Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya
Jun 02, 2000 09:08 AM
by Govert W. Schuller
Dear David,
Thanks for bringing up these issues about K and Maitreya.
I picked out some of your comments and will try to elaborate.
DAVID: "I think that, the obvious disctintion between the two
Maitreyas, requires some kind of proof from Govert, too. Or at least, some
commentary."
GOVERT: My belief that the real Maitreya communicated through David Anrias is
based on the following intricately connected factors:
1) Cyril Scott presented Anrias as a genuine contact with the Masters.
2) Based on his 'Initiate' books and his book on music I consider Scott himself
a contact of the Masters.
3) The reasonable and balanced theosophical nature of the remarks both Scott's
'Sir Thomas' and Anrias' Maitreya make about K and his teachings.
4) The effectiveness of Anrias' portraits for meditation, or just inspiration.
5) The consensus of almost all the Masters' emissaries that the project with K
was genuine but unsuccesful. (IMO: CWL, Hodson, Ballard, Prophet, Anrias, Scott)
6) The impossibilty to reconcile HPB's deeper teachings on the path with those
of K and the gravity of the implications when these differences are reasoned to
their logical conclusion.
Meanwhile I'm also awaiting a book on K by Jean Overton Fuller in which she
would elaborate on her ideas pertaining to Scott's and Anrias' views on K. I
have been communicating with her on this topic before and posted our exchange on
Alpheus. See: http://www.alpheus.org/fuller.htm.
DAVID: "As I see the difference betwen these two points of view (Aryel and
Govert´s), the problem must be resolved entirely in the plane of doctrine, not
in the plane of
biographies."
GOVERT: In the case of K and theosophy I regard endnotes 5. and 7. of my paper
as the two life buoys to extract oneself from K's fascinating teachings. (See:
http://www.alpheus.org/onk.htm) HPB's contrasting of correct esoteric
Vedanta and erroneous exoteric Vedanta are almost completely parallel to
comparing theosophy to K. So far I have not received any comments on these
points of doctrine, though I find them most important.
DAVID: "I think it wold be interesting to hear Aryel´s commentary of this paper,
and to know Govert´s proofs or reasons that could confirm the identity of the
Masters
mentioned here."
GOVERT: I met Aryel a couple of months ago at Wheaton and befriended him. When I
met him he already was busy formulating a response to the paper. I'm sure in due
course we'll hear from him. As for my proofs of the identity of all the Masters
quoted (Kuthumi, 'Sir Thomas,' Maitreya, El Morya), it boils down to the
question whether the emissaries
representing them (Scott, Anrias, Ballard, Prophet) are genuine. Again I can
only give some factors which together make a complex argument.
1) Ballard was apoached by Saint Germain in 1930 just one year after K's
irreversible disconnection with the world teacher project by dissolving the
Order of the Star in 1929. No coincidence in my view.
2) The for me convincing content, vibration and transformative effects of the
messages coming from these emissaries.
3) The above mentioned considerations regarding Scott and Anrias.
4) The explanation that the sometimes contradictory teachings coming from the
different emissaries are due to their own strongly held opinions, which color
the communications.
5) The particular logic of the successive events from HPB to CWL/AB to K to
Ballard to Innocente to Prophet. Here I see the period 1875 till 1929 (the
founding of the TS till the dissolution of the OSE) as one unit, and the period
1930 till now (Saint Geramain's contacting of Ballard till the messengership now
of Monroe and Carolyn Shearer) as another unit.
6) The insights gained from explanations by later messengers about the ideas and
behavior of former messengers and what the Masters tried to accomplish. (AB on
HPB, Anrias on AB and K, Scott on K, Prophet on K and Ballard, etc.)
7) The idea that the Masters will keep on fielding messengers to keep open a
line of communication with humanity.
There are many more considerations which bear on the subject, but these seem to
be some of the major ones. They are all part of a whole, which admittedly is my
own construct or thesis, but is nevertheless for me most reasonable and
satisfactory. It incorporates the existence of the Masters, their messengers,
the basics of theosophy, progressive revelation, an explanation of K's stature
as an important teacher, and many more things on which we probably all agree.
Govert
----- Original Message -----
From: ernesto <ernesto@bmu.com.pe>
To: <theos-talk@theosophy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World On the Coming of maitreya
Dear Tood:
You wrote:
>
> If I remember correctly, Maitreya said that Krishnamurti was an ideal
> disciple. His disciplined thought process was exceptional.
>
> Of course, there was much talk about the fact that Krishnamurti was often
> over-shadowed by Maitreya during many of his lectures. Krishnamurti spoke
> of the Masters and was very much aware of Maitreya.
>
I have been reading what Govert Schuller, a member of this list, wrote about K's
teachings, and also what he informs us about the Maitreya's opinion on K´s
teachings.
The Maitreya that you are talking about, evidently, is not the one who is
mentioned by Govert. We asked you for proofs, and you answered (tough answer is
still being evaluated). I think that, the obvious disctintion between the two
Maitreyas, requires some kind of proof from Govert, too. Or at least, some
commentary.
It is not only a matter of who of these two pwople is Maitreya, if any, but
also
a matter of teachings, as we will see.
The paper of Govert (reflections and notes from the Masters about K´s teachings)
differs considerably from Aryel Sanat´s view of K's theachings, too. As I see
the difference betwen these two points of view (Aryel and Govert´s), the problem
must be resolved entirely in the plane of doctrine, not in the plane of
biographies.
In my personal opinion, after reading Govert´s paper, how could we think that
K's
teachings were inspired in the Pure Doctrine? How could we think that K´s
techings helps us to discover the real Theosophy?. Theosophy seems, in very
important matters, CLEARLY OPPOSITE to K's teachings.
I repeat that it is not a matter of boigraphy, but a matter of doctrines. And
FACTS (as Aryel Sanat likes to say) of what K and HPB (and the Masters,
Govert?)
said. There are K's and HPB's books to compare. I suppose these are FACTS.
In a previous mail, Govert mentioned the web page where we could find his
quotations on the matter of K´s teachings. As he mentiones his web page, and as
that web page is of public access, I reproduce it now:
GOVERT SCHULLER. "Krishnamurti: An Esoteric View of his Teachings"
A question which might interest many Theosophists is what Blavatsky and the
Masters might have
thought about the teachings of Krishnamurti. Although Blavatsky died
before Krishnamurti was
born, she fortunately left some writings which are helpful in determining
on what points her
teachings agree and disagree with those of Krishnamurti. The focus will
be
on their differences
because some disagreements pertain directly to the foundations of
Krishnamurti's teachings.(1)
For example, Blavatsky stresses that one cannot pass over even one step on
the path to higher
consciousness (2), yet Krishnamurti summarily rejects not only a path of
graduated levels in
attaining truth (3), but also the very existence of a higher self to unite
with.(4) Furthermore,
Blavatsky makes it clear that a Guru plays an essential part in one's
mastery of higher
consciousness (5), while Krishnamurti repudiates the role of a spiritual
teacher.(6)
The differences even take a dramatic turn when it becomes clear that
Blavatsky seriously warns
about the kind of philosophy Krishnamurti teaches. She writes that certain
doctrines in exoteric
Vedantism--which are very similar to Krishnamurti's teachings--might have
the effect of
disconnecting the soul or the personal self from its higher source, the
higher self.(7) This in turn
might cause the 'second death' of the soul, which is like an implosion of
consciousness into
nothingness (8) as opposed to the 'second birth' of the soul when she
expands into divinity by first
uniting with the higher self and ultimately with the divine self. These
differences are not just
philosophical and void of spiritual relevance. From an esoteric point of
view they are of great
significance.
Aside from the serious and grave warnings inferred from Blavatsky's
writings, the Masters
themselves made some specific comments on Krishnamurti's teachings. Lord
Maitreya, for
example, pointed out that Krishnamurti made a mistake in assuming that
anyone could reach his
level of consciousness immediately.(9) An English Master indicated that
Krishnamurti is teaching
an erroneous version of Advaita Vedanta (10), confirming indeed what was
gleaned from
Blavatsky. Furthermore, this Master warned for some serious dangers in
Krishnamurti's teachings,
notably his rejection of an esoteric system of spiritual evaluation and
his
invitation to intense
meditation without occult protection.(11) According to this Master,
engaging in Krishnamurti's brand
of Advaitism might lead to hypocrisy and self-delusion.(12)
Krishnamurti's
former Guru, Kuthumi,
likewise expressed a stern warning about the consequences of his
philosophy.(13) Finally, Geoffrey
Hodson, a prominent Theosophist and clairvoyant pupil of the Masters,
accuses Krishnamurti of
circular reasoning (14) and intellectual arrogance.(15) Again, it has to
be stressed that these errors
are not just a matter of intellectual interest without spiritual
consequences. The very health, even
survival, of one's spiritual being is involved here.
Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurti's suggestion of a profound
fundamental transformation of
the human consciousness, it has to be pointed out that Krishnamurti did
not
arrive at that level of
consciousness by way of his own proposed instantaneous 'non-method.'(16)
He arrived there solely
by treading first the path of initiation under a Master (17)--going almost
to its final conclusion--then
stepped aside, and denounced the whole method.(18) Furthermore, Vimala
Thakar, the only one
who executed his kind of transformation in a credible way (19)--and as
such
could prove its
feasability--did not arrive there by his proposed 'non-method' either.
Instead, she transformed
because Krishnamurti acted as Guru to her. She first gradually acquired
an
experimental
understanding of his erroneous brand of Advaita Vedantism and then
Krishnamurti, while laying
hands on her for healing an auditory ailment, initiated her into his
rebellious state of
consciousness.(20) To quote Blavatsky, applying Krishnamurti's
'non-method' is "like destroying a
bridge over an impassable chasm; The traveler can never reach the goal on
the other shore."(21)
The foregoing does not imply that there are no truthful and salutary
insights to be found in
Krishnamurti's teachings. He exhorts people to think for themselves (22)
and to change in a
fundamental way (23); he skillfully diagnoses certain dangers of the human
ego or synthetic self (24);
and he invokes with compassion a sense of urgency about the dangerous
situation mankind is
in.(25) But these pearls have to be found in a sea of errors. If the
foundations of his teachings are
erroneous then also its superstructure. A well-grounded Theosophical
conception of human nature
and a mastery of the "abstruse difficulties of Indian metaphysics"(26) are
indispensable to catch
these pearls. Even then, one might easily trip over the pearls and land
in
the mire of Krishnamurti's
misconceptions. Due to the deceptive, even mesmerizing properties of
Krishnamurti's
teachings--notwithstanding the apparent awakening and helpful qualities
they have--one might not
even be aware of it.
In the same way that Krishnamurti's teachings can have a temporary
beneficial effect upon certain
individuals, a civilization based on his teachings might be successful in
its first stages of
growth.(27) But, in the end, if not propped up or saved by esoteric
corrections and guidance, it will
falter, break down and disintegrate. It will never have the chance to
develop into a Golden Age,
because it rejects the Wisdom Religion.(28) Parallel to this notion is the
idea that an individual will
find the opposite of enlightenment if he rejects the age-old path of
graded
initiations.
© Govert Schüller 1997
HOME
Endnotes
1.
At the same time it is an undeniable fact that Theosophy and
Krishnamurti have much in common. So
much even that some Theosophists consider Krishnamurti's teachings a
modern expression of the ageless
Wisdom Religion. In many respects both are also very close to
Vedantism, especially the monist (Advaita)
version.
The likeness between Krishnamurti's teachings and Vedantism, albeit
Blavatsky's understanding of it, will
become hopefully clearer in endnotes 5 and 7, in which Blavatsky
contrasts esoteric and exoteric
interpretations of Vedanta. The esoteric interpretation is
Theosophical and the exoteric interpretation is
similar to Krishnamurti's position. Endnote 10 contains the explicit
remarks of a Master arguing that
Krishnamurti is indeed teaching Advaita Vedanta.
About the likeness between Theosophy and Advaita Vedanta, Blavatsky
states that "in the Esoteric
philosophy [i.e. Theosophy], which reconciles all these systems...
the
nearest exponent... is the Vedanta
as expounded by the Advaita Vedantists."
H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Los Angeles: The Theosophy
Company, 1964), Vol. I, p. 55.
For more of Blavatsky on Advaita see H.J. Spierenberg, The Vedanta
Commentaries of H.P.Blavatsky
(San Diego: Point Loma Publications, 1992), pp. 4-5.
Return to Text
2.
"No single rung of the ladder leading to knowledge can be skipped. No
personality [personal self or soul]
can ever reach or bring itself into communication with Atmâ [divine
self], except through Buddhi-Manas
[higher self]..."
H.P. Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky: A
Synthesis of Science, Philosophy
and Religion (Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1980), p.
414.
Return to Text
3.
"This idea of a gradual process, this idea of gradual psychological
evolution of man is very gratifying... .
This gradual concept, which psychologically is generally called
evolution, seems to me utterly false."
J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti (Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt, 1992), Vol. XVII, p.
67.
Return to Text
4.
"Most of us do not want to know what we are. We invent the higher
self, the supreme self, the atma, and
all the innumerable ideas, to escape from the reality of what we
are--the actual everyday, every-minute
reality of what we are. And we do not know what we are from day by
day, and on that we impose
something which thought has bred as the atma, which tradition has
handed over as the higher self."
J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti (Dubuque, IA:
Kendall/Hunt, 1992), Vol. XIII, p.
151.
Return to Text
5.
Blavatsky wrote:
"There is a great difference between an Avatara and a Jivanmukti:
one,
as already stated, is an illusive
appearance, Karma-less, and having never before incarnated; the
other,
the Jivanmukta, is one who
obtains Nirvana by his individual merits. To this expression again an
uncompromising, philosophical
Vedantin would object. He might say that as the condition of the
Avatara and the Jivanmukta are one and
the same state, no amount of personal merit, in howsoever many
incarnations, can lead its possessor to
Nirvana. Nirvana, he would say is actionless; how then can any action
lead to it? It is neither a result nor a
cause, but an ever-present, eternal Is, as Nagasena defined it. Hence
it can have no relation to, or concern
with, action, merit, or demerit, since these are subject to Karma.
All
this is very true, but still to our mind
there is an important difference between the two. An Avatara is; a
Jivanmukta becomes one. If the state of
the two is identical, not so are the causes which lead to it. An
Avatara is a descent of a God into an
illusive form; a Jivanmukta, who may have passed through numberless
incarnations and may have
accumulated merit in them, certainly does not become a Nirvani
because
of that merit, but only because of
the Karma generated by it, which leads and guides him in the
direction
of the Guru who will initiate him
into the mystery of Nirvana and who alone can help him reach his
abode."
H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Adyar, India: Theosophical
Publishing House, 1938) Adyar Edition,
Vol. V, p. 352. Or: Idem., Collected Writings (Wheaton IL:
Theosophical Publishing House, 1985) Vol. XIV,
p. 374. Or: Idem., The Esoteric Writings, pp. 293-294.
Return to Text
6.
"I have told you frankly that Masters are unessential, that the idea
of Masters is nothing more than a toy to
the man who really seeks truth."
J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti (Dubuque IA:
Kendall/Hunt, 1991), Vol. I, p. 173.
Krishnamurti himself wrote:
"The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he
made in 1929 when he said: 'Truth is
a pathless land.' Man cannot come to it through any organization,
through any creed, through any dogma,
priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or
psychological technique. He has to find it through
the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents
of his mind, through observation and
not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection."
J. Krishnamurti, The Core of Krishnamurti's Teaching (Ojai CA:
Krishnamurti Foundation of America, n.d.).
Return to Text
7.
Blavatsky wrote:
"In order not to confuse the mind of the western student with the
abstruse difficulties of Indian
metaphysics, let him view the lower manas, or mind, as the personal
ego [personal self] during the waking
state, and as Antahkarana only during those moments when it aspires
towards its higher Ego [higher self],
and thus becomes the medium of communication between the two. It is
for this reason called the 'Path.'...
Seeing that the faculty and function of Antahkarana is as necessary
as
the medium of the ear for hearing,
or that of the eye for seeing; then so long as the feeling of
ahamkâra, that is, of the personal "I" or
selfishness [the synthetic self], is not entirely crushed out in man,
and the lower mind not entirely merged
into and become one with the higher Buddhi-Manas [higher self], it
stands to reason that to destroy
Atahkarana is like destroying a bridge over an impassable chasm; The
traveler can never reach the goal
on the other shore. And there lies the difference between the
exoteric
and the esoteric teaching. The
former makes the Vedânta state that so long as mind (the lower)
clings
through Antahkarana to Spirit
(Buddha-Manas) [higher self] it is impossible for it to acquire true
Spiritual Wisdom, Jnyâna, and that this
can only be attained by seeking to come en rapport with the Universal
Soul (Atmâ) [the divine self]; that, in
fact, it is by ignoring the higher Mind [higher self] altogether that
one reaches Râja Yoga. We say it is not
so. No single rung of the ladder leading to knowledge can be skipped.
No personality can ever reach or
bring itself into communication with Atmâ, except through
Buddhi-Manas; to try to become a Jivanmukta
or a Mahâtmâ, before one has become an adept or even a Naljor (a
sinless man) is like trying to reach to
Ceylon from India without crossing the sea. Therefore we are told
that
if we destroy Antahkarana before the
personal [personal self] is absolutely under the control of the
impersonal Ego [the higher self], we risk to
lose the latter and be severed for ever from it, unless indeed we
hasten to re-establish the communication
by a supreme and final effort. It is only when we are indissolubly
linked with the essence of the divine Mind
[higher self] that we have to destroy Antahkarana."
H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, pp. 413-414.
Krishnamurti's teaching neatly corresponds to the exoteric position
as
presented here by Blavatsky, for he
proposes to access directly the impersonal universal creative
intelligence (Atma) by tossing out aspiration
(Antahkarana) and denying the existence of the higher self
(Buddhi-Manas).
Return to Text
8.
Blavatsky warns:
"Be it far from me the suspicion that any of the esoteric students
have reached to any considerable point
down the plane of spiritual descent. All the same I warn you to avoid
taking the first step. You may not
reach the bottom in this life or the next, but you may now generate
causes which will insure you spiritual
destruction in your third, fourth, fifth, or even some subsequent
birth... Finally, keep ever in mind the
consciousness that though you see no Master by your bedside, nor hear
one audible whisper in the
silence of the still night, yet the Holy Power is about you, the Holy
Light is shining into your hour of
spiritual need and aspirations, and it will be no fault of the
MASTERS, or of their humble mouthpiece and
servant, if through perversity or moral feebleness some of you cut
yourselves off from these higher
potencies, and step upon the declivity that leads to Avitchi [state
of
soulless-ness]." H.P.Blavatsky, The
Esoteric Writings, p. 418.
Return to Text
9.
Lord Maitreya:
"Thus although Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for
independent thought, he was wrong
in assuming that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present
limitations, could instantly reach
that point which he himself had only reached through lives of effort,
and by the aid of those Cosmic Forces
apportioned to him solely for his office as Herald of the New Age."
Lord Maitreya in David Anrias, Through the Eyes of the Masters:
Meditations and Portraits (London:
Routledge, 1932), p. 67.
[Full text of Maitreya's message on Krishnamurti]
Any of the Masters quoted in these endnotes I believe to be genuine
members of the Great White
Brotherhood.
Return to Text
10.
'Sir Thomas,' an English Master said:
"Also instead of giving forth the new Teaching so badly needed, he
[Krishnamurti] escaped from the
responsibilities of his office as prophet and teacher by reverting to
a past incarnation, and an ancient
philosophy of his own race [Advaita Vedantism] with which you are
familiar, but which is useless for the
Western World in the present cycle. But those to whom he speaks think
they are receiving a new
message, and as such it carries undue weight. The message he should
have delivered, he has failed to
deliver--or only partly delivered. Nothing about Art--no plans for
the
new sub-race--educational schemes
dropped--and in place of all this: Advaita, a philosophy for chelas,
and one of the most easily
misunderstood paths to liberation... He who attempts to teach
Advaita,
and omits all Sanscrit terms,
courts failure. Sanscrit words engender an occult vibration which is
lost when translated. Western words
not suitable to describe subjective states of consciousness, because
their associations are mainly
mundane... Another flaw in this pseudo-Advaita which Krishnamurti is
giving out, is that he addresses the
personality, the physical plane man [personal self], as if he were
the
Monad [divine self] or at least the Ego
[higher self]. Of course the Monad, the Divine Spark, is the Absolute
Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, and
hence eternally free, but that doesn't mean that the personality down
here, immersed in endless-seeming
Karmic difficulties, can share its consciousness, or even that of the
Ego--the link between the personality
and the Monad."
'Sir Thomas,' an English Master, in: His Pupil [Cyril Scott], The
Initiate in the Dark Cycle (London:
Routledge, 1932), pp. 136-139.
Return to Text
[Full text of relevant chapter]
11.
'Sir Thomas' again:
"Well did my Brother Koot Hoomi say that Krishnamurti had destroyed
all the many stairways to God,
while his own remains incomplete. Also being incomplete it may lead
to
dangers unforeseen by those who
attempt to climb it. Danger Number One: Krishnamurti's casting aside
of time-honoured definitions and
classifications leaves aspirant without true scale of values. Danger
Number Two: climbing his particular
staircase necessitates constant meditation, which in its turn
necessitates constant protection from
Guru--and Guru not allowed by Krishnamurti. Of course a moderate
degree may be practiced in safety
without a Guru, but long-continued meditation leads to states of
consciousness and excursions on to other
planes where the Master's guidance is absolutely indispensable."
'Sir Thomas,' in His Pupil, p. 138.
Return to Text
[Full text of relevant chapter]
12.
"Krishnamurti's Advaitism, which is not to be confounded with the
recognized form of that philosophy, will, I
fear, lead his followers nowhere except perhaps to hypocrisy and
self-delusion."
'Sir Thomas,' in: His Pupil, p. 139.
Return to Text
13.
Kuthumi dictated in 1975:
"Today Krishnamurti, denounced by the Brotherhood, denounces the true
teachers and the path of
initiation, proclaiming that the individual needs only himself and
that this is the only God there is. Leading
thousands of youth in the direction of sophisticated disobedience to
the God within [divine self], to Christ
the inner mentor [higher self], and to the masters of the
Brotherhood,
this fallen one has been the
instrument of a philosophy that is not and does not in any way
represent the true teachings of the Great
White Brotherhood."
(Relevant Paragraphs)
Kuthumi, "An Exposé of False Teachings," Pearls of Wisdom, Vol. XIX,
no.5, p. 29. Copyright © 1976,
Summit University Press, P.O. Box 5000, Corwin Springs, Montana
59030-5000. (406) 848-9891. Web
site: http://www.tls.org/
Return to Text
14.
Hodson wrote:
"Here are his words [Krishnamurti's] on the subject: 'When we
understand profoundly the significance of
our existence, of the process of ignorance and action, we will see
what we call purpose has no
significance. The mere search for the purpose of life covers up,
detracts from the comprehension of
oneself.' That quotation is a perfect example of the closed circle of
thought outside of which I for one find
myself to be shut when endeavouring to comprehend these teachings...
He seems to put the very goal
itself as the first step towards its attainment."
Geoffrey Hodson, Krishnamurti and the Search for Light (Sydney:
St.Alban Press, n.d.), pp. 12-13.
Return to Text
15.
"In him, singleness of purpose has developed into intolerance. Unique
individuality has become a fetish,
worship of which produces narrow-mindedness and causes him to display
distinct signs of intellectual
arrogance. He alone is right. Everyone else, from the Lord Buddha
down
to the latest teacher of the Law, is
wrong, criminally wrong."
Ibid. p. 8.
Return to Text
16.
Theosophist John Algeo correctly observes that Krishnamurti is
"teaching ends without means."
John Algeo, review of Krishnamurti--Love and Freedom by Peter Michel
in Quest Vol. 8, no. 3 (Autumn
1995), p. 86.
Return to Text
17.
See Mary Lutyens, Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening (New York:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975),
for the story of Krishnamurti's initiations and spiritual
development.
See Charles W. Leadbeater, The
Masters and the Path (Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House,
1925) for a Theosophical
understanding of the initiatory process.
Return to Text
18.
"The Arhat initiation is the one in which the Master withdraws all
guidance from his pupil, who may have to
negotiate the most difficult problems without being allowed to ask
any
questions. He has to rely entirely on
his own judgment, and if he makes mistakes, must bear the
consequences. And so what did Krishnamurti
do? Like the proverbial manservant who knows he is about to be given
notice, he gave notice first. In other
words, he cut himself adrift from the White Lodge, and repudiated all
of us. And unfortunately he induced
others far below him in spiritual evolution to do likewise."
'Sir Thomas,' in: His Pupil, p. 139.
Return to Text
19.
"I wish I could describe how I witnessed the ego [the synthetic self]
being torn to pieces and being thrown
to the winds... . The center of thinking dissolved into nothingness."
Vimala Thakar, On an Eternal Voyage (Ahmedabad, India: The New Order
Book Co., 1969), pp. 46-47.
Return to Text
20.
Vimala Thakar thought, and I think correctly, that her transformation
had something to do with the
healing-sessions with Krishnamurti. She wrote: "I have told you
[Krishnamurti] about the invasion of a new
awareness, irresistible and uncontrollable. I have told you how it
has
swept away everything. Now--this has
something to do with the healing."
Thakar, p. 43.
Krishnamurti on the contrary was quite sure that the two phenomena
were not related. Apparently, when
she published her autobiography against Krishnamurti's wishes, he
ended their friendship and later his
biographers gave her the silent treatment.
Return to Text
21.
See endnote 7.
Return to Text
22.
"If with all its power and superiority, one cannot think for oneself,
there can be no peace in the world."
J.Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom (New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1954), p. 64.
For this Krishnamurti received some compliments from the Masters:
"He did good work in teaching people to use their own brain." 'Sir
Thomas,' in: His Pupil, p. 139. And:
"Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity for independent
thought." Lord Maitreya in: David
Anrias, p. 67.
Return to Text
23.
"One sees that there must be change in oneself--the more sensitive,
the more alert and intelligent one is,
the more one is aware that there must be a deep, abiding, living
change."
J.Krishnamurti, The Awakening of Intelligence (New York: Harper &
Row,
1973), p. 43.
Return to Text
24.
"But when the mind seeks a timeless state which will go into action
in
order to destroy the [synthetic] self,
is that not another form of experience which is strengthening the
'me'[synthetic self]?... So, having
projected this state of continuance in a timeless state as a
spiritual
entity, you have an experience; and
such an experience only strengthens the self."
From chapter IX, "What is the Self," in The First and Last Freedom,
pp. 76-82.
It is hard to find quotes by Krishnamurti, uncontaminated by his
basic
errors. In the previous quote, for
example, Krishnamurti does not differentiate between aspirations of
the soul, which are wholesome (see
endnote 7 about the Antahkarana), and ambitions of the mind, which
might be destructive depending on
who or what principle directs the mind. This line of thought makes
him
throw out the baby (the soul)
together with the bathwater (the synthetic self).
Return to Text
25.
"We have learned now the power of propaganda and that is one of the
greatest calamities that can happen:
to use ideas as a means to transform man... Man is not
important--systems, ideas, have become
important. Man no longer has any significance. We can destroy
millions
of men as long as we produce a
result and the result is justified by ideas... When the intellect has
the upper hand in human life, it brings
about an unprecedented crisis."
From "On the Present Crisis," in The First and Last Freedom, pp.
145-146.
Return to Text
26.
See endnote 7.
Return to Text
27.
The whole Krishnamurti phenomenon might be one of world-historical
significance. We might be observing
the birth of a completely new, though flawed, religion and
civilization based on Krishnamurti's teachings,
with its geographical center in India and its outposts in the West.
For some interesting ideas about the rise and fall of civilizations
see Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History
(London: Oxford University Press, 1946).
Return to Text
28.
H.P. Blavatsky had high hopes for the Judeo-Christian and Indic
civilizations to transform themselves into a
"heaven" in the 21st century with the aid of the Theosophical
Society,
led by a prophesied "torch-bearer of
Truth," expected in the last quarter of the 20th century. See her
Conclusion, "The Future of the
Theosophical Society," in The Key to Theosophy (Pasadena CA:
Theosophical University Press, 1995),
pp. 304-307.
Annie Besant defended her involvement with Krishnamurti by referring
explicitly to Blavatsky's view about
the future mission of the Theosophical Society and the "torch-bearer
of Truth." She clearly believed
Krishnamurti to be the vehicle for that expected teacher. She wrote
in
1912 that the only difference
between herself and Blavatsky regarding the coming of "the next great
Teacher" was that "she put that
event perhaps half a century later than I do. Which of us is right
only time can show." Annie Besant,
"Freedom of Opinion in the T.S.," letter to The Vâhan 21\8 (March
1912), p. 153.
With the 20th century now drawing to a close; the world in a state of
unparalleled crisis, the Theosophical
Society only a minor agent of change and no sign of a "torch-bearer
of
Truth" connected with it, it behooves
Theosophists to contemplate the texts quoted in this pamphlet and
consider an alternative perception of
the esoteric history of the 20th century.
My own proposal is contained in a pamphlet, The Masters and Their
Emissaries: From H.P.B. to Guru Ma
and Beyond, in which is stated that the teachings of the Masters,
which were originally planned to be given
through Krishnamurti, were given through Guy and Edna Ballard in the
30s and 40s, through Geraldine
Innocente in the 50s, through Mark and Elizabeth Prophet in the 50s
till the 90s, and through Monroe and
Carolyn Shearer from 1995 on.
For an overview of a wide variety of other Theosophical views of
Krishnamurti see Krishnamurti and the
World Teacher Project: Some Theosophical Perceptions.
- - - - - -
I think it wold be interesting to hear Aryel´s commentary of this paper, and to
know Govert´s proofs or reasons that could confirm the identity of the Masters
mentioned here.
Friendly,
DAVID C.
-- 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.
[Back to Top]
Theosophy World:
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application
