One is opposed to nothing more severely
than to errors recently laid aside
--Goethe
A question which might interest many Theosophists is what Blavatsky
and the Masters might have thought about the teachings of Krishnamurti.
Although Blavatsky died before Krishnamurti was born, she fortunately
left some writings which are helpful in determining on what points her
teachings agree and disagree with those of Krishnamurti. The focus
will be on their differences because some disagreements pertain directly
to the foundations of Krishnamurtis teachings.(1)
For example, Blavatsky stresses that one cannot pass over even one
step on the path to higher consciousness (2), yet Krishnamurti summarily
rejects not only a path of graduated levels in attaining truth (3),
but also the very existence of a higher self to unite with.(4)
Furthermore, Blavatsky makes it clear that a Guru plays an essential
part in ones mastery of higher consciousness (5), while Krishnamurti
repudiates the role of a spiritual teacher.(6)
The differences even take a dramatic turn when it becomes clear that
Blavatsky seriously warns about the kind of philosophy Krishnamurti
teaches. She writes that certain doctrines in exoteric Vedantism--which
are very similar to Krishnamurtis teachings--might have the effect
of disconnecting the soul or the personal self from its higher source,
the higher self.(7) This in turn might cause the second
death of the soul, which is like an implosion of consciousness
into nothingness (8) as opposed to the second birth of the
soul when she expands into divinity by first uniting with the higher
self and ultimately with the divine self. These differences are
not just philosophical and void of spiritual relevance. From an
esoteric point of view they are of great significance.
Aside from the serious and grave warnings inferred from Blavatskys
writings, the Masters themselves made some specific comments on Krishnamurtis
teachings. Lord Maitreya, for example, pointed out that Krishnamurti
made a mistake in assuming that anyone could reach his level of consciousness
immediately.(9) An English Master indicated that Krishnamurti
is teaching an erroneous version of Advaita Vedanta (10), confirming
indeed what was gleaned from Blavatsky. Furthermore, this Master
warned for some serious dangers in Krishnamurtis teachings, notably
his rejection of an esoteric system of spiritual evaluation and his
invitation to intense meditation without occult protection.(11)
According to this Master, engaging in Krishnamurtis brand of Advaitism
might lead to hypocrisy and self-delusion.(12) Krishnamurtis
former Guru, Kuthumi, likewise expressed a stern warning about the consequences
of his philosophy.(13) Finally, Geoffrey Hodson, a prominent Theosophist
and clairvoyant pupil of the Masters, accuses Krishnamurti of circular
reasoning (14) and intellectual arrogance.(15) Again, it has to
be stressed that these errors are not just a matter of intellectual
interest without spiritual consequences. The very health, even
survival, of ones spiritual being is involved here.
Regarding the feasibility of Krishnamurtis suggestion of a profound
fundamental transformation of the human consciousness, it has to be
pointed out that Krishnamurti did not arrive at that level of consciousness
by way of his own proposed instantaneousnon-method.(16)
He arrived there solely by treading first the path of initiation under
a Master (17)--going almost to its final conclusion--then stepped aside,
and denounced the whole method.(18) Furthermore, Vimala Thakar,
the only one who executed his kind of transformation in a credible way
(19)--and as such could prove its feasability--did not arrive there
by his proposed non-method either. Instead, she transformed
because Krishnamurti acted as Guru to her. She first gradually
acquired an experimental understanding of his erroneous brand of Advaita
Vedantism and then Krishnamurti, while laying hands on her for healing
an auditory ailment, initiated her into his rebellious state of consciousness.(20)
To quote Blavatsky, applying Krishnamurtis non-method
is like destroying a bridge over an impassable chasm; The traveler
can never reach the goal on the other shore.(21)
The foregoing does not imply that there are no truthful and salutary
insights to be found in Krishnamurtis teachings. He exhorts
people to think for themselves (22) and to change in a fundamental way
(23); he skillfully diagnoses certain dangers of the human ego or synthetic
self (24); and he invokes with compassion a sense of urgency about the
dangerous situation mankind is in.(25) But these pearls have
to be found in a sea of errors. If the foundations of his teachings
are erroneous then also its superstructure. A well-grounded Theosophical
conception of human nature and a mastery of the abstruse difficulties
of Indian metaphysics(26) are indispensable to catch these pearls.
Even then, one might easily trip over the pearls and land in the mire
of Krishnamurtis misconceptions. Due to the deceptive, even
mesmerizing properties of Krishnamurtis teachings--notwithstanding
the apparent awakening and helpful qualities they have--one might not
even be aware of it.
In the same way that Krishnamurtis teachings can have a temporary
beneficial effect upon certain individuals, a civilization based on
his teachings might be successful in its first stages of growth.(27)
But, in the end, if not propped up or saved by esoteric corrections
and guidance, it will falter, break down and disintegrate. It will never
have the chance to develop into a Golden Age, because it rejects the
Wisdom Religion.(28) Parallel to this notion is the idea that an individual
will find the opposite of enlightenment if he rejects the age-old path
of graded initiations
Endnotes
1.
|
At the same time it is an undeniable fact that Theosophy
and Krishnamurti have much in common. So much even that some
Theosophists consider Krishnamurtis teachings a modern
expression of the ageless Wisdom Religion. In many respects
both are also very close to Vedantism, especially the monist
(Advaita) version.
The likeness between Krishnamurtis teachings and Vedantism,
albeit Blavatskys understanding of it, will become hopefully
clearer in endnotes 5 and 7, in which Blavatsky contrasts
esoteric and exoteric interpretations of Vedanta. The esoteric
interpretation is Theosophical and the exoteric interpretation
is similar to Krishnamurtis position. Endnote 10 contains
the explicit remarks of a Master arguing that Krishnamurti
is indeed teaching Advaita Vedanta.
About the likeness between Theosophy and Advaita Vedanta,
Blavatsky states that in the Esoteric philosophy [i.e.
Theosophy], which reconciles all these systems... the nearest
exponent... is the Vedanta as expounded by the Advaita Vedantists.
H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Los Angeles:
The Theosophy Company, 1964), Vol. I, p. 55.
For more of Blavatsky on Advaita see H.J. Spierenberg, The
Vedanta Commentaries of H.P.Blavatsky (San Diego: Point
Loma Publications, 1992), pp. 4-5.
|
2.
|
No single rung of the ladder leading to knowledge
can be skipped. No personality [personal self or soul] can
ever reach or bring itself into communication with Atmâ [divine
self], except through Buddhi-Manas [higher self]...
H.P. Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings of Helena Petrovna
Blavatsky: A Synthesis of Science, Philosophy and Religion
(Wheaton IL: Theosophical Publishing House, 1980), p. 414.
|
3.
|
This idea of a gradual process, this idea of gradual
psychological evolution of man is very gratifying... . This
gradual concept, which psychologically is generally called
evolution, seems to me utterly false.
J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti
(Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1992), Vol. XVII, p. 67.
|
4.
|
Most of us do not want to know what we are. We invent
the higher self, the supreme self, the atma, and all the innumerable
ideas, to escape from the reality of what we are--the actual
everyday, every-minute reality of what we are. And we do not
know what we are from day by day, and on that we impose something
which thought has bred as the atma, which tradition has handed
over as the higher self.
J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti
(Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1992), Vol. XIII, p. 151.
|
5.
|
Blavatsky wrote:
There is a great difference between an Avatara and
a Jivanmukti: one, as already stated, is an illusive appearance,
Karma-less, and having never before incarnated; the other,
the Jivanmukta, is one who obtains Nirvana by his individual
merits. To this expression again an uncompromising, philosophical
Vedantin would object. He might say that as the condition
of the Avatara and the Jivanmukta are one and the same state,
no amount of personal merit, in howsoever many incarnations,
can lead its possessor to Nirvana. Nirvana, he would say is
actionless; how then can any action lead to it? It is neither
a result nor a cause, but an ever-present, eternal Is,
as Nagasena defined it. Hence it can have no relation to,
or concern with, action, merit, or demerit, since these are
subject to Karma. All this is very true, but still to our
mind there is an important difference between the two. An
Avatara is; a Jivanmukta becomes one. If the
state of the two is identical, not so are the causes which
lead to it. An Avatara is a descent of a God into an illusive
form; a Jivanmukta, who may have passed through numberless
incarnations and may have accumulated merit in them, certainly
does not become a Nirvani because of that merit, but only
because of the Karma generated by it, which leads and guides
him in the direction of the Guru who will initiate him into
the mystery of Nirvana and who alone can help him reach his
abode.
H.P.Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine (Adyar, India:
Theosophical Publishing House, 1938) Adyar Edition, Vol. V,
p. 352. Or: Idem., Collected Writings (Wheaton IL:
Theosophical Publishing House, 1985) Vol. XIV, p. 374. Or:
Idem., The Esoteric Writings, pp. 293-294.
|
6.
|
I have told you frankly that Masters are unessential,
that the idea of Masters is nothing more than a toy to the
man who really seeks truth.
J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti
(Dubuque IA: Kendall/Hunt, 1991), Vol. I, p. 173.
Krishnamurti himself wrote:
The core of Krishnamurtis teaching is contained
in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: 'Truth is a
pathless land.' Man cannot come to it through any organization,
through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not
through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique.
He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through
the understanding of the contents of his mind, through observation
and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.
J. Krishnamurti, The Core of Krishnamurtis Teaching
(Ojai CA: Krishnamurti Foundation of America, n.d.).
|
7.
|
Blavatsky wrote:
In order not to confuse the mind of the western student
with the abstruse difficulties of Indian metaphysics, let
him view the lower manas, or mind, as the personal ego [personal
self] during the waking state, and as Antahkarana only during
those moments when it aspires towards its higher Ego [higher
self], and thus becomes the medium of communication between
the two. It is for this reason called the Path....
Seeing that the faculty and function of Antahkarana is as
necessary as the medium of the ear for hearing, or that of
the eye for seeing; then so long as the feeling of ahamkâra,
that is, of the personal "I" or selfishness [the
synthetic self], is not entirely crushed out in man, and the
lower mind not entirely merged into and become one with the
higher Buddhi-Manas [higher self], it stands to reason that
to destroy Atahkarana is like destroying a bridge over an
impassable chasm; The traveler can never reach the goal
on the other shore. And there lies the difference between
the exoteric and the esoteric teaching. The former makes the
Vedânta state that so long as mind (the lower) clings through
Antahkarana to Spirit (Buddha-Manas) [higher self] it is impossible
for it to acquire true Spiritual Wisdom, Jnyâna, and that
this can only be attained by seeking to come en rapport
with the Universal Soul (Atmâ) [the divine self]; that, in
fact, it is by ignoring the higher Mind [higher self] altogether
that one reaches Râja Yoga. We say it is not so. No single
rung of the ladder leading to knowledge can be skipped. No
personality can ever reach or bring itself into communication
with Atmâ, except through Buddhi-Manas; to try to become a
Jivanmukta or a Mahâtmâ, before one has become an adept or
even a Naljor (a sinless man) is like trying to reach to Ceylon
from India without crossing the sea. Therefore we are told
that if we destroy Antahkarana before the personal [personal
self] is absolutely under the control of the impersonal Ego
[the higher self], we risk to lose the latter and be severed
for ever from it, unless indeed we hasten to re-establish
the communication by a supreme and final effort. It is only
when we are indissolubly linked with the essence of the divine
Mind [higher self] that we have to destroy Antahkarana.
H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, pp. 413-414.
Krishnamurtis teaching neatly corresponds to the exoteric
position as presented here by Blavatsky, for he proposes to
access directly the impersonal universal creative intelligence
(Atma) by tossing out aspiration (Antahkarana) and denying
the existence of the higher self (Buddhi-Manas).
|
8.
|
Blavatsky warns:
Be it far from me the suspicion that any of the esoteric
students have reached to any considerable point down the plane
of spiritual descent. All the same I warn you to avoid taking
the first step. You may not reach the bottom in this life
or the next, but you may now generate causes which will insure
you spiritual destruction in your third, fourth, fifth, or
even some subsequent birth... Finally, keep ever in mind the
consciousness that though you see no Master by your bedside,
nor hear one audible whisper in the silence of the still night,
yet the Holy Power is about you, the Holy Light is shining
into your hour of spiritual need and aspirations, and it will
be no fault of the MASTERS, or of their humble mouthpiece
and servant, if through perversity or moral feebleness some
of you cut yourselves off from these higher potencies, and
step upon the declivity that leads to Avitchi [state of soulless-ness].
H.P.Blavatsky, The Esoteric Writings, p. 418.
|
9.
|
Lord Maitreya:
"Thus although Krishnamurti was right to emphasize
the necessity for independent thought, he was wrong in assuming
that everyone else, regardless of past Karma and present limitations,
could instantly reach that point which he himself had
only reached through lives of effort, and by the aid of those
Cosmic Forces apportioned to him solely for his office
as Herald of the New Age."
Lord Maitreya in David Anrias, Through the Eyes of the
Masters: Meditations and Portraits (London: Routledge,
1932), p. 67.
[Full text of Maitreya's message on Krishnamurti at alpheus.org/html/source_materials/scott_anrias/maitreya_da.html]
Any of the Masters quoted in these endnotes I believe to
be genuine members of the Great White Brotherhood.
|
10.
|
Sir Thomas, an English Master said:
Also instead of giving forth the new Teaching so badly
needed, he [Krishnamurti] escaped from the responsibilities
of his office as prophet and teacher by reverting to a past
incarnation, and an ancient philosophy of his own race [Advaita
Vedantism] with which you are familiar, but which is useless
for the Western World in the present cycle. But those to whom
he speaks think they are receiving a new message, and as such
it carries undue weight. The message he should have delivered,
he has failed to deliver--or only partly delivered. Nothing
about Art--no plans for the new sub-race--educational schemes
dropped--and in place of all this: Advaita, a philosophy for
chelas, and one of the most easily misunderstood paths to
liberation... He who attempts to teach Advaita, and omits
all Sanscrit terms, courts failure. Sanscrit words engender
an occult vibration which is lost when translated. Western
words not suitable to describe subjective states of consciousness,
because their associations are mainly mundane... Another flaw
in this pseudo-Advaita which Krishnamurti is giving out, is
that he addresses the personality, the physical plane man
[personal self], as if he were the Monad [divine self] or
at least the Ego [higher self]. Of course the Monad, the Divine
Spark, is the Absolute Existence-Knowledge-Bliss, and hence
eternally free, but that doesn't mean that the personality
down here, immersed in endless-seeming Karmic difficulties,
can share its consciousness, or even that of the Ego--the
link between the personality and the Monad."
Sir Thomas, an English Master, in: His Pupil
[Cyril Scott], The Initiate in the Dark Cycle (London:
Routledge, 1932), pp. 136-139.
[Full text of relevant chapter at alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/truth_about_k.html]
|
11.
|
'Sir Thomas' again:
Well did my Brother Koot Hoomi say that Krishnamurti
had destroyed all the many stairways to God, while his own
remains incomplete. Also being incomplete it may lead to dangers
unforeseen by those who attempt to climb it. Danger Number
One: Krishnamurti's casting aside of time-honoured definitions
and classifications leaves aspirant without true scale of
values. Danger Number Two: climbing his particular staircase
necessitates constant meditation, which in its turn necessitates
constant protection from Guru--and Guru not allowed by Krishnamurti.
Of course a moderate degree may be practiced in safety without
a Guru, but long-continued meditation leads to states of consciousness
and excursions on to other planes where the Master's guidance
is absolutely indispensable.
Sir Thomas, in His Pupil, p. 138.
|
12.
|
Krishnamurti's Advaitism, which is not to be confounded
with the recognized form of that philosophy, will, I fear,
lead his followers nowhere except perhaps to hypocrisy and
self-delusion.
Sir Thomas, in: His Pupil, p. 139.
|
13.
|
Kuthumi dictated in 1975:
Today Krishnamurti, denounced by the Brotherhood,
denounces the true teachers and the path of initiation, proclaiming
that the individual needs only himself and that this is the
only God there is. Leading thousands of youth in the direction
of sophisticated disobedience to the God within [divine self],
to Christ the inner mentor [higher self], and to the masters
of the Brotherhood, this fallen one has been the instrument
of a philosophy that is not and does not in any way represent
the true teachings of the Great White Brotherhood.
[Relevant Paragraphs at alpheus.org/html/source_materials/krishnamurti/kh_on_k.html]
Kuthumi, An Exposé of False Teachings, Pearls
of Wisdom, Vol. XIX, no.5, p. 29. Copyright © 1976,
Summit University Press, P.O. Box 5000, Corwin Springs, Montana
59030-5000. (406) 848-9891. Web site: http://www.tsl.org.
|
14.
|
Hodson wrote:
Here are his words [Krishnamurtis] on the subject:
When we understand profoundly the significance of our
existence, of the process of ignorance and action, we will
see what we call purpose has no significance. The mere search
for the purpose of life covers up, detracts from the comprehension
of oneself. That quotation is a perfect example of the
closed circle of thought outside of which I for one find myself
to be shut when endeavouring to comprehend these teachings...
He seems to put the very goal itself as the first step towards
its attainment.
Geoffrey Hodson, Krishnamurti and the Search for Light
(Sydney: St.Alban Press, n.d.), pp. 12-13.
[Full text at alpheus.org/html/source_materials/theosophy/hodson1.html]
|
15.
|
In him, singleness of purpose has developed into intolerance.
Unique individuality has become a fetish, worship of which
produces narrow-mindedness and causes him to display distinct
signs of intellectual arrogance. He alone is right. Everyone
else, from the Lord Buddha down to the latest teacher of the
Law, is wrong, criminally wrong.
Ibid. p. 8.
|
16.
|
Theosophist John Algeo correctly observes that Krishnamurti
is teaching ends without means.
John Algeo, review of Krishnamurti--Love and Freedom
by Peter Michel in Quest Vol. 8, no. 3 (Autumn 1995),
p. 86.
|
17.
|
See Mary Lutyens, Krishnamurti: The Years of Awakening
(New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1975), for the story
of Krishnamurtis initiations and spiritual development.
See Charles W. Leadbeater, The Masters and the Path
(Adyar, India: Theosophical Publishing House, 1925) for a
Theosophical understanding of the initiatory process.
|
18.
|
The Arhat initiation is the one in which the Master
withdraws all guidance from his pupil, who may have to negotiate
the most difficult problems without being allowed to ask any
questions. He has to rely entirely on his own judgment, and
if he makes mistakes, must bear the consequences. And so what
did Krishnamurti do? Like the proverbial manservant who knows
he is about to be given notice, he gave notice first.
In other words, he cut himself adrift from the White Lodge,
and repudiated all of us. And unfortunately he induced others
far below him in spiritual evolution to do likewise.
Sir Thomas, in: His Pupil, p. 139.
|
19.
|
I wish I could describe how I witnessed the ego [the
synthetic self] being torn to pieces and being thrown to the
winds... . The center of thinking dissolved into nothingness.
Vimala Thakar, On an Eternal Voyage (Ahmedabad, India:
The New Order Book Co., 1969), pp. 46-47.
|
20.
|
Vimala Thakar thought, and I think correctly, that her transformation
had something to do with the healing-sessions with Krishnamurti.
She wrote:
I have told you [Krishnamurti] about the invasion
of a new awareness, irresistible and uncontrollable. I have
told you how it has swept away everything. Now--this has something
to do with the healing.
Thakar, p. 43.
Krishnamurti on the contrary was quite sure that the two
phenomena were not related. Apparently, when she published
her autobiography against Krishnamurtis wishes, he ended
their friendship and later his biographers gave her the silent
treatment. [This last statement is not fair, because it is
not true. Pupul Jayakar did deal with the Krishnamurti-Vimala
Thakar relationship in a 2-page segment in her 1986 Krishnamurti
biography. She did not mention the end of their relationship
though. See: Pupul Jayakar, Krishnamurti: A Biography
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), pp. 204-206. (Added
March 2004)]
|
21.
|
See endnote 7.
|
22.
|
If with all its power and superiority, one cannot
think for oneself, there can be no peace in the world.
J.Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom (New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1954), p. 64.
For this Krishnamurti received some compliments from the
Masters:
He did good work in teaching people to use their own
brain. Sir Thomas, in: His Pupil, p. 139.
And:
Krishnamurti was right to emphasize the necessity
for independent thought. Lord Maitreya in: David Anrias,
p. 67.
|
23.
|
One sees that there must be change in oneself--the
more sensitive, the more alert and intelligent one is, the
more one is aware that there must be a deep, abiding, living
change.
J.Krishnamurti, The Awakening of Intelligence (New
York: Harper & Row, 1973), p. 43.
|
24.
|
But when the mind seeks a timeless state which will
go into action in order to destroy the [synthetic] self, is
that not another form of experience which is strengthening
the me[synthetic self]?... So, having projected
this state of continuance in a timeless state as a spiritual
entity, you have an experience; and such an experience only
strengthens the self.
From chapter IX, What is the Self, in The
First and Last Freedom, pp. 76-82.
It is hard to find quotes by Krishnamurti, uncontaminated
by his basic errors. In the previous quote, for example, Krishnamurti
does not differentiate between aspirations of the soul, which
are wholesome (see endnote 7 about the Antahkarana), and ambitions
of the mind, which might be destructive depending on who or
what principle directs the mind. This line of thought makes
him throw out the baby (the soul) together with the bathwater
(the synthetic self).
|
25.
|
We have learned now the power of propaganda and that
is one of the greatest calamities that can happen: to use
ideas as a means to transform man... Man is not important--systems,
ideas, have become important. Man no longer has any significance.
We can destroy millions of men as long as we produce a result
and the result is justified by ideas... When the intellect
has the upper hand in human life, it brings about an unprecedented
crisis.
From On the Present Crisis, in The First
and Last Freedom, pp. 145-146.
|
26.
|
See endnote 7.
|
27.
|
The whole Krishnamurti phenomenon might be one of world-historical
significance. We might be observing the birth of a completely
new, though flawed, religion and civilization based on Krishnamurtis
teachings, with its geographical center in India and its outposts
in the West.
For some interesting ideas about the rise and fall of civilizations
see Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (London:
Oxford University Press, 1946).
|
28.
|
H.P. Blavatsky had high hopes for the Judeo-Christian and
Indic civilizations to transform themselves into a heaven
in the 21st century with the aid of the Theosophical Society,
led by a prophesied torch-bearer of Truth, expected
in the last quarter of the 20th century. See her Conclusion,
The Future of the Theosophical Society, in The
Key to Theosophy (Pasadena CA: Theosophical University
Press, 1995), pp. 304-307.
Annie Besant defended her involvement with Krishnamurti
by referring explicitly to Blavatsky's view about the future
mission of the Theosophical Society and the torch-bearer
of Truth. She clearly believed Krishnamurti to be the
vehicle for that expected teacher. She wrote in 1912 that
the only difference between herself and Blavatsky regarding
the coming of the next great Teacher was that
she put that event perhaps half a century later than
I do. Which of us is right only time can show. Annie
Besant, Freedom of Opinion in the T.S., letter
to The Vâhan 21\8 (March 1912), p. 153.
With the 20th century now drawing to a close; the world
in a state of unparalleled crisis, the Theosophical Society
only a minor agent of change and no sign of a torch-bearer
of Truth connected with it, it behooves Theosophists
to contemplate the texts quoted in this pamphlet and consider
an alternative perception of the esoteric history of the 20th
century.
My own proposal is contained in a pamphlet, "The Masters
and Their Emissaries: From H.P.B. to Guru Ma and Beyond,"
in which is stated that the teachings of the Masters, which
were originally planned to be given through Krishnamurti,
were given through Guy and Edna Ballard in the 30s and 40s,
through Geraldine Innocente in the 50s, through Mark
and Elizabeth Prophet in the 50s till the 90s, and through
Monroe and Carolyn Shearer from 1995 on.
For an overview of a wide variety of other Theosophical
views of Krishnamurti see "Krishnamurti and the
World Teacher Project: Some Theosophical Perceptions."
|
|