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

Re: Theos-World Re: A beacon of sanity, in a mad world

Feb 19, 2009 09:29 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen


But Sectarian behaviour aught to be avoided within TS. In the Esoteric Section the theosophists have their teachings, and Yes they coinside with J. Krishnamurtis to a certain extend. But his teaching will never be very capeable of ending the strife among the world religions - like HPB and Master (and earlier on in time Ammonious Saccas and others) sought to do by creating the Cornerstone for the future Wisdom-Religion. J. Krishnamurti's teachings are simply too sectarian and non-comparative to be helpful in solving this.

M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Joseph P. Fulton 
  Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:35 PM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: A beacon of sanity, in a mad world

  To Morten and all,

  I always looked at Krishnamurti as being closer to Ayn Rand than HPB. 
  He is, for lack of a better term, a "spiritual existentalist". And I 
  agree, his methodology is not Theosophy, at least in the terms 
  discussed in the writings of HPB/Olcott/Judge/Mead, and others. On 
  the other hand, in the proper circumstance his philosophy may be 
  quite useful.


  --- In, "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...
  > 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 
  > 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 
  > M. Sufilight
  > ----- Original Message ----- 
  > From: new7892001 
  > To: 
  > 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:
  > Investigating the scope of the talks of J. Krishnamurti:
  > Group for discussion/inquiry into the teachings:
  > Regards,
  > Jb. 
  > [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