|
Recently, after visiting the Alpheus Web site, I felt moved
to revisit a task which I attempted whilst editing a
local Theosophical magazine some years ago viz. to help
bring a contrarian critique back into the Krishnamurti debate,
which had become somewhat censorious along the lines of "let
no dog bark but me." Speaking from my own belief, I
feel it actually does harm to Theosophy to encourage unproven
systems of philosophy to run without asking to see the beneficial
results in the lives of their promulgators; and the regrettable
evidence from Radha Sloss's book was that Krishnamurti did
not feel obligated to practice what he preached--not perhaps
something remarkable in a person of the work-a-day world--but
pretty devastating in the case of someone who had accepted
the mantle of a world philosopher. I hope by sharing my
thoughts and researches it may in a small way help Theosophy
to move on into the 21st Century.
Much of what I have to say comes either directly or indirectly
from Geoffrey Hodson, a leading Theosophical writer, lecturer
and thinker of the last fifty years. As my destiny would
have it, in 1973 I came to reside in the same building as
Geoffrey and his wife Sandra during their stay in Perth,
Western Australia. And it became possible to visit them
at that time on almost a daily basis for approximately eight
months. Even after they returned to New Zealand I subsequently
kept in close touch by correspondence for the next ten years
until Geoffrey's death in 1983.
My belief, supported by such evidence as became available
to me, was that Geoffrey 's childhood was characterized
and nurtured by family love, intelligent education and psychological
and physical balance. Thus the seed of a psychic and spiritual
idiosyncrasy that he was born with was able to take root
and grow into a healthy plant in this fertile environment.
A more profound development occurred by Geoffrey's energetic
and ethical engagement with life as well as by co-operation
with the wider plan for Theosophy through his lectures,
writing and service to those in need. Consequently, he matured
into an initiated Gnostic seer and eventually, I believe,
became a humble mouthpiece for the Masters of the Wisdom
to the outer world. He was what, I suppose in Biblical terms,
would be called a prophet. But, to adapt another Biblical
analogy, he was not a prophet totally accepted in his own
country, especially not in the Krishnamurti part of that
country. I mention this in detail because if one is going
to make an appeal to authority or base one's belief on an
authority, one needs to know the validity upon which that
authority is anchored. For example in Govert Schüller's
very interesting article Krishnamurti
and the World Teacher Project several revelations
are mentioned, Geoffrey's included, which are very different
from each other. If these are the experts on the subject
then, as the old saying has it, "When the experts differ
who do you believe?" Before one can assess how much
reliability to place in these different opinions it would
be helpful to know whether they are based upon such matters
as mediumistic communication, intuitive feelings, clairvoyant
investigation or direct advice and teaching from a Master
of the Wisdom, or a fully developed yogically attuned disciple
of the same. I make no claim to any of these insights myself,
I am just piecing together some of the information that
has come to me from my connection with Geoffrey Hodson over
the years plus a little in the way of logical deduction.
What is said in Krishnamurti and the World Teacher Project
concerning Geoffrey's
statements on Krishnamurti is accurate as far as it
goes. His view may appear to have been changeable, drifting
towards the conciliatory, but knowing Geoffrey I would like
to suggest that it was more likely to have been stated in
oracular language designed to achieve diplomatic co-existence.
I suspect that Geoffrey chose to be ambiguous for at least
three possible reasons: 1) Because he did not wish to promote
a split in the Adept inspired Theosophical Society to which
he had dedicated his life, 2) Because his Masters did not
want his own important voice on Basic Theosophy, especially
The Path Ideal, to be lost during times of transitional
ideology within The Theosophical Society, and 3) Since K.
was still alive and teaching at that time, he had no wish
to hurt him or his followers, especially perhaps in view
of the many early and profound sacrifices that K. had made
for the work and which was surely one factor in the 1929
separation. What I am suggesting is that Geoffrey actually
had a mature view of the situation which he chose not to
reveal openly as the time was not yet ready, and the far-ranging
research presented in Krishnamurti and the World Teacher
Project had actually picked up the tip of that iceberg.
But now that both Jiddu Krishnamurti and Geoffrey Hodson
have passed over (J.K. d.1986, G.H. d.1983), and what was
once private and sensitive information is now arguably repressed
energy that should be dissipated for the psychological health
of Theosophy, The Theosophical Society and for the sake
of the historical record.
Even though Geoffrey as well as others accepted that the
overshadowing was always experimental and that the stresses
from K.'s upbringing and training had been very great, it
was nevertheless his belief that an act of choice occurred
within K.'s psyche which made it impossible for the process
to continue. The spin that Krishnamurti put on the matter
of course implied that he was rejecting something less desirable
for something more desirable. It must be left to the consideration
of thoughtful readers whether Krishnamurti's philosophy
was a fair exchange for a full-blown teaching mission of
The Lord Maitreya Christ. Incidentally in 1973 when I privately
asked Geoffrey whether David Anrias' analysis in Through
the Eyes of the Masters was the correct one he denied
that was the real reason for what went wrong, and I did
not then feel comfortable to press him further as to what
actually had happened. It was only many years later that
I found out from a friend who received the information from
a very close pupil that Geoffrey's understanding of the
situation was as follows.
At a certain stage in the initiation process a pupil has
the right to ask a boon from the Master, such a request
is normally granted. K asked for the life of his brother
Nityananda, who at the time was dying of tuberculosis. Unfortunately,
Nityananda had already agreed to endure his terminal illness
so that a karmic debt could be cleared in preparation for
a fortunate rebirth; in such circumstances the boon could
not be granted. Apparently K. could not accept this decision
with equanimity and became very antagonistic towards the
Masters, resulting in what is so well documented about the
change in his direction accompanied by many iconoclastic
comments,some even suggesting that the Masters are irrelevant.
In addition, through my own research of Geoffrey's writings
and when I wrote my first article on this matter in October
1995, I realized he had made provision for posterity by
seeding information of the actual mechanism of what happened
into one of his posthumously published books. Of course
the case mentioned does not have K's name attached to it,
therefore it has not been widely canvassed or publicized
for what it is, but the context clearly indicates who it
refers to. I might also add in passing that there are other
revealing comments that could appear to refer to K. in the
same book. Let us, however, content ourselves with the main
entry that I refer to above:
"Reductions of contact with the Master may temporarily
occur as a result of two procedures. One of these is interior
and almost automatic; for when an Initiate falls deeply
into error, indulgence, denial and scorn of the occult Path,
his own Ego withdraws its radiant influence and knowledge
of the Brotherhood so that the personality forgets about
the illumination and upliftment it has received. The other
is external and may be regarded as a surgical operation
by the Brotherhood which, regretfully and generally for
the remainder of that life, closes down the memory centers
associated with Occultism in the mental body and even in
the brain. In both cases, the psychical and magnetic interplay,
which continually occurs between every faithful Initiate
and his Master and the Brotherhood as a whole, automatically
becomes reduced and eventually ceases. Even so, a certain
stamp of princeliness remains and can on occasion be discerned.
All such falls, however, are tragic for the Brotherhood
and the Master concerned, who must shoulder some responsibility
for failure just as He would share in the karma of success.
Of course, this applies to the Initiated Ego which has found
itself powerless to control the personality and maintain
its conscious link with it - chiefly showing as aspiration
and determination towards the heights." (G. Hodson,
The Yogic Ascent to Spiritual Heights, Manila: Stellar
Books, 1991, p.191)
Perhaps it was that "certain stamp of princeliness"
which remained in K., which made him so charismatic and
awe-inspiring to many; perhaps it was partly his ascetic
Indian good looks--a significant marketing factor in the
modern world; perhaps it was that his very absence of a
path seemed an opportunity to break free for some anally
retentive people who were captives of their heavy intellectual
baggage; perhaps, indeed, amongst some of K.'s strange dismissive
answers to questioners and his iconoclastic utterances there
are the occasional true insights? Whatever the totality
of the answer, one thing is certain: Geoffrey Hodson has
supplied us with a Theosophical insider's inner and occult
analysis. In addition, Radha Rajagopal Sloss in her Lives
in the Shadow with J Krishnamurti has given us a family
insider's revealing character and personality analysis--intellectually
honest because it was written more in sorrow than in anger.
It has certainly taken long enough to come to this point,
but I am hopeful that some forward movement in the spiritual
life of the planet will occur from thoughtful consideration
of how we find ourselves taking advice from those whose
philosophy is generated more by their own needs than by
perennial factors.
If the Krishnamurti business is ever put to bed within
The Theosophical Society, maybe room will become available
for the Path Ideal to return at the level of intensity it
deserves. I trust that my readers will indulge me in quoting
an inspiring encouragement along these lines taken from
Geoffrey Hodson's writings:
"Arise all you who would attain. Send up your cry
for light and enter fearlessly upon the upward Way. It is
for you. It calls you. It is your destiny to succeed. Aid
awaits you. Your Teacher is near you, watching you. Look
not back but forward and you will see His face. Earth's
Supermen wait upon earth's men, ready to assist each one
who answers to the call and with sincerity and whole-heartedness
gives himself entirely to the Quest of light and power and
truth, aspiring ardently to become a servant and a saviour
of the world." (Geoffrey Hodson, The Pathway to
Perfection. Adyar, 1954, p. x)
|
