An important and unsettled question in modern Theosophy is its relationship to the teachings of Krishnamurti, a topic that several contributors here have already written extensively about.
What are the the points of agreement and divergence? Are they complementary, or contradictory? What can each side learn from the other?
(For this particular discussion, I’ll ask that we stay focused on the teachings rather than the personalities or narratives. Also, please include links to your own published materials to supplement the conversation.)
Hi,
I have written some more points at this url. Good thing about online groups is it makes people think. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theos-talk/message/44631
Anand Gholap
Anand,
My own $0.02. Please don’t get agitated. You have neither understood Theosophy nor Krishnamurti. I am not sure you are even going about the study the right way. You dismiss context altogether. Doing so would mean that Sri Krishna was blood thirsty to wage war. On the other hand, context shows that He was asking Arjuna to act based on the depth of his understanding.
The coming of Krishnamurti was absolutely necessary to cleanse all belief systems including Theosophy that had degenerated to the extreme due to several factors – mainly authority, hero worship, blind following, ceremonial rituals, and above all the utter lack of sensitivity to man and nature.
Vish
Vish, thanks for your two cents.
I tend to agree with your assessment. Looking at the context, the larger story of the unfolding of consciousness and the different structures offered to humanity, K. was a perfect corrective. Much of the activity of the T.S. at the time was patently absurd.
Our question now, and one many of the writers here are bringing to new levels of sophistication, is how to balance out the best of both, while staying true to each, and incorporate them into our own spiritual development.
K did give some healthy corrections to some of the attitudes at the TS in the 1920s and ’30s, but, unfortunately and to our great disadvantage, he was also over-corrective and tricked Theosophists to throw out way more than was warranted. He might have prescribed what was only applicable to himself, and that only during certain phases of his initiations and not for all time and everyone. He erroneously absolutized a sub-part of a larger process.
I did read many of the original documents that relate to some of the plans that were in the making in connection with the World Teacher Project and most of them were eminently sane, Theosophical and visionary. One of those projects still has some traction and that is the World University Project that still lives on in rudimentary form in the Dutch Stichting Proklus(Proclus Foundation), which sponsors a philosophy chair in the spirit of Theosophy at the University of Leyden. This foundation just celebrated its 50th anniversary with many professors and also Rupert Sheldrake presenting papers.
Many of the scuttled projects came into the physical realm again by an through the activity of neo-theosophical Ascended Master groups. The intriguing congruency between the structure of the larger World Teacher Project around 1925 and the later (around 1975; hint, hint) developed, or, more accurately, re-activated components around the Summit Lighthouse is one of the pillars in my case contra-K and pro-Prophet.
Chris,
There is no fundamental difference between the teachings of K and Theosophy (meaning the essence of Hindu, Buddhist, and Christian teachings). The evil of authority, and employing it to perpetuate the evils of dependency and fear in people’s hearts and minds have been emphasized by K. They prevent any possibility of perception of truth.
For both K and Theosophy, Truth was supreme. Whether it is stated as “there is no religion higher than Truth”, or as “so long as you follow someone, you cease to follow Truth”, they are in harmony.
Vish