Theos-Talk Archives (March 2009 Message tt00606)

Among the most important question for the TS and the world is what C.W. Leadbeater thought about J. Krishnamurti's teaching. As ordinary people and even scholars are not in position to determine whether J.Krishnamurti's teaching came from the Christ or it was his own teaching, we need to see how C.W. Leadbeater viewed J. Krishnamurti's teaching. 
J. Krishnamurti started his independent teaching by his statement called "Truth is pathless land". He spoke for around 60 years. And before dying he said that his teaching can be summed up in what he said in the beginning, i.e. "Truth is pathless land."
Here we have extremely important and rare reference from the writing of C.W. Leadbeater, where CWL refutes J. Krishnamurti's teaching "Truth is pathless land". This refutation of Krishnamurti's teaching is extremely important for the world because the message which Krishnamurti gave was exactly opposite of the message of Jesus Christ. The message of Krishnamurti seems more like message from the Anti-Christ or the Satan.
As there are large number of people around the world who are directly and indirectly influenced by J. Krishnamurti, it is important to know whether these people are following the teaching of Christ or the -Anti Christ.
Here are the passages from the pamphlet The third object of the Theosophical Society by C.W. Leadbeater. I think this article conclusively proves that according to C.W. Leadbeater teaching from J.Krishnamurti was NOT for the Christ. If C.W. Leadbeater believed that Christ had taught through J.Krishnamurti, he would not have refuted teaching of J. Krishnamurti. 
Below are those crucial passages.
http://www.anandgholap.net/Third_Object_Of_TS-CWL.htm
C.W. Leadbeater wrote:
" I know quite well that our Krishnaji [J.Krishnamurti] has been teaching that the highest of all is pathless, either that there is no specified path or that every man must find his own. That is true; but we have to remember, haven't we, that we are not all at the heights where we can hew out some entirely new scheme for ourselves. Nor, I think, would it be wise to ignore definite, recorded facts.

55.           I read some years ago of a shepherd boy who, somewhere out with his sheep, gradually thought out for himself the general rules of what we call geometry, and actually succeeded in rediscovering, or at least in reproducing, by himself, many of the problems and demonstrations in Euclid. I suppose that hard thinking with the right kind of brain - he must have been something different from a shepherd boy in his past life - can bring you to what has already been reached. But it is our principle in civilization to take advantage of the labours, the revelations, of those who have gone before.

56.           If every man has to begin from the beginning, knowing nothing, it seems to me we should waste an enormous amount of time. I suppose if we were to push that theory to its extremity, you must never teach a child anything because you would be prejudicing his mind. But of course that is not reasonable or logical. The child comes newly into the world so far as his brain and vehicles are concerned. I cannot see any reason why you should not acquaint him with the conditions around him, while leaving him to discover anything new for himself. "
http://www.anandgholap.net/Third_Object_Of_TS-CWL.htm
Best
Anand Gholap