[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

RE: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel

Jan 11, 2012 10:16 AM
by Govert Schuller

Dear Paulo,


I can answer some of your questions. 


K did indeed have a 25-year long relationship (1932-1957) with Rosalind
Williams Rajagopal, the wife of his manager/publisher/friend Rajagopal. 


K?s friend and discussion partner David Bohm was indeed dismayed about that
when he found out.  Their split had multiple causes, including K?s
disappointment in the fact that Bohm, after all the intense discussion
they?ve had, did not fundamentally change, and including the fact that Bohm
had depressive tendencies. 


It?s an open question whether K was hypocritical in this regard. He did not
openly advocate celibacy, but rather questioned the way the ego makes sex
into something problematic. Privately he apparently advocated celibacy as a
condition to intensify one?s energy in order to transform. It could be
argued that, because K was already transformed, it was ok for him to engage
in sex. But then the question is: did he thereby prevent Rosalind from
transforming by releasing her kundalini energies through the base chakra
instead of directing it towards the crown chakra. He did arguably something
transformative with Vimala Thaka when K laid hands on her to help her heal
from a problematic condition with her ears. She claims, in my opinion
convincingly, that she went through the experience of totally overcoming her


After 1925, when the problematic ?Huizen manifestations? occurred,  there
was a fair amount of mutual tension building up between K and several
Theosophists.  The exact sequence and context of personal actions and
statements in their relationship during the crucial years of 1925-1935 is
not yet firmly established. Don?t take anyone?s statements at face value and
take into account that many Theosophists had very diverse perceptions of
Krishnamurti. The TS, as an organization, never repudiated K. Actually, when
Besant re-opened the ES, it was with the understanding that K would be
regarded as the ?vehicle? by its members. I have no knowledge if that policy
was really adopted and, if so, for how long, or if it might still be in
place. Besant also ordered that a room at Adyar would always be kept ready
for K. 


If one would look at the development of the attitude, both private and
official, of the different PTS?s to K then maybe a certain pattern might be
visible. My impression would as follows: Besant: privately close, officially
close; Arundale: privately hostile; officially cool; Jinarajadasa: privately
close; officially neutral to warm; Sri Ram: privately not known (to me);
officially warm; John Coats: not sure; Radha Burneir: privately close;
officially close. So it looks that only under Arundale there was a cooling,
which is understandable, because it was also mutual with K making some of
his harshest statements about Theosophy and the TS in 1933-4 just before
Arundale became PTS. 


The reasons why the TS gives K so much play are varied. Some are genuinely
convinced that he was the successful World Teacher, some think he has a
really important message regardless of his metaphysical status and some
might find him a welcome non-esoteric alternative to (for some) problematic
Blavatskyan occultism. The semi-official TS Adyar party line (my words) is
to accept K as the expected teacher and it is possible that the official and
very influential policy of the ES is, and has been since its re-opening, to
also regard him as such.  It?s possible therefore that some Theosophists
will regard the 1929 radicalization of K as the partial result of something
of a failure on the side of the TS. K himself has clearly presented that
perception to his friends in the following statement: 


"Mrs.Besant intended the land at Adyar [the T.S. international headquarters]
to be meant for the teaching. The Theosophical Society has failed, the
original purpose is destroyed." My own interpretation of the sentence is as
follows: "Mrs.Besant [and Blavatsky] intended [subscribed to the view that]
the land at Adyar [the Theosophical Society] to be meant [to be available]
for the teaching [for the teacher]. The Theosophical Society has failed [did
not to cooperate], the original purpose [the mission of the Theosophical
Society to herald and aid the teacher] is destroyed [has not been


It?s an open question how many Theosophists would ascribe to that perception
and act on it ,but it is certainly a trend. John Algeo has in my view
correctly questioned that tendency as it might be a subtle new orthodoxy
contrary to the basic non-dogmatic policy of the TS. 


Thanks for pulling this out of me. Always good to get back to contemplate
some very fundamental issues in the history of the TS (Adyar). 




Peat, F. David. Infinite Potential: The Life and Times of David Bohm
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996)


Martin Gardner ?David Bohm and Jiddo Krishnamurti? Skeptical Inquirer, July,


Geoffrey D. Falk. Stripping the Gurus. Chapter V. THE KRINSH (JIDDU



From: [] On
Behalf Of paulobaptista_v
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel



Cass, Govert and Morten,

Thank you all for the replies. I was not surprised by your comments, tough.
Always had the impression that K had little contact with the original
theosophical material.

However, I have two further questions:

1.A theosophist has a text in his website, claiming that David Bohm was
dismayed when he found out that K had engaged in a relationship with his
best friend's wife. This fact (?) is described in the book ""Lives in the
Shadow With J. Krishnamurti", Radha Rajagopal Sloss, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1991,". Is this story true? Has someone discredited it? Is
it a case of "do as I say, not as I do"?

2. For me, as a non-affiliated theosophist, it is a bit difficult to
understand the relevance that K´s writings have in the TS. I am more or less
familiar with the history of the TS until the death of Besant. From 1933 to
the present, I only know the names of the Presidents. What I want to know is
if K was repudiated by the TS after he dissolved the Order of the Star of
the East. If yes, when did he become so popular for the leaders of the TS?
Only with Radha, or before? Why does the TS mention so often K? Does the TS
consider that K did the right thing in 1929 and that the leaders of the TS
(Besant and Leadbeater) were wrong?

I really would like to know your opinion about Max Heindel (I discovered
that Besant´s daughter became an affiliate of the Rosicrucian Order Crotona
Fellowship after the death her mother).

I think some of my questions can create disagreements. That's not my
purpose, I can assure you. Some time after my first contact with theosophy
(HPB writings) I found out that about Leadbeater, Alice Bailey,
Krishnamurti, etc.. I tought that it was more or less the same thing, that
they were all connected with theosophy, with minor differences in their
points of view. I bought all their books, which are hard to find, here in

I am satisfied with the conclusions I arrived concerning Bailey, Leadbeater
and Besant, but I still have some doubts about K.


--- In <> ,
Cass Silva <silva_cass@...> wrote:
> All he probably received was Leadbeaters take on theosophy. Â 
> cass
> >________________________________
> > From: M. Sufilight <global-theosophy@...>
> >To: <>  
> >Sent: Saturday, 7 January 2012 12:02 AM
> >Subject: Re: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel
> > 
> >
> >Â  
> >Dear PB and friends
> >
> >My views are:
> >
> >J. Krishnamurti said that he never read Blavatsky's teachings in 1934 in
the below article. And in fact he said that he was ignorant.
> >
> >__________________________________________________________
> >
> >Try the below article, where I have quoted a few excerpts...
> >
id=4435&w=Blavatsky> &chid=4435&w=Blavatsky
> >
> >Verbatim Reports of Talks and Answers to Questions by Krishnamurti
Auckland, New Zealand 1934
> >Talk to Theosophists, Auckland
> >
> >J. Krishnamurti answered the Questioner about H. P. Blavatsky:
> >
> >"Questioner: What is your attitude to the early teachings of Theosophy,
the Blavatsky type? Do you consider we have deteriorated or advanced?
> >Krishnamurti: I am afraid I do not know, because I do not know what
Madame Blavatsky' s teachings are. Why should I? Why should you know of
someone else's teachings? You know, there is only one truth, and therefore
there is only one way, which is not distant from the truth; there is only
one method to that truth, because the means are not distinct from the end.
> >
> >Now you who have studied Madame Blavatsky' s and the latest Theosophy, or
whatever it is, why do you want to be students of books instead of students
of life? Why do you set up leaders and ask whose teachings are better? Don't
you see? Please, I am not being harsh, or anything of that kind. Don't you
see? You are Christians; find out what is true and false in Christianity -
and you will then find out what is true. Find out what is true and false in
your environment with all its oppressions and cruelties, and then you will
find out what is true. Why do you want philosophies? Because life is an ugly
thing, and you hope to run away from it through philosophy. Life is so
empty, dull, stupid, ignominious, and you want something to bring
romanticism into your world, some hope, some lingering, haunting feeling;
whereas, if you really faced the world as it is, and tackled it, you would
find it something much more, infinitely greater than any philosophy, greater
> than any book in the world, greater than any teaching or greater than any
> >
> >We have really lost all sense of feeling, feeling for the oppressed, and
feeling for the oppressor. You only feel when you are oppressed. So
gradually we have intellectually explained away all our feelings, our
sensitiveness, our delicate perceptions, until we are absolutely shallow;
and to fill that shallowness, to enrich ourselves, we study books. I read
all kinds of books, but never philosophies, thank goodness. You know, I have
a kind of shrinking feeling - please, I put it mildly - when you say, ``I am
a student of philosophy,'' a student of this, or that; never of everyday
action, never really understanding things as they are. I assure you, for
your happiness, for your own understanding, for the discovery of that
eternal thing, you must really live; then you will find something which no
word, no picture, no philosophy, no teacher can give."
> >
> ><--- and also earlier in the article the following --->
> >
> >"Questioner: If a person finds the Theosophical Society a channel through
which he can express himself and be of service, why should he leave the
> >
> >Krishnamurti: First of all, let us find out if it is so. Don't say why he
should or should not leave; let us go into the matter.
> >
> >What do you mean by a channel through which he can express himself? Don't
you express yourself through business, through marriage? Do you or don't you
express yourself when you are working every day for your livelihood, when
you are bringing up children? And as it shows that you do not express
yourself there, you want a society in which to express yourself. Is that not
it? Please, I hope I am not giving some subtle meaning to all this. So you
say, ``As I am not expressing myself in the world of action, in the everyday
world, where it is impossible to express myself, therefore I use the Society
to express myself.'' Is it so, or not? I mean, as far as I understand the
> >
> >How do you express yourself? Now, as it is, at the expense of others.
When you talk about self-expression, it must be at the expense of others.
Please, there is true expression, with which we will deal presently, but
this idea of self-expression indicates that you have something to give, and
therefore the Society must be created for your use. First of all, have you
something to give? A painter, or a musician, or an engineer, or any of these
fellows, if he is really creative, does not talk about self-expression; he
is expressing it all the time; he is at it in the outside world, at home, or
in a club. He does not want a particular society so that he can use that
society for his self-expression. So when you say ``self-expression,'' you do
not mean that you are using the Society for giving forth to the world a
particular knowledge or something which you have. If you have something, you
give it. You are not conscious of it. A flower is not conscious of its
> beauty. Its loveliness is ever present."
> >
> >- - -
> >
> >So I find it safe to conclude that J. Krishnamurti was not a Theosophist.
Comparative studying was apperently not something he would recommend.
> >
> >_____________________
> >
> >Try also this are interested in the truth about the
> >
> >J. Krishnamurti, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society by Radha Burnier
(The Theosophist - 2005)
> >(I disagree with her to a certain extend, and have written about it here
on Theos-talk in 2009 - - Perhaps
especially.....Theosophist Magazine September 1932-December 1932, p. 378-379
---- That is why I tend to recommend - comparative studying of the Science
of Psychology - and especially the psychological Science of Subtle Mind
Control become a new Object of the Theosophical Society added to the
comparative study object of the TS constitution. Preferably the - original -
> >
> >As Blavatsky said with regard to the ORIGINAL PROGRAME of THE
> >"Union is strength. It is by gathering many theosophists of the same way
of thinking into one or more groups, and making them closely united by the
same magnetic bond of fraternal unity and sympathy that the objects of
mutual development and progress in Theosophical thought may be best
achieved. "Self-culture" is for isolated Hatha Yogis [OR GURU's ARE A
"CRUTCH" FOLLOWERS; M. Sufilight], independent of any Society and having to
avoid association with human beings; and this is a triply distilled
> >
> >
> >To follow Krishnamurti's use of words a little...
> >Loveliness is ever present in a Flower even if you do not see it.
> >Even when you are igorant or clouded in your consciousness to the fact.
> >The same with all other things. Loveliness all around you.
> >
> >M. Sufilight
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: paulobaptista_v 
> >To: <>  
> >Sent: Friday, January 06, 2012 12:25 AM
> >Subject: theos-talk Questions about K and Max Heindel
> >
> >I have a couple of questions about Krishnamurti and Heindel that I would
like to ask:
> >
> >1-I have read a biography about K written by Mary Lutyens. I don´t
recall her mentioning Blavatsky. The question here is: did K ever read Isis,
the SD, the "Key" or the "Voice of Silence"? Was he familiar with the
history or with the literary output of the TS between 1875 and 1891?
> >Could he have been traumatized with the "Avatar" novel to a point where
he rejected those writings, without having the full knowledge of them?
> >
> >2-I have some of Max Heindel books, for example "The rosicrucian
cosmo-conception", but never had the time to read them. I know that Heindel
praised Blatavsky's work (but so did Alice Bailey) 
> >I very much agree with the criticisms that Cleather and Crump made to
Bailey's work, it certainly appears to exist a strong interference of
christianity in her work and there are many differences in comparison with
the teachings of HPB/Masters. What I ask is if we can establish some sort of
parallel with Heindel's books, because in them we detect a very strong
emphasis in that sort of language we usually find in the Christian World.
For instance, Annet Rich, by Heindel's request, wrote a book called "Christ
or Buddha?" where in the introduction she says that the most advanced
religion is Christianity, the "most sublime form of worship".
> >
> >PB
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG -
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4735 - Release Date: 01/10/12

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application