Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00779)

At 04:05 AM 1/26/97 -0500, Tom Robertson wrote:
>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. 
>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<< rest clipped >>>>>>>>>>

Dear Tom:

1. Glad you read the post. What was in it was Wood's summary of K's position.

2. I have just posted the statement K made when he disbanded the Order of
the Star in which he made the famous "Truth is a pathless land" statement.
He stuck to his statement till he died in 1986. This statement shook the TS
membership to its roots and is still shaking.

3. For anyone interested in K's philosophy/teaching/thinking, there is a
mailing list listening-l where intense discussion is going on all the
various issues relating to K's stand. It is unmoderated just like theos-xxxx
and can be subscribed to by sending a msg to listserv@zrz.tu-berlin.de with
a msg in the body 

        subscribe LISTENING-L  your name

..MKR


>
>>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.
>