Theos-Talk Archives (February 2009 Message tt00032)

Anand: Your expressions about Radha and P. Krishna are very unpolite. 
For example, "P. Krishna is the biggest threat to the TS" and "Radha 
does not understand spiritual things well". Do you understand then, 
Ananda? To me you don't seem to understand in this Krishnamurti case. 
It is also offending to say that there are no theosophical talents 
outside India. There certainly are.

Anand,  I wonder how you still have not understood that there is no 
contradiction in theosophy and in Krishnamurti's teaching. Please 
don't look phenomena just at face value. Krishnamurti made a 
reformation in a manifestation of theosophy. He saved the TS from 
orthodoxy and dogmatism. The course that was running in the TS after 
Olcott was insane. There's nothing "satanic" in stopping that 
pathetic circus and concentrating on observation of your own mind.

Besant and Leadbeater are "pure theosophy"? Come on! These leaders 
fancied a lot of things, lifted themselves on the platform and 
supported the world war. Besant was always busy in changing the world 
and forgot that Theosophists should change themselves. Of course, 
these leaders made good things, too.

I agree with you that Radha has controlled the Society. She has had 
too much power and she still has too much. Her long ruling is one 
reason why the TS is not in a healthy condition. This situation in 
the international administration is like in a former Communist 
country: no discussion, no information, no competition, no change. If 
you disagree and want to have alternatives, you are called 
unbrotherly. I give points to Bland and Warwick that they dare to be 
transparent now.

Govert: I agree that a more balanced investigation on Krishnamurti is 
needed. He was not always honest about his past.

It is understandable that Krishnamurti is promoted in the TS, because 
he was found by the leading occultist of the TS. There are of course 
double standards to Steiner and Bailey, because they got into 
conflict with the TS leadership. And we know that everything which is 
presented in the Adyar TS is "real theosophy" (sarcasm)!

But come on. Ballards, Prophets and others that you mention didn't 
learn the lesson that Krishnamurti gave to us all. These people 
continue talking about pathetic initiations, Masters and new occult 
knowledge, lift themselves on the platform, and their morality 
teaching is not as theosophical as it could be. There is no certain 
humility which there should be. I wonder how you can seriously 
compare their teachings to "more real" (without sarcasm) theosophy 
like Krishnamurti. I put Bailey to this same new age bunch where I 
put Ballards.

To me John Algeo was not a competent successor, because he is also 
aged and because he didn't want to live at Adyar. There were and are 
many better candidates, like Vicente Hao Chin Jr. and Linda Oliveira. 
Btw. it seems that Radha is "bringing up" Linda as her successor 
because the latter is moving to Adyar. And against Anand's and 
Govert's hypothesis in my knowledge Linda Oliveira is not 
especially "Krishnamurtian".

I don't think Krishnamurti is the only direction which is promoted in 
the TS. Tibetan Buddhism is promoted as theosophy, too, and often its 
very exoteric and even superficial forms.