|
All organizations, and maybe spiritual ones more so than
others, suffer from the 'human, all too human' aspect. Maybe
'suffer' is too strong or incorrect a term to use. I think
the idea is that, especially in organizations sponsored
by the Masters, the human side is pushed into the open to
be transformed, not only for the sake of the individual
and his/her spiritual evolution, but also for the sake of
the efficacy of the organization as a tool to spread Their
teachings.
I also think that these opportunities for transformation
come and go cyclically and are either of a personal kind
or, more collectively, come for the whole organization.
I think that the TS (Adyar), with ups and downs, did manage
to grow through individual and collective transformations
till the fateful days of Krishnamurti's abdication. First
some Theosophists lost it in the face of K's teachings around
1925 (for example the "Huizen manifestation"),
then K himself lost it around 1927, and then the whole of
the TS lost it when K dissolved the Order of the Star in
1929. Therefore, imo, all failed and the consequences were
dire for the world. In my pamphlet
on the Masters and their emissaries I wrote:
"Through Theosophists Cyril Scott and David Anrias,
the Adepts communicated their evaluation of the project
and declared it an almost complete failure. Krishnamurti
caused so much confusion in the ranks of the Theosophists,
that the Theosophical Society was disqualified as the spearhead
of the work of the Adepts. … Three months after Krishnamurti
had dissolved the Order of the Star, the crash on the New
York Stock Exchange happened. This event was the starting
point of an unprecedented disastrous sixteen-year-cycle
of economic depression, militarism, fascism and war, culminating
in the Holocaust and the use of the atomic bomb. This was
no coincidence. One of its main causes was the earlier mentioned
confusion amongst many advanced souls. They were not able
anymore to keep the forces of darkness at bay."
So, how did the TS collectively deal with this? Initially
there was a healthy distancing between the TS and K under
the presidency of Arundale, but because Arundale was one
of those who were problematic in the first place, his leadership
was not necessarily helpful in processing the failed world
teacher project. The next president, Jinarajadasa, was more
neutral towards K policy-wise and actually, on a personal
level, was offering to come to work for K if he would accept
him. Later, with Sri Ram and especially Radha Burnier, the
TS came into a more open reconciliation with K, which was
good, but it went too far in that it engendered the increasingly
held perception that K did not fail and that it was only
the TS that was to blame. I obviously disagree with that
assessment and with me are many more, though so far only
Hodson's pupil William Keidan has come clearly into the
open in support of a critical position regarding K. I know
others keep silent (except Anand Gholap), partially because
the un-official party line in the TS (Adyar) is perceived
as pro-K.
My explanation from a psychological point of view for the
somewhat sorry state of the TS these days is that its membership
actually still is in a state of collective spiritual shock
because of the failed world teacher project. It is still
in a state of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which
is clouding its vision and is creating the tendency towards
only blaming itself and idealizing K, not unlike-and this
might sound very harsh, but the structural congruency is
striking-the battered wife who keeps coming back to her
husband, blaming herself for her being abused and still
looking for comfort with her husband. (BTW abused person
syndrome is a sub-category of PTSD). And every member is
participating in this drama in his/her own unique way, whether
they know it or not and regardless of their position on
Krishnamurti.
For what Theosophists had to endure from K starting in the
late 1920s the following comparison of Theosophical and
Krishnamurtian positions will be helpful to get an empathetic
understanding of their troubled relationship:
Comparison
between Theosophy and Krishnamurti
It is in this psycho-esoteric framework I now understand
the often-repeated claim that K actually did the TS a favor
through his iconoclasm and harsh criticism, something I
found always somewhat puzzling till I put it in a more psychological
context and see it as an evasive re-interpretation to cope
with K's abusive message. With the syndrome also comes a
dismissive or even aggressive stance towards anybody offering
help. The concrete help I'm referring to is the one offered
by the Masters through Cyril Scott and David Anrias and
their early 1930s esoteric assessments of K. For more than
75 years these possibly curative insights have never been
properly processed by the TS. The only notable exception
of a Theosophist engaging the Scott-Anrias oeuvre is Jean
Overton Fuller, but she comes down on the side of K and
dismisses his two critics as not having understood him properly.
When I asked a prominent theosophist about Scott's and Anrias'
work I received a completely unexpected aggressive answer
that left me speechless. Now I understand.
Another unfortunate side-effect of this state of the TS
is that it missed the opportunity to recognize the moves
by the Masters in the last quarter of the 20th century,
a subject that has been certainly on the minds of some Theosophists
as HPB made it clear that the Masters take discernable actions
at those last 25 years of each century.
The question now is, that-if the foregoing psycho-esoteric
interpretation of the history of the TS in its relation
to the world teacher project with Krishnamurti is plausible
enough to ponder-what possible implications might that have?
This question is especially important as far as the election
for the presidency of the TS is concerned. Finally we, the
rank and file of the organization, have a choice amongst
candidates and thereby have an opportunity to make our voices
heard through our ballots. But what are the differences
between the two candidates as far as proposed policies?
From their "bio-data" provided with the ballots
nothing much can be inferred. Therefore I have to fall back
on trying to gage their position on this very important
subject of Krishnamurti and the world teacher project and
weigh which candidate I think might be better, or less bad,
in moving the society towards a more balanced, independent
position regarding Krishnamurti.
Fortunately we can know their respective perceptions of
Krishnamurti. Radha Burnier basically sees K as the expected
Messiah and the TS as initially having failed to recognize
him as such. John Algeo is more agnostic about K's metaphysical
status and actually warned against the tendency to idealize
K with the possibility of the TS creating a new kind of
sectarianism. Ergo, I will vote for John Algeo. Of course
the health issue and the attitude towards technology are
also important in this election, but, for me, they pale
in significance in comparison with the Krishnamurti issue.
At the same time Algeo might not make a big difference in
this regard as it is up to the thinkers in the field to
work out the questions regarding K's metaphysical status
and to test the apparent operative assumption in the TS
leadership that a fusion is feasible between the Theosophical
and Krishnamurtian paradigms. I hope, and will work at,
the logical conclusion that this fusion is actually not
feasible as Krishnamurti himself, and some of his students,
especially Hans and Radhika Herzberger, have indicated.
Maybe thereafter the realization will set in that a different,
more esoteric, Theosophical angle, represented by Scott,
Anrias and Hodson, will have to be developed to properly
process Krishnamurti, but that might take a while.
Source
Originally posted here
on May 16, 2008 on "The Theosophical Society: A forum
for the discussion of institutional issues."
|
