Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00092)

>Even a 1000 scholars cannot know what is true. They can all be wrong.
>Whatever concept we have of Masters are just our ideas and perhaps
>speculation of them. One who is searching for Truth is going to wherever
>that search is going to lead us, if we are serious about Truth and
>everything else is only secondary. As regards some who think he rebelled
>against his Guru, only Krishnamurti can know whether this is true or not.
>Again, Sri Ram, one of the past presidents of TS, once commented the World
>Teacher did not the way we expected. Only time can tell, as I already had
>stated.

What would be the tell tale signs you are looking for in the future? The
Masters coming out and giving their approval? A consensus among
theosophists? A successful world wide movement based on K's teachings? I
think we can get pretty far already by comparing K's teachings with HPB and
by listening to what I believe the Masters already gave as evaluation
through Scott, Anrias, possibly Ballard and Prophet. I think they are
right, not because I merely believe them and give them authority, but
because their words resonate with me powerfully as true after having spend
many years intimately with K's teachings on a day to day basis.

>On another note, in the 1986 Convention Lecture, Radha Burnier, President
>of TS(Adyar) stated that every spiritual organization like TS did not
>survive over a century and that the fact TS has survived a century can be
>attributed to Krishnamurti's approach of questioning every belief and idea
>and concept we hold. This coming from Mrs. Burnier who has been at the
>center of action at Adyar all her life must be based on her personal
>experience and observation.

Well there might be another reading of the events: CWL for example was
afraid that some actions by Annie Besant and Krishnamurti could have
destroyed the TS. Annie Besant for example came out into the open in 1925
with--according to CWL--inauthentic messages from Masters coming through
Wedgewood. In these messages the Masters were appointing apostles and were
giving all kind of other instructions. K did not buy them, nor did CWL, but
they did not voice their dissent openly. CWL thought also that many of the
statements made by K from 1927 on were very subversive of not only the
project of the 'coming', but also of the TS. Personally I think that K's
failure to qualify for vehicle for Maitreya and his denouncements of the
Masters and theosophy, created so much confusion within theosophical circles
that it started the decline of the TS. That the TS did not fold completely
is not due to K challenging beliefs and concepts, but to the fact that it
was already a viable organization with a body of very relevant literature
and the backing of the Masters. Rather than vitalizing the TS I am afraid
that the teachings of K sap its strength. The TS is not aware of this,
because it is still in a state of shock and denial regarding what really
happened. I apologize for this statement for it is not a nice one and looks
a little 'ad hominem.'
Even so I do think it is an important idea.

Govert