Theos-Talk Archives (January 2007 Message tt00233)

Friends,  
 
 
Since the end of the Leadbeater-Besant period in 1934, I see two varieties of Neotheosophy in the Adyar movement.  

One was lead by C. Jinarajadasa, with support from G. Arundale, and later on in apostolic succession by N. Sri Ram;   by  I.K. Taimni and John Coats;   and since 1978-1980  by Radha Burnier.   This is the moderate line of neotheosophy. 

Jinarajadasa  did not invent new “clairvoyant absurds” himself.  He just believed and kept the old ones. He opened a dialogue with other sectors of the movement and started the cooperation with Boris de Zirkoff which led to the important publication of the “Collected Writings of HPB”.  
 
Jinarajadasa had a strong,  sincere respect for HPB. He wrote, for instance, a highly devotional article about her and her great moral courage. He edited the “Letters from The Masters of  the Wisdom” and provided many documents of historical importance for the movement as a whole. 
 
He did not attach himself too much to  personal power mechanisms. He went to London to live there during the Second World War ; he  faced the German  bombs and did a volunteer work  as a fireman,  while directing  the Esoteric School worldwide. He also followed and protected C.W.Leadbeater  and believed all this fancies and ritualisms.   
 
Jinarajadasa seems to have taken some part in  the creation of the Egyptian Rite, invented as a way to control power during CWL's scandals in Australia ;  and since then the E.R. has operated as a ritual behind the throne.  
 
Sri Ram (Radha's father) kept on with Jinarajadasa’s  "eclecticism". John Coats  did the same.  And so Radha Burnier also a strong believer in J. Krishnamurti. 
 
This "civilized",  "common sense"  and "moderate" brand of neotheosophy gradually expanded  since Jinarajadasa took over leadership in 1934.  
 
The other trend of thought or variety of neotheosophy, fed by ritualisms and especially by the Liberal Catholic Church, is agressive.   It heavily depends of C.W. Leadbeater,  in spite of  the fact that his mask has clearly fallen since the 1980s,  and so they have to use coarse means.  
 
Traditionally, they use slanders to keep power and also try to put HPB at the same moral level as C.W. Leadbeater. They are rather militant in their Sophistry.  They end up consciously or unconsciously supporting the old 19th century, fraudulent ideas of Mr. Henry Sidgwick and his SPR “disciples”. Doing so in an open and  public way, though, is a new and too audacious step,  only  recently taken.  
 
Mrs. Radha Burnier tried to renew leadership in Adyar but as her horizon was limited to Krishnamurti perhaps it was not possible.  Power positions concentrated too much on herself. She has been caught by karma in the middle of the road between  ‘common sense” and “tradition”.  Perhaps she  was personally asked by Krishnamurti at some point to  dissolve the Esoteric School,  because he did not believe in any "structures" (as he did not believe in Masters).  
 
Krishnamurti  had already tried to provoke the dissolution of the Adyar Esoteric School during Annie Besant’s period. Radha did not dissolve it and will not do so.  Radha Burnier has also kept all rituals running, while paradoxically teaching Krishnamurti’s ideas, which are clearly against  all kinds of rituals. 
 
In the years ahead,  Mrs. Burnier will probably go on instilling a decent degree of inspiration and ethics in the Adyar Movement,  as much as she can ; yet she appears to have too many responsibilities concentrated on her.  
 
The contradictory coexistence of Krishnamurtian and Leadbeaterian ideas, with some traces of real Theosophy,  has been the mark of the period  started in 1978-1980.  The lack of  a stronger decision about such a paradox has been creating a growing  difficulty  for people  to see medium-term future perspectives. Many Adyar members can’t  see any  significant  international leader, now,  besides Ms. Radha Burnier.  
 
For some reason such a situation  has created a greater room for  the  other variety of neotheosophy, the non-common sense and  aggressive one, to which John Algeo is more or less associated –  though not ostensibly.  To him Daniel Caldwell is linked up to a certain point.   The “core’ of this ‘aggressive’ trend is linked to the Liberal Catholic Church  and to other Adyar  ritualisms in  various countries.  

For the Adyar TS as a whole,   the consequences of  having publicly adopted  in the name of the movement as "scholarly sources" for texts “coming from HPB”  or “describing her”  such obvious scoundrels like V. Solovyov, the Coulombs and Eleanor Sidgwick  will bring   – to my vision  –  a karmic acceleration. 
 
The reason for a new quickness of karma is that  is circulating such slanders against the movement ( and some of them are direct and shameful attacks against the Masters )  challenges the ‘magnetic core’ of the movement. This core is a long-term vibration pattern set in the period 1875-1891 and it remains now as alive as ever.  

Perhaps it is useful to be able to see the difference between the  two currents of thought in the Adyar Movement. There are thousands  of souls in the Adyar Society,  and this is not a question of politics.  As a Teacher says in the  “Mahatma Letters”, "Souls are at stake".   
 
It is necessary to recognize, though,  that Mr. Daniel Caldwell seems not to “belong” to any sector in the movement: not even to the aggressive variety of neotheosophy. 
 
There are a number of indications that his allegiance is somewhere else. Caldwell is not entirely serving the interests of LCC or Adyar ritualisms.  His alliance with John Algeo may be not strategical, but  tactical in nature –  though it has its importance. 
 
The “source of inspiration and support” for Caldwell’s inktense and long-standing campaigns against the ULT,  against HPB and  William  Judge,  is –  it would seem –   only secondarily related to the Adyar TS in the USA ;  and Caldwell has no support whatsoever in India. 
 
It is interesting to see that at least one of Caldwell’s false names  is apparently still  used  to denounce  and to discuss Leadbeaterian and Besant’s  fancies and delusions, from a “Blavatskian” point of view.    
 
If we consider his various aliases and his apparently conflicting under-cover activities, we may see perhaps that Caldwell is simultaneously attacking almost every sector of the movement, while actually not quite  helping any of the theosophical groups.  Under his own name,  Caldwell  also plants dissention as much as he can between different theosophical associations ;  he never brings the focus of discussions to a philosophical issue, but keeps his focus concentrated in  lower level issues.  
 
Although clearly not a theosophist, Caldwell has been influential  in the movement for the last 15 years’ period.  In the  future, the gradual clarification of his real interests and the scope of his actions may bring  some sense of relief to the movement.  It may also clarify the immensely positive  potentialities of a frank dialogue and healthy cooperation among  different theosophical groups.      

Regards,   Carlos.
 
 
 
 


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