Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00003)

Dear Anand,

I do not think you have to speculate about Radha Burnier's secret
plans. First, because, as pointed out, it's very hard to really know
anybody's motives, and, second, because it's not very kind nor
productive to try to do so. Thirdly, there is no necessity to try to
read Radha Burnier's mind as far as her opinion of K is concerned,
because she has been very open about that. 

You're right though to sound the alarm about any lob-sided promotion
of K's teachings and any lob-sided promotion of Krishnamurtian
Theosophists into high office. 

The TS should stay as neutral as possible in the question  on the
truth and value of teachings that are perceived as following up or
complementing HPB's original output. At this moment it is my tested
hypothesis that Krishnamurti receives undue preferential treatment and
that teachers like Bailey, Steiner and Hodson have to take the back
seat while teachers like Scott, Anrias, Ballard and Prophet are left
in the cold. I have no problem with any Theosophist thinking that K is
the expected world teacher or that his teachings are of utmost
importance. The problem is that it looks like that that idea is now
endowed with a semi-official, even sacred, status and that promoting K
is part of a semi-official agenda. How this came about, and what role
the ES played in this and to what extent secrecy was involved are
legitimate questions, but can only be answered on the basis of factual
research. 

At the same time there should be some balanced discussion about real
or perceived conflicts of interest of Theosophists in leadership
position, who are also involved in other organizations. I think the
concrete case to start with is the promotion by PTS Burnier of her
cousin Prof Krishna as her successor while both are or were heavily
involved in Krishnamurti's work in India. The fact that Burnier
decided to run again for the PTS position after Prof Krishna had
declined the offer is to me an indication that she was looking for a
successor with specific qualifications and was not looking for merely
a competent succesor, as John Algeo certainly would have been. The
fact that Prof Krishna declined on grounds of not being sufficiently
knowledgeable about Theosophy also has to be factored in. 

Krishnamurtian Theosophists might have been thrilled at the prospect
of Prof Krishna at the helm of the TS, others not so. Certainly not
me.  To me it all looked like that PTS Burnier was ready to throw the
TS into the lap of the KFI. This might be overstating the case, but
makes my point clear. Said in a different way would be to formulate my
perception as follows: The TS, as a relatively drifting organization,
is hitching a ride with the Krishnamurti movement, or, is latching its
destiny to that of the Krishnamurti movement as the latter, at this
moment, has a stronger sense of purpose. 

Maybe the best way to bring out the problematic part of the situation
is by imagining how it would look if PTS Burnier and Prof Krishna had
been deeply involved in Bailey's Lucis Trust or Steiner's
Anthroposophical Society.  Or, alternatively, how would the Danish
section have fared if they had been committed to Krishnamurti in the
same extent as they apparently were to Bailey, for which they got in
so much trouble.  Are there some in the TS measuring with a double, or
even triple, set of standards? One set for those in the K-camp, one
set for those in the non- or contra-K camp and one set for general
membership and public consumption? 

Until proven the contrary I cannot assign secret machinations to those
who became the pro-K  movers and shakers in the TS. For now I perceive
the TS-K situation as the outcome of thousands of personal decisions
taken in good faith, but guided by unfounded conclusions regarding K's
teachings and metaphysical status. At the same time I think K himself
did act in bad faith towards the TS by opportunistically manipulating
the TS with contradictory statements regarding his past relationship
with the TS (the TS did not `touch' him even while he had been a
committed theosophist and promoter), his memory (claims to have
forgotten and is caught to have had a fine memory), the Theosophical
teachings (claims not to know anything about them, but still regards
them as utterly false), and his own metaphysical status (both denies
and claims messiah-hood). Obviously there is a problem and it will not
do to just acknowledge those parts in the relationship that harmonize.
A more neutral, consistent and  balanced Theosophical investigation is
called for. 

Peace 





--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Anand" <AnandGholap@...> wrote:
>
> There is one secrete plan in Radha Burnier's head. Most members in
> Theosophical Society are not aware of it. 
> Radha had intentionally been promoting many Krishnamurtian's to high
> posts in last many years. She made many Theosophists to study and
> preach J. Krishnamurti's teaching in TS. As Radha had been head of the
> Esoteric School and also the President, many of these Theosophists
> believed in her advice of studying and spreading Krishnamurti's
> teaching.  These Theosophists did not suspect plan in Radha's head,
> and innocently did what she wanted them to do.  Those Theosophists who
> were earlier studying Blavatsky's and Leadbeater's teaching
> considerably gave up reading and spreading teaching of these
> Theosophists. I am told by reliable sources that even in Esoteric
> School, Theosophy is not being given importance, and J. Krishnamurti's
> teaching is being promoted. 
> P. Krishna, a hardcore Krishnamurtian is being promoted in TS. 
> This secrete plan has been there in Radha's head for many years,
> though nobody noticed it. 
> Members of the TS are hereby warned about danger that lies ahead. If
> members are careful and if they make determined efforts to throw out
> teaching of J. Krishnamurti, they will be able to save the TS and 
> will be able to work for the mission of spreading true Theosophy.
> 
> Best wishes.
> Anand Gholap
>