[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Theos-World Blavatsky & Krishnamurti (3)

Feb 18, 2009 09:54 AM
by Govert Schuller

Yes, partially and long time ago. How so? 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:28 PM
  Subject: Re: Theos-World Blavatsky & Krishnamurti (3)

  Just curious, have you read the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali? 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "Govert Schuller" <> 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 7:39:54 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
  Subject: Theos-World Blavatsky & Krishnamurti (3) 

  Dear Pedro and all, 

  Find below the third installment with my comments on your article on Krishnamurti and Theosophy: 


  [HPB] "The first necessity for obtaining self-knowledge is to become profoundly conscious of ignorance; to feel with every fibre of the heart that one is ceaselessly self-deceived."(2) 

  [K] "To know oneself as one is requires an extraordinary alertness of mind, because what is is constantly undergoing transformation, change, and to follow it the mind must not be tethered to any particular dogma or belief, to any particular pattern of action."(3) 

  [PO] The present age has been hailed as the `information age' and never than before human beings have a colossal amount of information and knowledge at their fingertips. Yet, and not surprisingly, self-knowledge remains elusive and very rare. Both HPB and K suggested that without alertness and awareness one cannot see through the deceptions that mental activity creates. Several traditions have insisted that in order to know oneself there must be impersonal attention to what happens both within and without. Such attention not only sees through the machinations and illusions to which we have become accustomed to call `me' but also brings them to an end. Self-knowledge is the beginning of transformation. 

  [GS] Self-knowledge is not only a matter of self-observation and self-transcendence, but also self-interpretation and self-evaluation. The idea that one can be objectively or impersonally observing oneself is a myth. I thought I was observing myself objectively when I was seriously engaged in experimenting with K's teachings, only to find out later I was interpreting myself according to his teachings. I'm not saying here that it was false what I found, but that it was meaningful relative to his paradigmatic framework and that other frameworks (Theosophy, Zen, psycho-analysis or psycho-synthesis) also generate meaningful insights and changes. The problem with K is that he claims an exclusivity and objectivity that is not warranted.] 

  The Learning Mind 

  [HPB] "He must endeavor as much as possible to free his mind, while studying or trying to carry out that which is given him, from all the ideas which he may have derived by heredity, from education, from surroundings, or from other teachers. His mind should be made perfectly free from all other thoughts, so that the inner meaning of the instructions may be impressed upon him apart from the words in which they are clothed."(4) 

  [K] "Reality is not as thing which is knowable by the mind, because the mind is the result of the known, of the past; therefore the mind must understand itself and its functioning, its truth, and only then is it possible for the unknown to be."(5) 

  [PO] In order to learn the mind needs to educate itself. The word education comes from the Latin educere, `lead out'. Fresh understanding and insight are not possible if the mind is constantly `crowded' with opinions, second hand knowledge and reactions. They have to emerge from a deeper source within. The mind that truly learns is the one that pays attention to what is before it - the `book of life' - and has an understanding which is both sensitive and compassionate, which are qualities that can only unfold in the present moment. 

  [GS] Granted: 'alien', unprocessed, unchecked thoughts and conclusions are obstacles to investigating a matter at hand. In the quotes used there is a difference though between what both aim at after having shed old opinions and thoughts. HPB wants you to be unencumbered to be able to understand some inner meaning of a worded instruction and K wants you to be open to a non-verbal 'unknown.' Quite a difference. The difference becomes even more pronounced if the context of HPB's quote is taken into account, for it is lifted from a letter to new members of the then just established Esoteric Section, of which one of its aims was "the salvation of the whole Society." One of its instructions, of which "the inner meaning . may be impressed upon him apart from the words in which they are clothed" was as follows: "It is, however, right that each member, once he believes in the existence of such Masters, should try to understand what their nature and powers are, to reverence Them in his heart, to draw near to Them, as much as in him lies, and to open up for himself conscious communication with the guru to whose bidding he has devoted his life." This raises of course numerous interesting questions regarding the role of the ES towards the TS and what role, if any, K's teachings have to play in that, all of which I propose to address later. The important point is that when the context of the HPB quote is pulled into the alleged similarity one bumps smack into some fundamental differences regarding the value of spiritual organizations and Masters.] 

  [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