Re: Theos-World Improving the TS and Radha Burniers view on Krishnamurti!?
May 11, 2009 10:18 AM
by Morten Nymann Olesen
My views are:
Yes, a bit vauge.
Rereading it, I have gotten ideas of expanding on it.
The 10-11 links I e-mailed Anand yeasterday could be interesting to use in a more lengthy response-article to Radha Burniers very vauge, almost politically sidestepping, what I tend to call - "Sir Humphrey Appleby" like - words on the J. Krishnamurti issue. :-)
But, thank you for your friendly words.
I wonder who will be the first to write a comprehensive book
on HPB + Ammonious Saccas + and other early teachers - versus the Alice A. Bailey, CWL, Besant and J. Krishnamurti flaws (and also the main positives!) in a fair and as objective manner possible - all of it based on expereince and for instance the many good e-mails through time here on Theos-Talk and various sources given???
I think it is only a question about time, then we will have such a book written.
And another book could prove a good idea. A book really putting all the false (Internet) claims on HPB - and perhaps other wellknown theosophists were they honestly belong. All the falseness about HPB's marriage, possible pregnancy, smoking habit, meat-eating, Hashish use, Coulomb case (is allready avaliable!?), Hodgson case (is already available!?), her years in Tibet was true, and other issues.
There are numerous articles here and other places on the Internet about HPB and what happened when she died.
- - -
>From there on I would - consider - a theosophical book or two - on issues like - brainwashing, sects, un-conditioning, the New Age craze, why theosophical teachings is not actively political, - and esoteric psychology in general - perhaps I myself would be lending from Idries Shah's corpus and other authors of the day. And also a topic, which TS Adyar dislikes, but which HPB was indeed touching uopn (!) - atmospheric interference between the physical on the on-physical realms - that is - lightballs, UFO's - HPB's Wivans, goblins, Aliens and devas - steering clear of politics - although touching a possible paradigm shift on the planet (like in the Atlantis days - but certainly not a copy-cat.). And Environmental pollution, Climate Change, cloning, genetic engineeering as well.
I see that some of the new books at Adyar are considering a renewal of the - formulations - of the theosophical ideas so to be in accordance with our present time, and that idea I do like as long as the - core teachings are not being degraded into a Messiah-Krishnamurti fanatism and mere belief promotions.
These were just my views about what could be needed, and about what some of you members here are talking about form time to time.
But I myself do not find myself to be a Blavatsky. At least not yet. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: Govert Schuller
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 4:59 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Improving the TS and Radha Burniers view on Krishnamurti!?
Thanks for your thoughts on the Burnier Q&A on Krishnamurti.
Though pretty vague and inconsistent, it is a good example of the TS Adyar 'party line.'
To make the position 'stick' Theosophically a few efforts have been mounted to reconcile K with Theosophy in the works of Aryel Sanat, Pablo Sender, Pedro Oliveira and of course Radha Burnier.
Somewhere I named this effort the 'fusion of the Krishnamurti and the Theosophy paradigms.'
Given the dramatic history of the Theosophy-Krishnamurti relationship this enterprise has to be undertaken, even if it might fail. For those who think the WT project to have been genuine a lot is riding on its outcome.
At the same time the early fruits of this effort have to be scrutinzed and critically tested. That's where people like Anand, William Keidan, myself, some others and relative outsiders like you come in.
I'm therefore glad that you, after engaging the sources, came to the following provisional conclusion:
"The only thing left for me is to say to you all Rahda Burnier included: I do not believe, (yet I will not today claim definitive knowledge), that J. Krishnamurti was the vehicle for the World Teacher, but for a brief moment or two. The actual coming can definitely be said to have gone wrong, if it ever was meant to be."
----- Original Message -----
From: Morten Nymann Olesen
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 11:14 AM
Subject: Theos-World Improving the TS and Radha Burniers view on Krishnamurti!?
J. Krishnamurti, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society
******* Here is a reply given by analysing the text by Radha Burnnier in light of my own spiritual Knowledge about theosophy and the Masters. I plan to put it online, but I would like som comments before doing it. And after changing it a bit, I will await to see if TS Adyar will do a stronger effort disspelling the notorious atmosphere surrounding its relation to J. Krishnamurti and whether his teachings was theosophical or not. ***
J. Krishnamurti, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society (Radha Burnier, International President of the TS, answers questions from young Theosophists, San Rafael Theosophical Centre, Argentina, April 2004. Originally published in The Theosophist, August 2005.)
Now when the TS President is answering questions about the core teachings of the Theosophical Society, which was co-founded by H. P. Blavatsky and H. S. Olcott, and proposed by Blavatsky's Master - we would expect a wise and clear answer explaining the quesitons. The article is about 4 years old and is still online on the Internet to read, without any revisions or new editions being created either by Radha Burnier or another member of the TS. In the following we will see, that this is not the case. Far from. These are just my views though. I suggest, that each person draw his or her own conclusions.
1. Many people say that, when he left the TS, Krishnamurti betrayed the TS and the Masters who instructed him. What do you think about this?
Not many people, but some people say this. I think it is a wrong idea. There was no question of Krishnamurti betraying the TS or the Masters who instructed him. In the TS at that time, there was a group of people who claimed to have contact with the Masters, and who assumed authority for themselves. They believed they were in a position to declare: 'You have been put on probation; someone else has become a pupil of the Master', or 'Now you are an Initiate'. But it could be seen by the behaviour of these people that they did not fulfil the qualifications which are described in The Masters and the Path and other books about what a true disciple of the Master or Initiate would be like. So it became like a drama, a farce, and Krishnamurti disliked all this very much.
Radha Burnier here says, that she "thinks" that J. Krishnamurti did not betray the Masters and TS when he left TS. The reason she gives is unclear - saying that "some members", which she is not naming was the cause to his dissolving of the Order of the Star in the East. And she is not saying if they were leading figures like CWL and Annie Besant or whether it was other members. The question we ask is whether J. Krishnamurti betrayed the TS, because he denounced the existence of the Masters when he left?
Theosophist Magazine September 1932-December 1932, p. 378-379:
"Although an outsider, I feel it my serious duty to give you my views, for the sake of humanity, and for the sake of all those who might be attracted to the Society expecting there to learn the truths which Theosophy gives. It is a painful duty to inform you that what with the League of Healing, the Liberal Catholic Church, Krishnamurti, the prepnderance of the writings of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Leadbeater, the new-comer into the Society has not the slightest chance of ever getting to know what is Theosophy; the new-comer is not given the opportunity af acquiring the necessary knowledge with which to choose for himself waht to believe and what to reject. It is all very well to say that no one is forced to believe this or that, that is not good enough.
Think of the poor pilgrim hungering for spiritual food. No one is forcing anything down his troath but how can he be led to interest himself in the above mentioned activities and authors? The point is, that H. P. Blavatsky is ignored in the Society to-day, her photograph is on the Lodges' wall and lip service is rendered. All useless. Her works should be studied and levtured upon. They are not the reason being, that the present Theosophic teaching is so much at variance with what H.P.B. taught that no encouragement is given the student to know or find out what she did teach.
Please remember that all criticism of T.S. leaders is impersonal. I know none of the, and I stand to gain no benefit by it, but it is my urgent duty to plead for the hosts of unknown students, to afford them facilities to learn the Theosophy of the Masters who sent H.P.B. into the world to teach it. This does not mean that H.P.B. is to be worshipped and that her words are to be considered dogmatic. No, no, but because H.P.B. taught genuine Theosophy, anyone studying her books acquires the necessary knowledge to dicern what i genuine evidence, whether it is found in The Secret Doctrine, the works of Plato, or in Light on the Path etc. The possibility,of aqcuiring this faculty of discernment is denied to T.S. members in England. I pressume the T.S. accepts as its duty to promulgate Theosophy, and not to spread or air other philosophies; if the former why does it undertake propaganda for the teachings of Krishnamurti? If the latter, why call itself the Theosophical Society? This is sailing under false colours adn is dishonest to humanity. The facts are that one cannot go to any T.S. Lodge meeting without hearing about, seeing the books of Krishnamurti. What service is that to mankind - what service is rendered to Theosophy? It can only do one thing and that is the help fog and vloud the student and help to make his efforts to learn Theosophy a hundred times more difficult.
Krishnamurti himself is absolutely honest. In the Star Bulletin, August, 1931, page 7 he says:
>"So I have made it prefectly clear that what is generally believed by the Christian, the Theosophist, the Hindu, the Buddhist to be Truth, has nothing in common with what I say"<
As Theosophy shows the truth to be the underlying principles of the Christian, the Hindu, and the Buddhist, we are perfectly clear in having nothing in common with Krishnamurti. Then why in the name of the Higher Self does the T.S. persist in propaganda on behalf of Krishnamurti?
Nothing stops you although you are seeing the harm you are doing. THE THEOSOPHIST of March, 1932, states that the membership has fallen off in Germany, Czecho-Slovakia, and Greece because of the influence of Kirshnamurti's teachings. This confession should bring tears to the eyes of the leaders of the movement.
Evidently unconscious of the falseness of their position, on page 641, Mr. G. S. Arundale addresses his fellow Theosophists by saying:
> Nor should there by any questions to the significance and importance of that way of life on which Krishnaji is laying such emphatic and splendid stress.<
(Please pity the humble seeker after the Truth of Theosophy on reading your pages.) Also on page 661 Mr. A.P. Warrington is reported as follows:
>The speaker then warned his audience against treating to casually the presence of Krishnaji and urged that he and his work be carefully studied.<" (end of quote)
The friendly C. Jinarajadasa replies at the end of the article with a half answer saying that space does not permit him to write a full answer, and does this without taking a stance on that J. Krishnamurti is not promulgating theosophy. And we remember that C. Jinarajadasa and G. S. Arundale was taken as C. W. Leadbeater's pupils at a very young age. And perhaps that was why C. Jinarajadasa became Vice-President and Preseident of The Theosophical Society and G. S. Arundale became its President after Annie Besant died. So was TS a trustworthy organisation with later leaders being groomed by C. W. Leadbeater, who had a bad reputation when being in company with young boys?
"Revelation or Realization: The Conflict in Theosophy" by J.J. van der Leeuw, LL.D., 1930:
"A system of revelation is only possible when there is one oracle, or channel of revelation, the authority of which is not to be questioned. A plurality of oracles is death to revelation. When in 1925 it was announced that the World Teacher would have twelve apostles as before in Palestine and when Krishnamurti himself denied having any apostles or disciples at all it was inevitable that members should begin to ask whether this revelation as well as previous ones was to be trusted or not."
This rare article is not being sold by TS Adyar. We ask why? And we wonder why those criticising the TS are not given the same level of respect as was given J. Krishnamurti by Annie Besant, C. W. Leadbeateer and C. Jinarajadasa. The last one, C. Jinarajadasa, was in the reply mentioned in the above saying that J. Krishnamurti books was equal to selling books by other authors - even of the leading figures of the T.S. promote his books as if more important than others to read.
And when J. Krishnamurti admits that he do not know H. P. Blavatsky's teachings:
The members of TS must have felt betrayed, and wondered whether J. Krishnamurti at all in any manner understood the teachings given by the Masters through Blavatsky? The idea of ending the strife among the worlds religions through promulgation of theosophical teachings - and - comparative studies. The last something J. Krishnamurti can be said to have carefully avoided. And if he was in constant contact with the Masters, as mentioned by Radha Burnier in this article we are dealing with, why did have such a behaviour as a World Teacher?
Did the Master go so fundamentally wrong in their doctrines? I doubt it very very much.
Dr Annie Besant was old, and Krishnamurti himself said that for many years she had worked too much - constantly working for the Theosophical Society, for India's political freedom, and for many other causes, such as women's upliftment, the antivivisection movement to protect animals, and scouting. The number of causes she championed was amazing; nobody else could have done it. Krishnaji said that when the body became old, she failed to have the same kind of intellectual power that she had previously. So, when this group of people around her were saying all these things, she neither interfered nor put an end to it. My father, who was Annie Besant's secretary for some time, and who knew her well in the last years, said that she had a very trustful nature. She trusted all people who worked with her - that may have been one reason why she did not oppose these beliefs.
Although Krishnaji felt that the Society was going in the wrong direction, he was not able to stop this trend, and therefore left the Society. I believe Annie Besant was not so much upset as deeply concerned about how he would look after himself, for he had not been prepared to look after himself in the turmoil of the world. So she advised some members of the TS to look after him and work for him.
Here Radha Burnier seem clearly to admit that the calimed high innitiated Arhat Annie Besant was old and therefore made mistakes. So Radha Burnier here clearly favours J. Krishnamurti's views. So are we to conclude that it was Annie Besants fault that membership fell dramatically when J. Krishnamurti dissolved the Order of the Star in the East - and that is was not also J. Krishnamurti himself who was to blame - because his teaching replaced theosophical teachings with something in opposition to these same teachings? We will have to await an answer on that.
An afterthought, which we aught to consider because of this vauge response by Radha Burnier to the questions asked in this particular article is:
Maybe Radha Burnier are being hit by the same mistake herself, being old as she is and not able to honestly recognoise the problems she are psoing by writing such an unclear and even bad article being TS President and all?
I think the idea that he betrayed the Masters is ridiculous. My personal opinion is that he was in constant touch with the Masters. He knew far better what the Masters were than most of the people who talked much about the Masters and claimed to be their agents. According to Krishnaji, the mistake made in the TS at that time was that the sacred and holy were brought down to a personal and material level. Swami T. Subba Row objected even to HPB talking as much as she did about the Masters, because of the danger of degrading the concept of the Masters. God is said to be made in the image of man; similarly people attribute to the Masters what is familiar to themselves, but it has little to do with what they actually are: very holy, pure, wise people. Madame Blavatsky also made it clear that those who want to contact the Masters must rise to their level, it being impossible to bring them down to the worldly level. But the bringing down was what was happening. Krishnaji rejected the ideas about the Masters, but not the existence of liberated ones.
Ridiculous? Why is Radha Burnier then later saying that J. Krishnamurti "rejected the ideas about the Masters, but not the existence of liberated ones." And we ask "liberated" in what sense? - And we say H. P. Blavatsky never rejected the Masters existence. Reading Blavatsky's book the Key to Theosophy aught to tell people this.
So how can J. Krishnamurti be said to be in constant touch with the Masters, when disallowed the Master-Chela teachings. Teachings which the Master according Blavatsky used!
Radha Burnier wrote later in this article:
"Krishnaji did not talk about either the path or discipleship, because a disciple is supposed to obey; and obedience, particularly if it is blind, is a barrier to the development of true intelligence and intuition for which he used the word 'insight'. People get set ideas about the meaning of words, and perhaps he used different words to encourage listeners to examine the meaning afresh."
This is a very unclear explanation. We know, that J. Krishnamurti was against the idea of people having a Guru, and called then crutches. And when he as said, did not talk about discipleship, we can hard say that he recommended it, can we? He appearntly only recommended people listening to him and reading his books - being obedient to his words. While he created a very unclear atmosphere on whether he was the World Teacher of the Age. - Andwe all who know people on their fruits, we cannot honestly say that J. Krishnamurti was generating spritual fruits on a far higher level than a Sri Aurobindo, a Maharishien, a Vivekananda, or a Ramakrishna.
And now Radha Burnier seems to criticize HPB for talking too much about the Masters, when we know, that SubbaT. Row went wrong on the Path, and Master did no leave HPB. I think the Mahatma Letter received by Olcott on board the SS Shannon aught to have told Radha Burnier this years ago.
According to Pupul Jayakar's account of Krishnaji's life, when the 'process' was taking place, he sometimes said: 'They are here.' Who are the 'they'? 'They' were doing something to his brain, and so on. Even just before he died, it is reported that he remarked: 'I am ready to go. They are waiting for me.' Another side to the matter was that in the TS too much was made about where the Masters lived, what kind of colour of hair each one had, and that kind of thing. These details, even if accurate, concern only the outer appearance; the Master is really a state of consciousness. He may wear a certain body at some time, and another body at another time.
Thinking of the appearance and the physical body as the Master is completely wrong. HPB wrote that the people who say they want to contact the Master do not know what they are talking about, because the body is only a mask, not the real thing. This is true even in our case; the body is a mask, concealing a different reality. In the case of the Mahatmas, the reality is a certain level and quality of consciousness. Perhaps Krishnaji did not like reducing the Masters to these details, and thinking about them as being somewhat like ourselves.
So we can conclude C. W. Leadbeater was very wrong when publishing his book The Masters and the Path in 1925, where he described the Masters very carefully and in detail? How can an advanced man like C. W. Leadbeater make such a great mistake. C. W. Leadbeater who was chosen to be the one discovering J. Krishnamurti singlehandedly only two years afar he was deemed a person performing either conscious or unconscious black magic by Annie Besant the leader of the Esoteric Section and TS as well.
The number of problematic selfcontraditions in this article are climbing and climbing.
2. Did Krishnamurti keep in touch with the TS in some way?
After he left the TS, there were people in the TS who felt he was creating a disturbance, but there were also people in the TS who felt he was saying something profound and valuable. It is because of them that the ambience was created for Krishnaji to come back much later into contact with the TS. He himself told me that Mr Jinarâjadâsa (whom he called Râjâ) was always very nice to him. They did not have the same ideas; Bro. Râjâ's conventional Theosophy and Krishnaji's new presentation did not agree on many things. But he told me that Râjâ was always so affectionate, he would take books and other things for him, send his car and give him money. In those days, Krishnaji was not so well known. When my father became President, he deftly brought a change within the Society in favour of understanding what Krishnamurti was talking about.
So we can conclude that J. Krishnamurti's theosophical teachings was unconventional or not theosophical at all?
A house divided must fall. We all know this. Who went wrong? Radha Burnier is not answering this question. It seem Radha says it was Jinarâjadâsa who was wrong, and that her father put it right or at least more straight.
But J. Krishnamurti seemed to avoid keeping in touch because of disagreements.
The answer by Radha Burnier is strangley very unclear. How many times did Jinarâjadâsa send his car so they could meet? And where did it happen?
It is as if Radha Burnier very unpolitely only gives a half answer and holdning her knowledge back. The truth is, that J.Krishnamurti seldom spoke of the Theosohical Society unless requested to do so.
3. Did Krishnamurti deny the Mahatmas? Did he deny the path of discipleship?
He used a vocabulary which is not the traditional one. He did not use such words as 'the path'. In fact, he said 'Truth is a pathless land', and many people are still puzzled by it. But from the Theosophical point of view, every Monad is unique and, entering the material plane, follows its own unique path. The development that takes place in every individual is unlike any other - the whole of Nature is like this. Some years ago they said the thumb-print of every one of the millions of human beings is different and identifiable. Now they say they can identify a person by the teeth, the vocal cords, the hair, and so on. That kind of uniqueness exists even at the physical level. So each person has to proceed through his own understanding to the truth. Nobody else can say 'This is the path you must tread'.
Krishnaji did not talk about either the path or discipleship, because a disciple is supposed to obey; and obedience, particularly if it is blind, is a barrier to the development of true intelligence and intuition for which he used the word 'insight'. People get set ideas about the meaning of words, and perhaps he used different words to encourage listeners to examine the meaning afresh.
I have earliere on show, that J. Krishnamurti denied the Guru idea calling it the same as using cructhes. Here is one offcial quote on this. It was something J. Krishnamurti mentioned several times.
J. Krishnamurti said:
"Krishnamurti: Wouldn't it be helpful to begin with the crutches and later on throw them off? Our question is, why do you hold on to any strings when you can observe, learn from watching yourself the whole phenomenon of existence and go beyond it? Sir, you want to be helped; if I may point out most respectfully that is the greatest impediment. You have the idea somebody can teach you, therefore you begin right off with a fragmentation; this division is a fragmentation - you and the teacher, you and the enlightened being - obviously there is a division."
(Impossible Question, The Impossible Question Part II Chapter 4 4th Public Dialogue Saanen 5th August 1970 -
J. Krishnamurti said:
"So, a guru is not essential. On the contrary, a guru is an impediment. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. No guru can give you self-knowledge; and without self-knowledge, do what you will, act in any manner you like, follow any leader, any social or religious pattern - you are only creating further misery. But when through self-knowledge the mind is free of impediments and limitations, then truth comes into being."
(On Relationship - First Talk in Colombo 1949/50 -
No compare the contrast with H. P. Blavatsky's views:
"ENQUIRER. But why could not a man of well-balanced mind and singleness of purpose, one, say, of indomitable energy and perseverance, become an Occultist and even an Adept if he works alone?
THEOSOPHIST. He may; but there are ten thousand chances against one that he will fail. For one reason out of many others, no books on Occultism or Theurgy exist in our day which give out the secrets of alchemy or mediaeval Theosophy in plain language. All are symbolical or in parables; and as the key to these has been lost for ages in the West, how can a man learn the correct meaning of what he is reading and studying? Therein lies the greatest danger, one that leads to unconscious black magic or the most helpless mediumship. He who has not an Initiate for a master had better leave the dangerous study alone. Look around you and observe. While two-thirds of civilized society ridicule the mere notion that there is anything in Theosophy, Occultism, Spiritualism, or in the Kabala, the other third is composed of the most heterogeneous and opposite elements.
Some believe in the mystical, and even in the supernatural (!), but each believes in his own way. Others will rush single-handed into the study of the Kabala, Psychism, Mesmerism, Spiritualism, or some form or another of Mysticism. Result: no two men think alike, no two are agreed upon any fundamental occult principles, though many are those who claim for themselves the ultima thule of knowledge, and would make outsiders believe that they are full-blown adepts." (The Key to Theosophy, 2. ed. 1890, p. 21-22)
So I find it fair to say, that H. P. Blavatsky's views are the proper ones. Because that is what I myself have learned and experience as the truth. Yet, each Seeker has of course himself and herself to do a real honest effort and work with their own Selves and meditate when ready.
The idea of no-guru is only good so far as to say: Study first. Study hard and work with changing your throught-patterns while you remove bad and uncompassionate behaviours and bad habits. When you are ready, the guru or spiritual guide will come. But saying, that we should not live together with people in the world and learn from them and they from us is a bad idea. Just avoid blind beliefs in teachers - J. Krishnamurti and H. P. Blavatsky included. This must be proper theosophical teaching.
4. Some members of the TS say that Krishnamurti's work is not related to occultism, which was a word used by HPB and the Mahatmas.
What is occult is what is hidden. There are innumerable things which are hidden from our eyes, ears and other senses which have a limited range. A few hundred years ago, if you had turned the knob of an instrument in order to hear music flow from two thousand miles away, they would have called it magic, but now it is science.
When you understand Nature and her laws, more and more of the occult ceases to be so. But the so-called occult may also be what people do not know for themselves, but think they know. They may disseminate wrong information or falsehoods for the sake of gain. Therefore, in the TS we do not encourage too much interest in so-called occult things. Alice Bailey writes about the Rays. How many people know what they are and whether what she says is correct? It is best to keep an open mind on these questions. The same thing applies to Leadbeater, or Madame Blavatsky. We need not reject or accept what is said, but keep an open mind. Holding one's judgement in sus-pense is very important.
The Buddha's illustration of a poisoned arrow piercing a person's flesh must be recalled. Should he be dis-cussing from what direction the arrow came, who was the carpenter who made it, and at what velocity it flew? That would be absurd. He must first remove the arrow and heal the wound. So the Buddha did not talk about abstruse or occult things. Krishnamurti's approach was similar. He said, 'Your house is burning', meaning the world itself is in great danger. Should not attention be directed to this, and not to talking about the occult?
He did not allow people to distract themselves. But he was an en-lightened person who knew many things not known to us about the depths and mysteries of life.
In her answer Radha Burnier are not providing any examples on whether Krishanmuerti's teaching contained anything occult. This is problematic. And Radha Burnier says that TS "do not encourage too much interest in so-called occult things." !
We flatly deny this view. H. P. Blavatsky as well. The three obejects of the TS has every and all to do with this issue. Yet, the Seeker has to prepare himself or herself before such study aught to take place. A study most often undertaken by the help of a physical or non-physcial initiate.
Because H. P. Blavatsky said:
"Let them know at once and remember always, that true Occultism or Theosophy is the "Great Renunciation of SELF," unconditionally and absolutely, in thought as in action. It is ALTRUISM, and it throws him who practises it out of calculation of the ranks of the living altogether. "Not for himself, but for the world, he lives," as soon as he has pledged himself to the work. Much is forgiven during the first years of probation. But, no sooner is he "accepted" than his personality must disappear, and he has to become a mere beneficent force in Nature. There are two poles for him after that, two paths, and no midward place of rest. He has either to ascend laboriously, step by step, often through numerous incarnations and no Devachanic break, the golden ladder leading to Mahatmaship (the Arhat or Bodhisatva condition), or--he will let himself slide down the ladder at the first false step, and roll down into Dugpaship. . . ." (C.W. IX, p. 249 -
Because H. P. Blavatsky said:
"ATMA-VIDYA, a term which is translated simply "Knowledge of the Soul," true Wisdom by the Orientalists, but which means far more.
This last is the only kind of Occultism that any theosophist who admires "Light on the Path," and who would be wise and unselfish, ought to strive after. All the rest is some branch of the "Occult Sciences,", i.e. arts based on the knowledge of the ultimate essence of all things in the Kingdoms of Nature -- such as minerals, plants and animals -- hence of things pertaining to the realm of material nature, however invisible that essence may be, and howsoever much it has hitherto eluded the grasp of Science. Alchemy, Astrology, Occult Physiology, Chiromancy, exist in Nature and the exact Sciences -- perhaps so called, because they are found in this age of paradoxical philosophies the reverse -- have already discovered not a few of the secrets of the above arts. But clairvoyance, symbolized in India as the "Eye of Siva," called in Japan, "Infinite Vision," is not Hypnotism, the illegitimate son of Mesmerism, and is not to be acquired by such arts. All the others may be mastered and results obtained, whether good, bad, or indifferent; but Atma-Vidya sets small value on them. It includes them all and may even use them occasionally, but it does so after purifying them of their dross, for beneficent purposes, and taking care to deprive them of every element of selfish motive." (C.W. IX, p. 249 - http://www.katinkahesselink.net/occult.htm )
One cannot become a true Arhat without walking the Occult path. Being a Pratekya Buddhist or similar is not recommended.
5. What do you think Krishnamurti's feelings were towards the TS?
I think his feeling was friendly, which does not mean that he agreed with what TS members in general said and thought, because, as you know, even among mem-bers, there are all sorts of varying ideas since the TS stands for freedom of thought. Some people hold Theosophy is what Blavatsky wrote and nothing else. This is not different from the Muslim idea that Muhammed was the last and only prophet: 'After Muhammed, there is nothing further.' Anything other than Blavatsky is not Theosophy, or should be called pseudo-Theosophy. But others maintain that the wisdom that is Theosophy can come from many sources, in many ages. Even people who are not enlightened may say some things which are wise. So the only reasonable attitude is what HPB described as 'the open mind, the pure heart'. This needs to be encouraged.
Krishnaji spoke of unconditioning the mind. The TS works for universal brotherhood - without distinction of race, religion and all that divides people, every form of conditioning - the universal mind, the unconditioned mind. I think - I cannot of course speak for Krishnaji - that he appreciated some fundamental approaches of the Theosophical Society. On one occasion, he said to me with a smile: 'You know, I like the TS.'
Here I have to agree. J. Krishnamurti often talked about people aught to get enlightened and he never favoured any group before another when talking about the issue. And since Krishnamurti recommended meditation so that people might be able to be compassionate I cannot find any reason to think differently.
But when Radha Burnier says: ..."even among mem-bers, there are all sorts of varying ideas since the TS stands for freedom of thought.", I will have to disagree somewhat. The truth is "TS stands for freedom of thought." within certain limits. I think even Radha Burnier will agree with H. P. Blavatsky as well as me on this.
Because TS today are not allowing all and very kind of thought among members. Alice A. Bailey teachings are for instance not allowed as far as I know.
And yes: "Krishnaji spoke of unconditioning the mind."
But doing it without recommneding comparative studying and without allowing or promoting proper Master-Chelas relations is less fruitful than doing it. This I have shown by quoting H. P. Blavatsky, and I tell you know through my own knowledge that it is so. To know something does not necessarily mean that you have experienced it. We will never walk alone.
6. In your opinion, were the foundation of the TS and Krishnamurti's work part of the same plan of the Mahatmas, or were these two different things?
When C. W. Leadbeater saw Krishnaji for the first time, there were several people on the Adyar beach. Krishnaji was with his younger brother, and - probably due to malnutrition - looked dull, some people even thought sub-normal in intelligence. His younger brother was brighter and got good marks in school, which Krishnaji could not. He may have been too sensitive to bear what is called the brunt of life. But when Leadbeater saw him, he unhesitatingly said: 'This is a highly evolved soul, untainted by selfishness and in many incarnations he has had contact with the Masters.' After Leadbeater wrote to Annie Besant that the two motherless boys were not properly looked after, she made arrangements for them to be taken care of. She and Leadbeater felt that he would be the vehicle of the World Teacher. Even earlier, Annie Besant had been lecturing on the coming of the World Teacher. Before Krishnaji was discovered, another boy had been identified as the vehicle, so some said Leadbeater did not really know, which may not be true; he may have simply realized that he had made a mistake.
But when he saw Krishnaji he was absolutely certain and so was Annie Besant, and they did everything they thought fit for Krishnaji.
So Radha Burnier seem to agree upon that Leadbeater made a mistake by choosing more than one option or child for the role as the World Teacher to come. But she is uncertain.
We are on the contrary quite certain. Leadbeater made a mistake there, and we are of course quite uncertain about if J. Krishnamurti also was a mistaken idea given by Leadbeater, and later endorsed by a too hardworking
Annie Besant. And because he was so unreliable and appearnlty lying about his age, it seems to me and certianly also to others to be a strange thing that he was given the task by the Masters to be the one who singlehandedly discovered the World Teacher of the Age to come.
A World Teacher coming 50 years earlier than predicted by H. P. Blavatsky in her book The Secret Doctrine and elsewhere. And only predicted to be a Trochbearer of Truth - who would give "irrefutable proof" about the existence on Guota-Vidya. The last something we hardly can claim J. Krishnamurti did on any level higher than H. P. Blavatsky or a number of other Eastern teacher in the years 1875-1930.
One common idea which many people have is also wrong - that they said Krishnaji was the World Teacher. They did not say that. He was to be the vehicle of the World Teacher, and at some point his consciousness would blend with that of the World Teacher. On 12 January 1910, Annie Besant wrote to Leadbeater: 'It is definitely fixed that the Lord Maitreya takes this dear child's body. It seems a very heavy responsibility to guard and help it, so as to fit it for Him, as He said, and I feel rather overwhelmed . . . .' (Mary Lutyens, Years of Awakening, ch. I). In 1926, Krishnaji wrote to Leadbeater: 'I know my destiny and my work. I know with certainty that I am blending into the consciousness of the one Teacher, and that he will completely fill me.'
Yes, but is Radha Burnier here implying that J. Krishnamurti never lost his status as a vehicle past 1926? This seems unclear, what she thinks about this. And this is important to consider when answering the question posed.
How sad that Radha Burnier did'nt set the record straight, and told the truth about it in this article.
On one occasion Mrs Jayakar asked Krishnaji: 'If Theosophists had not dis-covered you, what would have happened?' He answered: 'I would have died.' She replied: 'No, you would not have died. You would have been like Ramana Maharshi, and people would have come to you.' Krishnaji said: 'No'; it sounded as if there was a plan and purpose ac-cording to which his father was brought to Adyar. If Krishnaji had remained in the circle of an orthodox Brâhman family, he may not have been able to feel at ease with the whole world nor, outside the TS, would he have had the necessary inter-national contacts. I am inclined to think that the course of his life was part of the Plan. It is said all the details of the Plan are not fixed in advance, but the general Plan was worked out.
Krishnaji had great admiration and love for Dr Annie Besant. She looked after him and spoke of him as somebody who would be a great teacher even when people laughed at her or upbraided her. Some of her friends in India told her: If you want to sponsor somebody, there are better boys than Krishnamurti. They were angry with her, but she did not change. Krishnaji himself related that at an important banquet in England, where liberal politicians like Lord Lansbury who supported India's freedom were present, Bernard Shaw taunted Annie Besant, who took Krishnaji with her. Shaw, who always made fun of everything, said: 'Annie, is this your little Messiah?', and everybody laughed. But she did not flinch. She did not care what other people's attitude was, because she was so certain that a great message would be given to the world through Krishnaji. He mentioned this particular incident and said she supported him unfailingly until the end.
A last comment. The funny thing is, that the endresult of J. Krishnamurti either being a vehicle for the World Teacher in the period 1925-1929 or so did'nt reveal any irrefutable proof about Gupta-Vidya. And we have C. W. Leadbeater saying that the coming had gone wrong and other comments of a similar kind.
>>> Leadbeater wrote in 1930:
"This is He who should come, and there is no need to look elsewhere; as I have said, I know that the World-Teacher often speaks through Krishnaji, but I also know that there are occasions when He does not."
C.W. Leadbeater, "Art Thou He That Should Come?" The Theosophist 51\9 (June 1930), p. 472.
>>> "I never said: I am the World Teacher; but now that I feel I am one with my Beloved, I say it."
Talk by Krishnamurti, August 2, 1927, quoted in Lutyens, p. 250.
>>> Annie Besant declared in 1927:
"The Divine Spirit has descended once more on a man, Krishnamurti, one who in his life is literally perfect, as
those who know him can testify... . The World Teacher is here.
"Annie Besant, "The Way of Sorrows and the Way of Happiness: The New Message" The Theosophist 48/7 (April 1927), p. 6d.
>>> "I had a talk with [Theosophist] Jinarajadasa, who staggered me by saying that the gathering at Eerde [in August 1927] had been a tragedy and a failure and had almost wrecked the Plan of the Brotherhood."
Lady Emily Lutyens, Candles in the Sun (London: Rupert Hart-Davis, 1957), p. 163.
>>> "C.W.L. declared privately when in Adyar in 1927 that 'The Coming had gone wrong.'"
Adrian G. Vreede, "An Attack on Bishop Leadbeater," The Liberal Catholic 34\7 (February 1964), p. 150.
>>> The clairvoyant G. Hodson said:
"These phenomena occurred during some few successive years, the events being so
marked that Krishnamurti himself thereafter changed the Objects of the Order of the
Star in the East from, in effect, "To prepare for the coming of the Lord" to "To serve
the World Teacher now that He is in our midst." I, myself, more than once heard
Krishnamurti affirm that the great Teacher was now here and that the "Coming" had
The only thing left for me is to say to you all Rahda Burnier included: I do not believe, (yet I will not today claim definitive knowledge), that J. Krishnamurti was the vehicle for the World Teacher, but for a brief moment or two. The actual coming can definitely be said to have gone wrong, if it ever was meant to be.
C. W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant was not clairvoyants from birth. H. P. Blavatsky was.
And H. P. Blavatsky said that she and the Masters expected the Torchbearer of Truth after the year 1975 and not like Annie Besant and CWL? after 1925.
I hold to the truth and state like H. P. Blavatsky: We shall know them on their fruits.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application