a man, who only
7-10 years earlier
> allowed himself to be called the World Teacher of the Age by others,
and who
> himself also referred to it as a fact, and who never really honestly
openly objected to this later on in his life.
>
> And J. Krishnamurti "allowed" himself to be "discovered" as a the
coming World Teacher of the Age by a person, CWL, who only three years
before was thrown out of the TS because of Phaedophile behaviour.
Thereby he created a strange blurred image about who he really was.
>
> And now he, amazingly, says, that he does not know anything about
HPB's teachings! - Was he lying all the time?
> And he is aksing about why he should know about HPB's teachings.
Indeed. Comparative studying is not important to his teachings.
>
> ***Second: He dissolved his membership of the TS in 1929. And now he
is saying that H. P. Blavatsky's teachings or Ammonius Saccas
teachings are unimportant in the above in the year 1936. And, yet, he
says that there is only one truth as an answer to the question about
the validity of HPB's teachings - obviously not being interested in
knowing her teachings. To me this clearly implies, that it is not one
which promotes The Theosophical Society's main ideas and views. How
can one call such a person a Theosophist? But a theosophist with
little "t", yes partly, because on the Path, but as we will later see,
a secterian one in nature.
>
> *** Third: J. Krishnamurti by all means avoided comparative study.
He only want people to listen to HIM, and his own words and teachings
- although this teaching are not useful to beginner seekers in any
manner what so ever. How can he claim that HPB's teachings are
unimportant, when he, as he admits, are unaware of them?
>
> Is that proper Theosophy?
>
> - - -
> Nigel wrote:
> "This to me is not the open inquiring mind of the Theosophist, but
> more like an 'I'm right you're wrong' type mindset."
>
> M. Sufilight comments:
> It is not a question about who is right or wrong alone. It is also a
question about how individuals react to a given impact or for
instance an e-mail at this forum. For instance this e-mail.
>
> Yet we remember, that, HPB as an example among others rejected the
teachings given by the Spiritists as being wrong. In HPB's day a
number of members got thrown out of the TS, because they slandered or
attacked the TS. J. Krishnamurti dissolved, the Order of the Star in
the East - and three the TS down the drain, that is the simple truth.
And now you claim that J. Krishnamurti's teachings are Theosophical in
nature? - And non-secterian?
> - - -
>
>
> In another e-mail I posted J. Krishnamurti asked:
> "What does it seriously matter whether there is a White Lodge or
not? And who talks or writes about these mysteries except those who,
consciously or unconsciously, wish to exploit man in the name of
brotherhood, love, and truth?"
>
>
> M. Sufilight comments:
> And we answer the first question with: Yes it does indeed! Because
that is theosophical teaching. Yet we also recognise, that all
illusions are not permanent. - The second question we answer like
this: J. Krishnamurti is here presenting a narrowminded view. I
disagree with him. I say, that what can be learned from these
mysteries are important and some of those who writes about them are
actually Initiates with no intentions at all of exploiting the Seekers
after Truth. Let the Seekers learn. - And I have another word for J.
Krishnamurti's own words and J. Krishnamurti's own mystery-teachings.
That is: Secterian.
>
> - - -
>
> And, We are talking about a World Teacher of the Age, who never had
anything good to say about HPB's teaching because as he claims: "I do
not know what
> Madame Blavatsky' s teachings are. Why should I? "
>
> And that is the TORCHBEARER OF TRUTH, who Annie Besant proclaimed
would arrive 50 years earlier than HPB and her Master predicted as a
likely possibility. A TORCHBEARER OF TRUTH, who "may be sent by the
Masters of Wisdom to give final and irrefutable proofs that there
exists a Science called Gupta-Vidya". (The Masters J. Krishnamurti
rejected.)
>
> Nonsense we say.
>
> - - -
> But all the above are only my views.
>
>
> M. Sufilight
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: nigel_healy
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:47 AM
> Subject: Re: Theos-World A beacon of sanity, in a mad world
>
>
> Dear Morten
>
> Thank you for sharing your views on this topic.
>
> You recently posted;
> "So I find it safe to conclude that J. Krishnamurti was not a
> Theosophist."
>
> I wonder if this is true?
>
> Is there not a great difference between adhering to the views of
> a society, lodge or any kind of theosophical group, and actually
> BEING a Theosophist. Living a Theosophical life.
> I know a number of individuals who, by their livelihoods, I would
> consider Theosophical though they have never heard of the
> Theosophical Society, or Theosophy for that matter!
>
> And yet there are many who belong to theosophical groups such as
> the T.S. and display blatantly 'unTheosophical' behaviour.
> This group can often reveal unmoving mindsets with cherished ideas
> on a topic (such as J.K.), held very closely.
> This to me is not the open inquiring mind of the Theosophist, but
> more like an 'I'm right you're wrong' type mindset.
>
> In saying this though, this group makes for some very good reading
> and a lot can be learned here. So I do thank you for your and
> everyone else's input into these topics.
>
> Kind regards,
> NigelH
>
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
> <global-theosophy@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear JB and friends
> >
> > My views are:
> >
> > Yes. Very good.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > M. Sufilight
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: new7892001
> > To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:59 PM
> > Subject: Theos-World A beacon of sanity, in a mad world
> >
> >
> >
> > The authentic teachings of J. Krishnamurti:
> > http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/
> >
> > Investigating the scope of the talks of J. Krishnamurti:
> > http://www.beyondthemind.net/krishnamurti-index.html
> >
> > Group for discussion/inquiry into the teachings:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/J-Krishnamurti_andLife/
> >
> > Regards,
> > Jb.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
