Theos-Talk Archives (October 1994 Message tl00006)

"K. Paul Johnson" <pjohnson@leo.vsla.edu> writes:

> It has recently struck me that in my work in progress I need to
> include, and comment on, the letter from K.H. received
> by Annie Besant in 190
> (Allegedly from K.H., one might add, as many Theosophists
> reject its authenticity and many non-Theosophists reject ALL
> alleged K.H. letters).  I will post it here, and ask for any

Please don't interpret lack of response for lack of interest in
my case (although it's certainly understandable.) This is a
letter in which I have had considerable interest for some years,
and I had been looking for a copy of it - it's hard to come by.
SO thanks for typing it in.  I was taking some time to consider a
response.

My feeling is that it has the ring of truth, and it's advice is
good.  Probably Krishnamurti really popped the theosophical
balloon "the theosophical Popery" referred to.  Although maybe he
went too far.  Sometimes I wonder if he wasn't assigned this
task...  It's interesting because it seems to be the last
published letter after HPB disappeared from the scene (someone
correct me if I'm wrong.) Also it is apparently objective and
does not support any one's position, which might have had some
ego involvement.  Therefore I would tend to think it to be
genuine.

> A psychic and pranayamist who has got confused by the vagaries
> of the members.

This first bit always confused me.

 The T.S. and its members are slowly
> manufacturing a creed.

I am afraid that this has happened.  Although less so these days
with the "demise" of CWL and co.  But still, theosophy still
serves the function of a religion to many of its members.

 Says a Thibetan proverb "credulity
> breeds credulty and ends in hypocrisy."

Don't know what this means.

  How few are they who
> can know anything about us.

Why is that?

> creeds.  We ask not for the worship of ourselves.

This sounds genuine.

  The disciple
> should in no way be fettered.

Ah, the beauty of being aligned with the GWB, compared to the
Brothers of the Dark Face, who would dictate every action!

> love of power.  Be not guided by emotion but learn to stand
> alone.  Be accurate and critical rather than credulous.

Certain parts of the ts remain very devotional in character.
Many of us would also like to believe in the fantastic and
miraculous.  However, the truth can actually sometimes be more
unbelievable than the ordinary everyday world.

The
> mistakes of the past in the old religions must not be glossed
> over with imaginary explanations.

I rather suspect they might in part be talking about the Liberal
Catholic church here.  May be we are too accepting of some
aspects of many traditional religions, which may have elements of
superstition, or just be plain wrong.

> must be few and simple and acceptable to all.  No one has a
> right to claim authority over a pupil or his conscience.

There it is again - freedom of thought.  WOnderful, isn't it?

> must have admittance.  The crest wave of intellectual
> advancement must be taken hold of and guided into
> spirituality.

The ts has failed in this.

> numerous organizations.  The cant about "Masters" must be
> silently but firmly put down.  Let the devotion and service be
> to that Supreme Spirit alone of which one is a part.

A favourite part.  Actually, I think it has been put down, by and
large.  Not least, by Krishnaji.

> Namelessly and silently we work and the continual references to
> ourselves and the repetition of our names raises up a confused
> aura that hinders our work.

Interesting.  Maybe we shouldn't talk about Them at all.

> cycle.  The T.S. was meant to be the cornerstone of the future
> religions of humanity.

Interesting.  This could come to pass, but not necessarily
directly via the ts.  I think people are starting to take those
parts of religions which appeal to them (in industrialized
Western countries, anyway), and leave the rest.  The result could
be a kind of universalization of religion, with certain themes in
common with the ts remaining e.g.  unity and brotherhoo.

  To accomplish this object those who
> lead must leave aside their weak predilections for the forms
> and ceremonies of any particular creed and show themselves to

Uh oh - a dig at the comasons, perhaps?

> observance.  The greatest of your trials is yet to come.  We
> watch over you but you must put forth all your strength.

What might this be, I wonder... Krishnamurti perhaps?

ASTREA