Theos-Talk Archives (April 2000 Message tt00125)

In a message dated 4/8/00 6:13:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dalval@nwc.net 
writes:

<< About Krishnamurti.  He was a person much abused especially by
 Leadbeater.
  >>

Dear Dallas,

Throughout the many years I have invested studying issues having to do with K 
& the history of the TS, I have not seen, so far, any credible evidence for 
statements such as the one you make unequivocally here.  I am aware that, as 
one of the persons responsible for K's preparation for initiation, as well as 
for his education as a person, CWL gave him certain disciplines to follow.  
To say that CWL was a Victorian is probably an understatement:  He was 
practically closer to an archetype of what we understand by "Victorian."  His 
work is certainly full of Victorianisms.  So his understanding of 
"discipline" may have been colored by that background, just as much of what 
HPB said & did was colored by her being a Russian noblewoman (however 
"bohemian") of her times.  Much of what the Buddha said is clearly colored by 
the time & place in which he lived.
According to K and other credible witnesses, he also received certain 
injunctions directly from one of the perennial teachers who inspired the 
founding of the TS, according to evidence & facts cited, quoted, or discussed 
in my book.  K collated some of this teaching from his perennial teacher in 
hand-written notes, which later became the book At the Feet of the Master.
By worldly standards, such disciplines would often be considered "rough," 
even intolerable.  But by the standards of those who take transformation very 
much to heart, it's all in a day's work.  It would be unfair -- as well as a 
gross misunderstanding of what a perennial initiation involves -- to make 
judgments about the disciplines related to initiation from a purely worldly 
standpoint.  Such worldly assessment would be easily assented to by the many, 
who -- by the very fact of being the many -- are profoundly and 
multi-dimensionally ignorant of these issues.  Such an appeal to people's 
conditioning in order to "make a point" have no place in a serious discussion 
about initiation, about transformation.
If you can SPECIFICALLY point to facts & evidence that clearly do not fall in 
the above categories, & which could be seen unequivocally as "abuse," I would 
really appreciate seeing it.
Since I have seen no evidence of anything that could credibly be called 
"abuse," and since I have seen this repeated numerous times without any 
reference to any facts or evidence, I have provisionally concluded that this 
is just rumor & innuendo.  But you make your statement with such force, it 
surely must be based on facts & evidence you actually know, & that I have 
missed in my research of almost four decades.  Otherwise, it would be a most 
unconscionably and recklessly divisive, needlessly confusion-inducing thing 
to say.
I would really appreciate it if you share with us the SPECIFIC facts & 
evidence that led you to make this assertion.  That would then be a very 
important part of this profoundly intriguing story, & the equally intriguing 
story of the early history of the Theosophical Society itself, of which this 
is an intrinsic, very central part.  As such, it would lead me to change much 
of what I have to say in my book, & in several others I have written (not 
published yet) on the nature of theosophy, & on the history of the 
theosophical movement & the perennial renaissance.  Having such ACTUAL 
evidence would be of very great value to me -- and to many others, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Aryel Sanat

-- THEOSOPHY WORLD -- Theosophical Talk -- theos-talk@theosophy.com

Letters to the Editor, and discussion of theosophical ideas and
teachings. To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message consisting of
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to theos-talk-request@theosophy.com.