|
March 1998
Before trying to formulate my reaction to Mrs. Fuller’s
interesting thoughts on Krishnamurti, I want to thank her
for having taken the time and energy to respond to my pamphlets.
Jean Overton Fuller’s Theosophical view on Krishnamurti
has the attractive feature that it is, at least on first
sight, consistent. Given her premise that the Masters continued
to back Krishnamurti, most of her other reasoning appears
very plausible. From her point of view one would have to
conclude with her that indeed the Masters were re-veiling
themselves, that indeed anyone else claiming Their support
would be deluded, and, yes, Scott wrote some misleading
fiction about Krishnamurti. And finally, as a practical
consequence for Theosophists, it would indeed be wise to
assimilate Krishnamurti’s teachings. The problem is
that if you work out her view in more detail, you will encounter
at least three serious anomalies.
1) While re-veiling Themselves why would the Masters denounce,
through K, Theosophy, and replace it with a philosophy,
which is sometimes fundamentally at odds with it? Or, if
They were not actively working through K, why would They
permit him doing so? That seems to be a high price after
all the effort spent by the Masters on revealing Theosophy
to the masses of the world since They contacted Blavatsky.
2) Another anomaly is that K himself seemed oblivious of
this policy. He would resolutely reject the idea that he
was implementing a certain policy of the Brotherhood, i.e.
the re-veiling of the Masters. This idea would only become
acceptable if one holds the position of Luntz (see "K
and the WT Project," 5-7)
that K was used by Maitreya for certain purposes, about
which K was not informed. K’s own explanation--that
the Masters just keep naturally quiet when a bhodisattva
(referring to himself) walks the earth ("Truth and
Actuality," 88)--seems to be a more elegant one, though
equally erroneous.
3) A third anomaly reveals itself when one takes a closer
look at the way the Masters actually dealt with the problem
of misrepresentation. According to Mrs. Fuller Theosophists
had started to create unreal ideas and preconceptions of
the Masters, designed to fit their prejudices, and by re-veiling
Themselves the Masters could counteract this undesirable
state of affairs. (Her case could be strengthened with a
reference to the "Mahatma Letters" in which
M. states that the Masters would be bothered if the secret
of their existence would be “thoroughly vulgarized”
[3d. ed., 224]). But was re-veiling the right answer to
the problem? I found two indications that They tried to
solve the problem, not by withdrawing themselves, but by
coming out into the open and by better educating the public
about Themselves. In A
Message to the Members of the Theosophical Society From
an Elder Brother, which was released a couple of days
before K’s first overshadowing in 1925 and after the
problematic Huizen manifestations had occurred, one can
read that the Masters were looking forward to the possibility
that, if the project with K would be successful, “the
doors thus be flung wide open between Our world and yours,
and between other worlds and yours, that they may become
one world, Ourselves restored to Our natural place among
Our younger comrades.” The general impression I derive
from this document is not that its author seeks to fade
into the background, but, on the contrary, he seeks patiently
and wisely for a natural acknowledgment. He explicitly hopes
“that the Theosophical Society, Our Society
as well as yours, may some day recognise Us as facts, and
not merely as plausible and logical theories.” The
other indication is the message in David Anrias’ "Through
the Eyes of the Masters." This book was
(and still is) a profound statement from the Masters to
help their lesser brothers, who are “struggling in
the waters of spiritual uncertainty,” because Krishnamurti
had “depreciated the value of the Masters as Teachers
and Guides(18).” It is clear from the publication of
this book that the Masters were not happy with Krishnamurti’s
statements about Them and that They had to counter those
statements by coming out a little more into the open with
some messages and drawings. If there was a problem with
erroneous preconceptions about the Masters then I think
Krishnamurti, instead of contributing to the solution, only
aggravated the situation with his own misconceptions. To
this the Masters responded not by veiling themselves even
more, but by revealing Themselves through drawings, which
“may serve as a focus for meditation,” and through
messages to inform those who are looking for the Masters’
viewpoint. Though the Masters might have been bothered by
erroneous images of them, I think these were tolerated as
the outcome of the Theosophical policy of freedom of thought.
Apparently, if a representation of Them is too erroneous,
as in the case with Krishnamurti, They will indeed do something
to counteract that.
To round off my reaction to Ms. Fuller’s letter the
following points:
a) I think Scott and Anrias were both, independent of each
other, informed by the Masters about Krishnamurti’s
rejection of his role as Maitreya’s medium and its
consequences. Scott was informed by "Sir Thomas"
during a visit in England. Anrias got his information during
his meditations in India. Their challenging role in the
drama was to make that information known to Theosophists
and the world at large.
b) Scott’s books are not obviously fictional, for
he made the explicit statement that they were based on fact.
Only the names of the characters were fictitious. (See Scott’s
"Outline of Modern Occultism," 233)
c) Regarding the way “Sir Thomas” spoke I submit
the following quote:
“.... one of the English Masters is correctly portrayed
as talking in short clipped sentences, a matter which has
aroused criticism. But as he has explained, he deliberately
adopted that particular mannerism because it is custom to
talk like that in the rural district which he inhabits,
and in which he desires to remain inconspicuous. Were he
to let it be known that he is a High Initiate, inroads on
his valuable time, selflessly used in the service of humanity,
be it remembered, would prevent him from pursuing his work.”
(Scott’s
introduction to Anrias’ "Through the
Eyes of the Masters," 20)
Because I believe that “Sir Thomas” was a real
Adept, I can believe easily that he spoke as reproduced
by Scott and I can accept his explanation. Is there any
standard of conversational style by which one could decide
who is an Adept and who not? To me the best standard of
evaluation would be content and vibration. In both aspects
“Sir Thomas” passes the test.
d) Contemplating the question about what the Theosophical
Society should do for the short remainder of the century
I would suggest that vis-a-vis Krishnamurti, instead of
assimilating, we should scrutinize his thought thoroughly.
Not only by studying what Scott, Anrias and Hodson had to
say about Krishnamurti’s teachings, but specifically
what HPB might have found. Two lengthy quotes from her collected
writings are reproduced in my pamphlet Krishnamurti:
An Esoteric View of his Teachings (endnotes 5
and 7). In it she compares some exoteric and esoteric Vedantic
concepts. I came upon these quotes by chance and they literary
almost struck me. They strengthened the conclusions to which
I already had come about K and they act now as two solid
reminders about how erroneous, even dangerous, K’s
teachings are. I regard them as two life-bouys to get out
of the K-problem.
A second suggestion I would make is to evaluate by content
and vibration the material of different claimants of contact
with the Masters. If Krishnamurti was not the one, the Masters
might have moved on. The writings from Guy Ballard, “Thomas
Prinz,” and Mark and Elizabeth Prophet are in my view
no less informative and transformative as the best of HPB
and the letters from the Mahatmas.
Govert Schüller
|
