Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00774)

M K Ramadoss wrote:

>        The following excerpt from Ernest Wood's (very rare book) "Is This
>Theosophy?", may be of interest to some of the students of this subject.

>the system of master and pupil was injurious

Did he mean always, or that the TS had taken it too far?  This is the same
Krishnamurti who said, in criticizing "beliefs" in the same way that he
criticized gurus, that "karma is an invention of man's mind."  In avoiding
one extreme, he went to the other. 


>in order to have spirituality a man
>must lean upon no thing or person outside himself.  

How does one go from not having spirituality to having spirituality, but by
learning it from the examples and/or teachings of others?


>he was determined
>that no cult, dogma or system should be built round his personality.

All good things cause dependence.  Dependence can never entirely be
eliminated.  Everyone is dependent, and should be dependent, on others to
unique degrees.  By the same principle of trying to make sure that no one
depends on one's teachings, no money should be given away, regardless of
the need. 


>To hold a theory that
>we must work for the development or accumulation or acquisition of
>opportunities or powers to be attained at some future time was simply to
>spoil the living present.

That is another way in which Krishnamurti's teachings are imbalanced.  He
implied that the only relevant time was the present.  But this does not
address the fact that, since all action is based on dissatisfaction,
no action can be taken in the present without having a purpose in it for
the future.  "What is" and "what should be" should be balanced.
Krishnamurti implied that only "what is" matters, which is impossible.