Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00153)

Dear David,
Following are some comments on points you have made about issues I cover 
rather thoroughly in the book THE INNER LIFE OF KRISHNAMURTI.  I believe you 
will find therein responses to almost all the issues you address here (the 
exception being the Steiner question, but evern this is also addressed, by 
implication):

In a message dated 4/17/00 4:27:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
ernesto@bmu.com.pe writes:

<< First, I had heard that A. Bessant said Krishnamurti was the reincarnation 
of Christus.  Now I hear that it was not what she said.   I would like to 
know wich is the source of the information about what Annie Bessant really 
said. >>

Besant absolutely NEVER said K "was the reincarnation of Christus."  Here's 
what she said:  She had been told by HPB and by her Master that the reason 
why the Theosophical Society was established by the perennial teachers was 
that it was to be the herald and harbinger of a new era for humanity.  HPB 
had said (according to AB) that major cycles would mature after 1897, and 
that at such critical times, there is ALWAYS an avataric manifestation, to 
provide the keynote teaching for the following few (or many) thousand years.  
This is, incidentally, THE REASON why this is called "the new age," & the 
reason why there is so much talk about the New Age movement, and the Age of 
Aquarius.  It all started with HPB.
According to both AB and C.W. Leadbeater, they were asked by the perennial 
teachers who started the theosophical movement to look for a boy of certain 
characteristics (a process not unlike that used in Tibet for centuries, to 
determine the incarnation of a new tulku).  They did that, & eventually CWL 
"discovered" K when the latter was 13 (& everyone who knew him was certain K 
was retarded & would die young, like all his siblings eventually did).  
Subsequent clairvoyant research, & presumably confirmation from their 
teachers, led CWL & AB to acknowledge K as THE VEHICLE through which the 
avataric manifestation would give the keynote teaching for the new era.
According to HPB (as quoted in the book), an avataric manifestation is a 
transformation in HUMAN consciousness.  We tend to think of it as "a person," 
presumably a very lofty one, "incarnating" (whatever that may mean).  But 
according to HPB, it is a grand moment for ALL of humanity.  The teaching is 
presumably intended to nudge into activity (to facilitate a hatching, if you 
will, of) that transformative moment.  It is not any teacher in particular 
that matters, in other words, but the teaching itself.  But neither AB nor 
CWL ever said K was "the reincarnation" of Christ.
 
<< Second, Leabeaterīs clairvoyance seems to be a delicated matter  ... 
exactly as if it where a matter of something like faith. >>

A great many people did accept CWL's clairvoyance & authority with a kind of 
finality not unlike blind faith.  This also led to a great deal of spiritual 
snobbery within the TS at the time ("I'm further along the Path than you, so 
you must do what I say").  These dangerous absurdities -- which we humans 
seem especially prone to -- do not however affect the issue in itself as to 
whether CWL was clairvoyant or not, and if so, how far his clairvoyance went. 
 As I noted in previous e-mails, if CWL was not clairvoyant, then no one else 
since his time could possibly be, either, since EVERYONE has been using CWL's 
very unique terminology & very singular way of making his descriptions (as 
discussed more carefully in THE INNER LIFE OF KRISHNAMURTI).  CWL was the 
first person in history to describe superphysical phenomena in the unique way 
that he did -- and everyone else has been using that language, ever since.  
To say, then, that CWL was not clairvoyant is equivalent to saying that no 
one else since his time could be clairvoyant, either.
In the book, I provide several items of EVIDENCE for CWL's clairvoyance, any 
one of which, by itself, would be sufficient to see that he was indeed 
clairvoyant.
 
<< It is also said that Rudolf Steiner was a clairvoyant, and it is known 
that he didnīt make Leadbeaterīs mistake about Krishnamurti. >>

It is not clear what you mean by CWL's "mistake about K."  My book documents, 
with facts & evidence, not with opinion, that there does not seem to have 
been any mistake at all about the most relevant declarations, at least 
according to Krishnamurti himself, and to evidence suggested by the nature of 
his insights & observations.  So I would truly appreciate it if you can show, 
by making specific references, exactly where you think I've gone wrong.
 
<< It is also known that Rudolf Steiner had different teachings about the 
other planes, and the same Masters.  So, what kind of reason do we have to
 believe in CWLīs clairvoyance instead of Steinerīs one?.  >>

I happen to have the highest possible respect for much of the work Steiner 
did.  I'm particularly impressed with the Waldorf Schools, and the biodynamic 
method of organic farming he devised, both of which have become major 
influences in world culture.  I'm also impressed with numerous other aspects 
of his work, such as the fact that he was just about the first person to 
truly make Nietzsche a world-wide figure (other theosophists had befriended 
Nietzsche when he was in his prime, in the 1880s, but Steiner, in several 
articles & a book on the subject, brought him into wide prominence).
Unfortunately, so far as I'm aware, we do not have any evidence for Steiner's 
clairvoyance, the way we do for CWL's.  Personally, I do not think this is 
necessarily a sufficient reason for discounting altogether RS's "clairvoyant" 
statements.  The kind of clairvoyance we're speaking of here implies research 
into dimensions of THAT WHICH IS which are profoundly different from the 
physical world.  I can conceive of 10 different clairvoyants looking at "the 
same thing," & coming up with 10 different descriptions.  You can also pick 
any ten persons, & get them to describe any physical scene, & you will also 
get 10 different descriptions; so this is not merely a "clairvoyant" issue.
CWL constantly, in almost every book he ever published, admonished people NOT 
to accept what he said in such books as if it were GOSPEL TRUTH.  He repeated 
(interminably, it may seem to some of his readers) over & over that he was 
just pioneering in a new line of research, & that other sensitives -- of his 
& future times -- should review  what he had seen, & correct it wherever 
necessary.  If many of his contemporaries did not heed this advice, I think 
CWL can hardly be blamed for that.
This is not to say clairvoyance is of no value whatsoever.  It can be used 
with very beneficial effects, for instance, for healing & diagnosis, & in 
other areas.
CWL also suggested numerous times that it was not wise to look for the most 
outlandish explanation for things that happen (clairvoyance being a specific 
example he used).  He always said one should seek for the most common-sense 
explanation to events, even when those events seemed strange.  Only after 
discarding all possible "reasonable" explanations according to common sense, 
should one even consider "occult" explanations.  Even then, CWL said, one 
must do so with great tentativeness.  You can find this sort of advice in 
almost every single book he ever published.  So he was not promoting the kind 
of blind faith that so many were (and still are) so very anxious to fulfil.
Unfortunately, as pointed out above, the jury is still out on Steiner's 
clairvoyance, so far as actual evidence is concerned.  There are other 
problems of a rather serious nature with Steiner's work, as I see it.  But we 
need not go into that now.

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.