Theos-Talk Archives (March 2006 Message tt00136)

Many theosophists sympathize with the sentiments of Radha Burnier expressed 
in 1987:

"A study of theosophical history does not have too much importance in 
fulfilling the aims of the Society if it consists of digging out new 
details, comparing characters or declaring who was a failure.  On the other 
hand, it is history which can show what sacrifice, courageous thought and 
energy led to the building of the world-wide organizations which has served 
to inspire the hearts and minds of millions.  Sacrifice and selfless energy 
characterized the work, not only of our remarkable President-Founder Colonel 
Olcott and that unique seer H.P. Blavatsky, but also their great successors 
like Annie Besant.  To be fired by a passion for serving humanity such as 
theirs is more important than learning details about various incidents and 
passing judgement on them. . . . Such sacrifice was natural because it arose 
out of a knowledge of the direction in which humanity has to progress and a 
realization of the unitary nature of life. . . . The activities of the 
Society from the earliest years were such as to encourage change in 
contemporary thought and situations." - Krotona of old Hollywood p. xiv from 
Radha Burnier's "Presidential Address to the 112th Annual Convention of the 
T.S., Adyar, December 26, 1987". The Theosophist, Vol. 109, n.4, January 
1988, p. 124.

It is very clear what Radha is attempting to do here.  It is the same thing 
that many of those ignorant of the true import of the events of the 
Society's early history try to do.  They try to frame  the dispute as a 
fight between various factions where each faction champions its hero and is 
busy uncovering all the evidence they can for their champion and all they 
can find against their champion's opponent.  Such a description is an insult 
to all theosophists as it suggests that theosophists have not even realized 
a basic theoretical understanding of Universal Brotherhood and would waste 
their time on such an exercise.  Also, I hope that Radha is not saying that 
sacrifice for a foolish cause is a noble way to spend one's life.  Yet it 
might be argued that those that came after Blavatsky and Judge sacrificed 
foolishly.

Krsanna in a reply to 'HPB Sees "Poor Cowards" in Adyar', points to a very 
telling point:

"Adyar was abolished as the parent society by HPB, and local lodges
were essentially set up as autonomous at the time the Esoteric
Section was created after the 1888 letter from the Adept that Olcott
received while on the Shannon."

The implication is that Adyar had somehow lost the moral authority to carry 
on as the voice of theosophy.  How did they do this?

This is rather difficult when you remember that the only object that the 
Masters cared about was that of setting up a nucleus of a Universal 
Brotherhood of Humanity with no creeds, etc.  This was the Society's moral 
raison d'etre.  Was this object somehow undermined?

Well this is exactly what those fighting to clear the names of Blavatsky and 
Judge maintain.  Blavatsky  and Judge were attacked first by enemies outside 
the Society and finally by friends from within.  This attack on the 
integrity of the two founders required a vigorous and wise defence.  Judge 
demonstrated this in his defence of HPB, sadly the wisdom was lost after his 
death.

We can see why Blavatsky wanted to neuter the power of Adyar.  Once it 
turned away from the First Object, it was capable of moving in any 
direction.  Any nonsense it would eventually spout would flow down to the 
lodges beneath them within their organizational structure.  If Lodges were 
autonomous, then they would be less likely to adopt the mistakes of a parent 
organization.  The Masters understood that autonomy begins with the 
individual and works its way up.  Lodges are autonomous only if their 
members are autonomous.  A top down approach is very unstable and will 
crumble as soon as you get a politically motivated individual in power.  
Politics enter at the expense of the First Object.

When politics enter you get the following nonsense as described by Joseph 
Ross in his non-judgmental way in "Krishnamurti: The Taormina Seclusion - 
1912".  Ross helps the reader to understand the spirit of the book with the 
following from the Foreward:

"In the many biographies of J. Krishnamurti little attention is given to the 
time he spent during 1912 in seclusion in Taormina, a village in Sicily.  In 
the four-month period, March through June, Annie Besant and C.W. Leadbeater, 
then leaders of theosophical movement, supervised the preparation of four 
young people for Initiation into the Brotherhood of the Inner Government of 
the World.  Mrs. Besant was the President of the international Theosophical 
Society, and Mr. Leadbeater was a lecturer and author of theosophical books 
and a clairvoyant.  It was believed that Krishnamurti would be the vehicle 
of the coming of the World-Teacher, the Lord Maitreya.  The other three 
young people would be closely associated with Krishnamurti when his ministry 
began.

"Krishnaji . . . had taken the First Initiation on January 11, 1910, at age 
thirteen.  Initiation, comes from the Latin word, inire, in- and ire, into, 
and to go, therefore, the making of a beginning of a life of 
self-fulfillment, or the entrance into.  Therefore, we say, they all were 
about to enter or begin the new life, which shall ultimately lead them to 
the heights of their being as man.  In theosophical parlance, initiation is 
a ceremony conducted on a superphysical plane, usually at night while the 
candidate is asleep and is conscious in his subtle body.  The candidate 
undergoes tests to determine his dedication and worthiness, and his sponsors 
testify as to his service to humanity.  During the ceremony, occult 
teachings are given and his powers are expanded.  As the candidate 
progresses in wisdom, power and service, further initiations may be taken.  
Mrs. Besant and Mr Leadbeater at this period had previously taken the Fourth 
(Arhat) Initiation.  Of the five major ones, the Fifth Initiation qualifies 
one as a Master.

"Some years earlier C. Jinarajadasa, a Cambridge graduate, was a lecturer 
for the Theosophical Society.  At thirty-seven he had taken the First 
Initiation.  Nityananda, a younger brother of Krishnaji, and George 
Arundale, a college principal, were expected to take their First Initiation. 
. . ."  (pp. 7-8)

Ross is brilliant at giving you a flavor for this period in the Theosophical 
Movement.  He tends to let the participants speak for themselves through 
letters and speeches, etc.  His description above gives the reader a very 
good understanding of what was going on in the minds of theosophists at that 
time.  Instead of working on understanding what they had, they were waiting 
for some "World Teacher" and his "Inner Government" to come and tell them 
what to think.  Meanwhile theosophical leaders were flying around in their 
"subtle bodies" at night undergoing initiations and gaining powers.  Is it 
any wonder HPB wanted to establish the autonomy of the Lodges?  This 
nonsense wasn't isolated to Adyar only, it was world-wide.  If theosophists 
looked at stories like this from any other organization, what would they 
think?  Would they give that organization any credence?

If the modern Theosophical Movement is to ever get properly back on course, 
this abandonment of principle (the first object) must be recognized and 
dealt with.  Blavatsky and Judge must be accorded the respect they deserve 
and theosophists must learn this lesson so that it is never repeated again.  
In order to give more than lip service to Universal Brotherhood, we need 
autonomous organizations, and we must protect the autonomy of each other in 
order to realize those organizations.

Bruce

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/