Theos-Talk Archives (July 2007 Message tt00054)

Below are Radha Burnier's comments on Krishnamurti's relation with the
Theosophical Society.  You might like to do critical analysis of the
statements made.
Anand Gholap
----------------------------------------------
J. Krishnamurti, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society

      (Radha Burnier, International President of the TS, answers
questions from young Theosophists, San Rafael Theosophical Centre,
Argentina, April 2004. Originally published in The Theosophist, August
2005.)

 

1. Many people say that, when he left the TS, Krishnamurti betrayed
the TS and the Masters who instructed him. What do you think about this?

Not many people, but some people say this. I think it is a wrong idea.
There was no question of Krishnamurti betraying the TS or the Masters
who instructed him. In the TS at that time, there was a group of
people who claimed to have contact with the Masters, and who assumed
authority for themselves. They believed they were in a position to
declare: `You have been put on probation; someone else has become a
pupil of the Master', or `Now you are an Initiate'. But it could be
seen by the behaviour of these people that they did not fulfil the
qualifications which are described in The Masters and the Path and
other books about what a true disciple of the Master or Initiate would
be like. So it became like a drama, a farce, and Krishnamurti disliked
all this very much.

Dr Annie Besant was old, and Krishnamurti himself said that for many
years she had worked too much ? constantly working for the
Theosophical Society, for India's political freedom, and for many
other causes, such as women's upliftment, the antivivisection movement
to protect animals, and scouting. The number of causes she championed
was amazing; nobody else could have done it. Krishnaji said that when
the body became old, she failed to have the same kind of intellectual
power that she had previously. So, when this group of people around
her were saying all these things, she neither interfered nor put an
end to it. My father, who was Annie Besant's secretary for some time,
and who knew her well in the last years, said that she had a very
trustful nature. She trusted all people who worked with her ? that may
have been one reason why she did not oppose these beliefs. Although
Krishnaji felt that the Society was going in the wrong direction, he
was not able to stop this trend, and therefore left the Society. I
believe Annie Besant was not so much upset as deeply concerned about
how he would look after himself, for he had not been prepared to look
after himself in the turmoil of the world. So she advised some members
of the TS to look after him and work for him.

I think the idea that he betrayed the Masters is ridiculous. My
personal opinion is that he was in constant touch with the Masters. He
knew far better what the Masters were than most of the people who
talked much about the Masters and claimed to be their agents.
According to Krishnaji, the mistake made in the TS at that time was
that the sacred and holy were brought down to a personal and material
level. Swami T. Subba Row objected even to HPB talking as much as she
did about the Masters, because of the danger of degrading the concept
of the Masters. God is said to be made in the image of man; similarly
people attribute to the Masters what is familiar to themselves, but it
has little to do with what they actually are: very holy, pure, wise
people. Madame Blavatsky also made it clear that those who want to
contact the Masters must rise to their level, it being impossible to
bring them down to the worldly level. But the bringing down was what
was happening. Krishnaji rejected the ideas about the Masters, but not
the existence of liberated ones.

According to Pupul Jayakar's account of Krishnaji's life, when the
`process' was taking place, he sometimes said: `They are here.' Who
are the `they'? `They' were doing something to his brain, and so on.
Even just before he died, it is reported that he remarked: `I am ready
to go. They are waiting for me.' Another side to the matter was that
in the TS too much was made about where the Masters lived, what kind
of colour of hair each one had, and that kind of thing. These details,
even if accurate, concern only the outer appearance; the Master is
really a state of consciousness. He may wear a certain body at some
time, and another body at another time. Thinking of the appearance and
the physical body as the Master is completely wrong. HPB wrote that
the people who say they want to contact the Master do not know what
they are talking about, because the body is only a mask, not the real
thing. This is true even in our case; the body is a mask, concealing a
different reality. In the case of the Mahatmas, the reality is a
certain level and quality of consciousness. Perhaps Krishnaji did not
like reducing the Masters to these details, and thinking about them as
being somewhat like ourselves.

 

2. Did Krishnamurti keep in touch with the TS in some way?

After he left the TS, there were people in the TS who felt he was
creating a disturbance, but there were also people in the TS who felt
he was saying something profound and valuable. It is because of them
that the ambience was created for Krishnaji to come back much later
into contact with the TS. He himself told me that Mr Jinarâjadâsa
(whom he called Râjâ) was always very nice to him. They did not have
the same ideas; Bro. Râjâ's conventional Theosophy and Krishnaji's new
presentation did not agree on many things. But he told me that Râjâ
was always so affectionate, he would take  books and other things for
him, send his car and give him money. In those days, Krishnaji was not
so well known. When my father became President, he deftly brought a
change within the Society in favour of understanding what Krishnamurti
was talking about.

 

3. Did Krishnamurti deny the Mahatmas? Did he deny the path of
discipleship?

He used a vocabulary which is not the traditional one. He did not use
such words as `the path'. In fact, he said `Truth is a pathless land',
and many people are still puzzled by it. But from the Theosophical
point of view, every Monad is unique and, entering the material plane,
follows its own unique path. The development that takes place in every
individual is unlike any other ? the whole of Nature is like this.
Some years ago they said the thumb-print of every one of the millions
of human beings is different and identifiable. Now they say they can
identify a person by the teeth, the vocal cords, the hair, and so on.
That kind of uniqueness exists even at the physical level. So each
person has to proceed through his own understanding to the truth.
Nobody else can say `This is the path you must tread'.

Krishnaji did not talk about either the path or discipleship, because
a disciple is supposed to obey; and obedience, particularly if it is
blind, is a barrier to the development of true intelligence and
intuition for which he used the word `insight'. People get set ideas
about the meaning of words, and perhaps he used different words to
encourage listeners to examine the meaning afresh.

 

4. Some members of the TS say that Krishnamurti's work is not related
to occultism, which was a word used by HPB and the Mahatmas.

What is occult is what is hidden. There are innumerable things which
are hidden from our eyes, ears and other senses which have a limited
range. A few hundred years ago, if you had turned the knob of an
instrument in order to hear music flow from two thousand miles away,
they would have called it magic, but now it is science. When you
understand Nature and her laws, more and more of the occult ceases to
be so. But the so-called occult may also be what people do not know
for themselves, but think they know. They may disseminate wrong
information or falsehoods for the sake of gain. Therefore, in the TS
we do not encourage too much interest in so-called occult things.
Alice Bailey writes about the Rays. How many people know what they are
and whether what she says is correct? It is best to keep an open mind
on these questions. The same thing applies to Leadbeater, or Madame
Blavatsky. We need not reject or accept what is said, but keep an open
mind. Holding one's judgement in sus-pense is very important.

The Buddha's illustration of a poisoned arrow piercing a person's
flesh must be recalled. Should he be dis-cussing from what direction
the arrow came, who was the carpenter who made it, and at what
velocity it flew? That would be absurd. He must first remove the arrow
and heal the wound. So the Buddha did not talk about abstruse or
occult things. Krishnamurti's approach was similar. He said,  `Your
house is burning', meaning the world itself is in great danger. Should
not attention be directed to this, and not to talking about the
occult? He did not allow people to distract themselves. But he was an
en-lightened person who knew many things not known to us about the
depths and mysteries of life.

 

5. What do you think Krishnamurti's feelings were towards the TS?

I think his feeling was friendly, which does not mean that he agreed
with what TS members in general said and thought, because, as you
know, even among mem-bers, there are all sorts of varying ideas since
the TS stands for freedom of thought. Some people hold Theosophy is
what Blavatsky wrote and nothing else. This is not different from the
Muslim idea that Muhammed was the last and only prophet: `After
Muhammed, there is nothing further.' Anything other than Blavatsky is
not Theosophy, or should be called pseudo-Theosophy. But others
maintain that the wisdom that is Theosophy can come from many sources,
in many ages. Even people who are not enlightened may say some things
which are wise. So the only reasonable attitude is what HPB described
as `the open mind, the pure heart'. This needs to be encouraged.

Krishnaji spoke of unconditioning the mind. The TS works for universal
brotherhood ? without distinction of race, religion and all that
divides people, every form of conditioning ? the universal mind, the
unconditioned mind. I think ? I cannot of course speak for Krishnaji ?
that he appreciated some fundamental approaches of the Theosophical
Society. On one occasion, he said to me with a smile: `You know, I
like the TS.'

 

6. In your opinion, were the foundation of the TS and Krishnamurti's
work part of the same plan of the Mahatmas, or were these two
different things?

When C. W. Leadbeater saw Krishnaji for the first time, there were
several people on the Adyar beach. Krishnaji was with his younger
brother, and ? probably due to malnutrition ? looked dull, some people
even thought sub-normal in intelligence. His younger brother was
brighter and got good marks in school, which Krishnaji could not. He
may have been too sensitive to bear what is called the brunt of life.
But when Leadbeater saw him, he unhesitatingly said: `This is a highly
evolved soul, untainted by selfishness and in many incarnations he has
had contact with the Masters.' After Leadbeater wrote to Annie Besant
 that the two motherless boys were not properly looked after, she made
arrangements for them to be taken care of. She and Leadbeater felt
that he would be the vehicle of the World Teacher. Even earlier, Annie
Besant had been lecturing on the coming of the World Teacher. Before
Krishnaji was discovered, another boy had been identified as the
vehicle, so some said Leadbeater did not really know, which may not be
true; he may have simply realized that he had made a mistake. But when
he saw Krishnaji he was absolutely certain and so was Annie Besant,
and they did everything they thought fit for Krishnaji.

One common idea which many people have is also wrong ? that they said
Krishnaji was the World Teacher. They did not say that. He was to be
the vehicle of the World Teacher, and at some point his consciousness
would blend with that of the World Teacher. On 12 January 1910, Annie
Besant wrote to Leadbeater: `It is definitely fixed that the Lord
Maitreya takes this dear child's body. It seems a very heavy
responsibility to guard and help it, so as to fit it for Him, as He
said, and I feel rather overwhelmed . . . .' (Mary Lutyens, Years of
Awakening, ch. I). In 1926, Krishnaji wrote to Leadbeater: `I know my
destiny and my work. I know with certainty that I am blending into the
consciousness of the one Teacher, and that he will completely fill me.'

On one occasion Mrs Jayakar asked Krishnaji: `If Theosophists had not
dis-covered you, what would have happened?' He answered: `I would have
died.' She replied: `No, you would not have died. You would have been
like Ramana Maharshi, and people would have come to you.' Krishnaji
said: `No'; it sounded as if there was a plan and purpose ac-cording
to which his father was brought to Adyar. If Krishnaji had remained in
the circle of an orthodox Brâhman family, he may not have been able to
feel at ease with the whole world nor, outside the TS, would he have
had the necessary inter-national contacts. I am inclined to think that
the course of his life was part of the Plan. It is said all the
details of the Plan are not fixed in advance, but the general Plan was
worked out.

Krishnaji had great admiration and love for Dr Annie Besant. She
looked after him and spoke of him as somebody who would be a great
teacher even when people laughed at her or upbraided her. Some of her
friends in India told her: If you want to sponsor somebody, there are
better boys than Krishnamurti. They were angry with her, but she did
not change. Krishnaji himself related that at an important banquet in
England, where liberal politicians like Lord Lansbury who supported
India's freedom were present, Bernard Shaw taunted Annie Besant, who
took Krishnaji with her. Shaw, who always made fun of everything,
said: `Annie, is this your little Messiah?', and everybody laughed.
But she did not flinch. She did not care what other people's attitude
was, because she was so certain that a great message would be given to
the world through Krishnaji. He mentioned this particular incident and
said she supported him unfailingly until the end.  
-------------