Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Raziel
So a teeny peek at J. Krishnamurti also raises some red flags for me.
I see Theosophical Society links, "The Maitreya" is mentioned & Helena Blavatsky leading to Alice Bailey & Ascended Master Teachings - yuk.
Crowley was the only one missing.
There is no awakening - you were born so here you are.
The physical tangible reality is enough of a minefield as it is - without setting oneself the impossible task of becoming "higher beings".
A true freedom is to understand that defining your own existence by someone elses spiritual rules & ideals is a conditioning all in itself.
There are going to be things like addiction, desire, neurosis, fear & anger in life - there will also be moderation, patience, cool heads in times of crisis etc etc it is all part of life.
Addiction is a spectrum - it's knowing that a good feeling can be instant - coffee is a simple but absolutely perfect example of this. A person is not insane for choosing instant gratification, its the consequences that come after that are the stinger.
Neurosis or fear are similar - an indian child worries that when he gets water from the well that a tiger might eat him. It plays on his mind over & over and he does whatever he can to avoid the task.
Truth is - a Tiger may eat you - you can be learn to be confident in your own assessments & build confidence but the Tiger IS a risk.
All the spirituality in the world doesn't out compete reality.
|
A very long time ago now, I used to be a Theosophist.
I didn't go much for H.P.B, even though I could see a deep truth in
some of her teachings, but not all of them and it left a lot to be desired.
I also did not like the teachings of Alice Bailey and that conditioned/manufactured 'guru', J. Krishnamurti.
I went the other way and followed Arthur Avalon (Sir John Woodroffe), Geoffrey Hodson and Manly Hall into the more esoteric side of it.
Some of us/most of us...even the 'spiritual realists' are just content to live in the world and within their own current perception
of it because that is 'all there is' by their definition and by their own belief systems, they make it so and as long as they are happy, whose to say any different?
However, some of us...through our own belief systems understand there's something 'more than that' in all we can see/understand but the realists cannot and they will be the first to call it a 'delusion' or a 'fantasy' and of
course they will say that because they are realists and not transcendentalists...this doesn't make it any more or less real to
us, however.
What you believe is your own truth is your own 'version of things' which bears no semblance of relevance to another who may have had a contradictory experience and can honestly say "sorry, but I don't understand you" and no matter how much you try and explain it, they will still say "sorry, but I don't understand you" because there's no familiar relational framing being presented.