INTRODUCTION

Jiddu Krishnamurti, “Great Liberator or Failed Messiah,” asks Luis S. R. Vas in his highly insightful book about the relations between Jiddu Krishnamurti and the Theosophical Society. This story is about a young boy that became an important philosophical teacher throughout the 20^th century. Groomed by theosophists, Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater to become the living embodiment of Maitreya, a vehicle for the coming Christ, a world prophet and savior by an organization, that lost sight of its original purpose. By the nineties, the situation seems to have subsided, but Theosophists remain left with the damage, divisions, and diverse perspectives about Jiddu Krishnamurti.

This effort and history after the death of the main founder, Helena P. Blavatsky represents a subversion and subsequent climatic fall of the Theosophical Society. H.P. Blavatsky was contending with such influences during her time, which is why she coined the term ‘Pseudo-Theosophy.’ This term was not created by what some researchers ignorantly call ‘Orthodox Theosophists.’ How did this promising organization become a messianic cult for Charles W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant’s progressive millennial movement is a question Theosophists and other researchers have investigated and detailed, as I will describe.

THE RELUCTANT MESSIAH

Many discover Jiddu Krishnamurti and come away with a negative perception of the Theosophical Society, but have not learned the full story. Begin with his story and the lost of his brother he suffered as a child, that changed him.

ORDER OF THE STAR IN THE EAST CHARADE

Since the founding of “The Order of the Rising Sun,” January 11, 1911, by George S. Arundale, a concatenation of ripple-effect raised from dormancy, enfolded and closed the original path the Theosophists, and the Theosophical Society were set upon. It is not known to those familiar with Krishnamurti, or some researchers trying to understand, that Jiddu Krishnamurti grew up in the Theosophical Society at a time the effects of inner conflicts even during H.P. Blavatsky’s time and new ones were on the cusp of erupting. The Order of the Star in the East was an organization and international movement from 1911-1927 founded after Arundale’s Order of the Rising Sun, and formed by Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater.

The successor of the O.S.E. was “Order of the Star” in June 1927, which was dissolved at Ommen on August 3, 1929 by head or rather puppet leader, Jiddu Krishnamurti.

The ‘Order of the Star’ began as Annie Besant put it, to:

“draw together those who, whether inside or outside the Theosophical Society, believe in the near coming of a great Spiritual Teacher for the helping of the world.”

The first Declaration of Principles for admittance, read:

“We believe that a great Teacher will soon appear in the world, and we wish so to live now that we may be worthy to know Him when He comes.”

A lecture in Stockholm printed in Superhuman Men (London. 1913. pg. 37) shows, that the ideal of the World Teacher to Annie Besant was not a “New Messiah” as Charles W. Leadbeater enthusiastically portrayed it at first. A.B. and C.W. Leadbeater viewed J.K. to be a vessel for the indwelling of the coming World Teacher. C.W.L. the spiritualistic Bishop, attempted to force this incarnation into several candidates before Krishnamurti, to be the next Messiah.

THE WILL OF LEADBEATER IN THE FORM OF A NEW COMING TEACHER

Charles W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant espoused this idea, which he believed occurred in the same process with Moses, Zarathustra, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. This idea firstly assumes the historical verification of certain controversial figures, and builds a new hierarchy of recognized “World Teachers.”

It was first, the Persian Mani who arguably created this idea, and one whom claimed to be the last and final messenger of God, before this Gnosticism is appropriated by Muhammad. Historically, Mani is the first to have been an actual World Teacher, or “world prophet” due to the geographical reach of Manichaeism. This idea of considering many personages and prophets as apart of a hierarchy exists in many religions, including Islam. This is no different from New Age beliefs, like Benjamin Créme and Alice A. Bailey, though the latter two present no limitations, nor a distinction as to who was historical, or fictional. Leadbeater contended, according to his “psychic ability,” that Jiddu Krishnamurti was really a female from eleven past lives, whose real name was Alcyone, and this Alcyone lived “from 20,000 BC to 624 AD.”

All this authority depended solely upon his untrained “clairvoyance.” Rather than scholarship, everything became dependent upon the clairvoyant proclamations of C.W.L.

E.L. Gardner wrote of this time period:

“Most of the Sections and Lodges of The Theosophical Society accepted this proclamation with confidence and diverted much of their energy to the Star Campaign — in preparation for his Coming. Obviously there has been no Coming. Bishop Pigott, writing some years ago, expressed the truth of the matter in the words ‘Leadbeater was wrong.’”

Bishop Pigott, Presiding Bishop of the Liberal Catholic Church, wrote in 1952:

“The Lord did not come in the way foretold (…) The Lord has not come, so far as we know (…) Leadbeater (…) was wrong about the Coming (…) Theosophists are in no sense bound to accept Leadbeater as an infallible teacher.” (August, 1952).

Imaginary “Lord Maitreya” approves
of C.W.L.’s Quasi-Catholicism!

E.L. Gardner states, that this was the suspicion in the 1930’s, but how did the Society mostly get diverted by such a proclamation entirely antithetical to the original purpose of Theosophy?

In Letters, between the year 1916-20, Leadbeater wrote to Annie Besant about the coming of a ‘Lord Maitreya,’ and the Liberal Catholic Church, that was being founded. There in Sydney, Charles W. Leadbeater had been initiated into the organization, Co-Masonry, which began in France in the 1890s with the forming of Le Droit Humain. E.L. Gardner, was a member of the Theosophical Society, whom had knew and met Charles W. Leadbeater. Leadbeater, who joined the Society in the 1880’s was an early contributor to theosophical publications, and began to publicize his own ideas in Man, Whence, How and Whither, and The Masters and the Path.

Annie Besant later endorsed the founding of the Liberal Catholic Church, as well as Theosophists on the belief that the Lord Maitreya approved the new Churches liturgy! If only H.P. Blavatsky lived to see this.

In April, 7, 1920, Leadbeater in a letter, claims that this Lord Maitreya told them to put questions towards K.H., who had long removed himself from anything to do with the Society. E.L. Gardner wrote, that they “relate to the celebration of Mass, the effect of consecration and of priesthood, and to numerous details of ecclesiastical procedure. The answers to these many questions all support and endorse the clerical views of Bishop Leadbeater himself. Evidently the ‘Lord Maitreya’ knew nothing of K.H.’s strong views on religions and sacerdotalism.”

THE CASE OF LEADBEATER’S CHARLANTRY AND PSYCHIC ABNORMALITIES

The approach to religion, that Charles W. Leadbeater and Annie Besant espoused is an interfaith and pluralist approach people are more familiar with in present-day. Although, it goes further, and is a worldview where quite every and any historical religious personage would be regarded as part of a hierarchy, or new angelology, including themselves.

While many think that Charles W. Leadbeater was just a charlatan, as to “psychic ability,” it has been argued, that the abnormality of his senses, mediumship, or untrained clairvoyance requires more explanation. E.L. Gardner attributed Leadbeater’s ability to unconscious thought power, mental automatism, visualizations, and over-imagination.

As E.L. Gardner writes:

“On the large scale of religious movements and nations, the power of creative thought — conscious and unconscious — is abundantly evident. The mentally projected figure of an ‘Almighty God’, or the ‘God of our Fathers,’ is still a popular idol, though being widely challenged today. As the Master K.H. wrote:  The word ‘God’ was invented to designate the unknown cause of those effects which man has either admired or dreaded without understanding them.”

KRISHNAMURTI ON LEADBEATER

At a gathering of friends in India December 1976, Krishnamurti was asked about those years in preparing him. He replied: “The only sincere one was Mrs Besant.” (Russell Balfour Clarke, The Boyhood of J. Krishnamurti, Chetana, Bombay, 1977, p. 42; also interviews with Balfour Clarke, Adyar, 1979).

When a proposal was put forth to write a biography of Leadbeater, and Mary Lutyens asked for his comments, he replied: “Leadbeater was evil,” and found it distasteful to even hear his name. (Correspondence with Mary Lutyens, 1979; see Krishnamurti on Leadbeater).

The dreams of K.H. when he paraphrased the French atheist, Baron D’Holbach was to gradually help remove this pattern of human reliability on gods, religions, sacerdotalism and ritualism, who are often by those religions obstructed from and made entirely ignorant of our divine nature. It is profitable to the program of some religious leaders to found a doctrine, or pluralism that insists all traditions are valid in their own way, or the Vatican to head, manage and practice ecumenical efforts, but that was not the approach of Theosophists.

The Theosophist must first admit, that religions are at fault and possesses faults, which in many cases puts them in a tough spot with regards to creeds and declarations of faith. Theosophists, if they belong to any religion are more likely to be considered heterodox, and not be taken seriously within the overarching framework of established positions and narratives.

“To enumerate the various ‘Messiahs’ and their beliefs and works would fill volumes. It is needless. When claims conflict, all, on the face of it, cannot be true. Some have taught less error than others. It is almost the only distinction. And some have had fine powers imperilled and paralyzed by leadings they did not understand.” (Helena P. Blavatsky, Modern Apostles and Pseudo-Messiahs, Lucifer, London, July, 1890.)

Of course, this is exactly what Jiddu Krishnamurti criticizes as the attempt of religions to avoid questioning their infallibility.

“Theosophists and others say that truth has many aspects: Christianity is one aspect, Buddhism, another, Hinduism another, and so on. This merely indicates that we want to stick to our own particular prejudices, and be tolerant to other people’s prejudices. To me, truth has no aspects.”—Auckland 31 Mar., 1934. “We are so entrenched in prejudice, in tradition with its special beliefs and dogmas, that we repeat dogmatically, readily, that there are many paths to truth. The leaders of organised interests try to cover up, in weighty phrases, the inherent brutality of division.”—Madras 20 Dec., 1936. “The idea that there are separate paths to truth, that truth has different aspects, is unreal; it is the speculative thought of the intolerant trying to be tolerant.” (Jiddu Krishnamurti, Commentaries on Living, Vol. II Ch. 44, 1958.)

Krishnamurti has a point, but the first quote of H.P.B. reveals, in my opinion, her to be the experienced veteran when she states, that no rung of the ladder must be skipped. She even describes those like Krishnamurti:

“…most people who become really earnest students of Theosophy, and active workers in our Society, wish to do more than study theoretically the truths we teach. They wish to know the truth by their own direct personal experience…” (H.P.B., The Key to Theosophy, pg. 259)

There are numerous things stated by Krishnamurti, that relate, such as this:

“He has to find it [truth] through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.” (Jiddu Krishnamurti, 1980)

At many other times, it becomes as he believed himself incompatible with Theosophy, such as his rejection of the idea of self-mastery, or self-discipline. It is also valid to say, that many of his critiques of these notions aims at the egotistic trappings and binds students do get into from the belief in self-cultivation. This is typified in Western neurotic obsessions with the “spiritual industry” of self-help and self-development, that other schools of philosophy would find counterproductive.

THE NATURE OF KRISHNAMURTI’S TEACHINGS

It is claimed, J.K. himself never read the works of H.P. Blavatsky, but in multiple speeches and interviews when asked about the Theosophical teachings, Krishnamurti claims that he read or perused through Theosophical literature, and he says he dismissed it.

A Theosophist once asked Krishnamurti,

“What is your attitude to the early teachings of Theosophy, the Blavatsky type? Do you consider we have deteriorated or advanced?” his reply was:

“I am afraid I do not know, because I do not know what Madame Blavatsky’s teachings are. Why should I? Why should you know of someone else’s teachings? . . . Now you who have studied Madame Blavatsky’s and the latest Theosophy, or whatever it is, why do you want to be students of books instead of students of life? . . . Why do you want philosophies? Because life is an ugly thing, and you hope to run away from it through philosophy. Life is so empty, dull, stupid, ignominious, and you want something to bring romanticism into your world, some hope, some lingering, haunting feeling.”

Research about Jiddu Krishnamurti often position him as the victim and dismiss the Theosophical Society and Movement, but do not explain how it got to that point. As in, Krishnamurti, the lonely Hollywood Star, Jules Evans writes, Theosophy “mixed in a lot of esoteric magic and some bizarre pseudo-science.” It must be said, that Jiddu Krishnamurti’s critique of Theosophy is equally shallow, since the very thing he critiques it as being (a mere metaphysical abstract system, a rational or logical construct of concepts and ideas about “reality”), was not its main purpose.

Aryel Sanat, in his chapter Secret Doctrine, Krishnamurti and Transformation (from the book The Inner Life of J. Krishnamurti) demonstrates how much of Krishnamurti’s teachings were an exposition of the “secret doctrine” and essence of Zen Buddhism.

Others say, that his teaching, which shares parallel with early forms of Zen Buddhism is an extreme anti-mind form of Zen; and then still are others, that say his teaching is a semi-mystical and atheistic nihilistic practical psychology.

Then there are Theosophists and Hindus whom have demonstrated, that Krishnamurti’s teachings are an advanced Advaita-Vedanta, and that he was explaining things that no ordinary person could quite comprehend without having undergone a first and second stage of inner transformation. Memorably, a small group of people interviewed in one of the talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti all remarked how they wished they could really understand what he was saying, but they could not intellectually grasp it.

Krishnamurti went to great trouble to repeatedly ridicule Theosophists, because as it still remains, there are Theosophists, particularly of the Adyar and American sections, that believe the “Second Coming,” or something extraordinary happened in some way through Krishnamurti, and therein lies the root of the diversion.

Aryel Sanat and Mary S. Lutyens books on Krishnamurti’s life demonstrate, that he not only believed in the existence of theosophical Masters, his inner life intensely involved the esoteric, and strenuous physiological, psychic experiences.

Jiddu Krishnamurti’s main frustration during his speeches is with people not listening, but instead mesmerized by “The Speaker” (he abstractly refers to himself), they compare the teachings of others to his. Krishnamurti explains, that this comparison by the mind is a trick and distraction, an excuse, or illusion of the mind obstructing you from obtaining a lucid perception of the conditioning, thought-patterns and operations of the mind. Sometimes, people would catch the illusions in the middle of talks with him, while he is explaining these very psychological machinations.

KRISHNAMURTI CRITIQUES OF THEOSOPHISTS

The Mahatma Letters was not in publication in his period, because they were initially only private letters asked by its secret correspondents to remain so, and never be published. These Letters antedate The Secret Doctrine published in 1888, and were written in the first ten years of the founding of the Theosophical Society. However, those Letters are the main cause that led to The Secret Doctrine. Copies of these Letters were originally given to H.P. Blavatsky, and from her in the hands of W.Q. Judge. The Letters were published only a little over 40 years ago, nevertheless, anyone is able to discern from the writings of the pioneers of the Theosophical Movement the divergence the Society took.

“Our duty is to keep alive in man his spiritual intuitions. To oppose and counteract – after due investigation and proof of its irrational nature – bigotry in every form, religious, scientific, or social, and cant above all, whether as religious sectarianism or as belief in miracles or anything supernatural. What we have to do is to seek to obtain knowledge of all the laws of nature, and to diffuse it. To encourage the study of those laws least understood by modern people, the so-called Occult Sciences, based on the true knowledge of nature, instead of, as at present, on superstitious beliefs based on blind faith and authority.” (H.P. Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy, p. 48)

Perhaps, if Krishnamurti would have read that the denunciations of those teachers were similar to his own, movements within the T.S. like the ‘Back to Blavatsky’ movement would not have felt alone in their efforts. H.P. Blavatsky criticized the exact things as he did (Krishnamurti on Theosophy).

However, Krishnamurti had his own plan to emancipate himself. In speaking on Theosophy, Krishnamurti said:

“Please do not think that in the combination of your ideas and mine, you are going to realize a unified whole.”—Jiddu Krishnamurti, Ommen 27 Jul., 1933. “You cannot take what I say and add it to your own. You cannot mix oil and water.”—Twelve Ommen Talks, Benares 1933.

Krishnamurti tells his distraught followers, that the Masters they foster onto him is a projection.

“Drop your nationalism, your societies, do not be greedy, do not be cruel. You would soon leave them and pursue others who would satisfy you. There is a lot of talk about [Masters]; it has become a cunning means of exploiting people.”—Jiddu Krishnamurti, Madras 18 Dec., 1949. “You have invented the Masters and every kind of theory, ideal, gurus, god, and none of them have helped you actually. You are still in pain.”—Madras 29 Dec., 1984.

Imagine hearing this, still wondering if he will declare, that he indeed is the “World Teacher,” which was a process involving a being called “Maitreya-Christ” overshadowing him. K.H. had advised to Annie Besant in a final letter, that members and leaders must stop the cant about masters, and that a strange influence was breeding esoteric popery. K.H. tell us in the Letters, that the Theosophists were deluded about who they really were, which is that they are mortal men. The warnings in those Letters became a reality during the Krishnamurti saga and within Krishnamurti’s everyday life.

Krishnamurti openly discouraged the method of “esotericism” yet in his own life to his circle of colleagues taught one way well after his emancipation from the Theosophical Society. He details his possession of special abilities, particularly healing, which he wanted to suppress. In one story involving Besant and Leadbeater’s Liberal Catholic Church, it was said, he filled the space with an atmosphere, that was holy, and when people prostrated, he became fed up, and saddened by their worship.

Unfortunate, that J. Krishnamurti clearly did not read H.P. Blavatsky’s articles to learn the origins of the situation he was in:

“(…) A new and rapidly growing danger (…) is threatening (…) the spread of the pure Esoteric Philosophy and knowledge (…) I allude to those charlatanesque imitations of Occultism and Theosophy (…)” (H.P. Blavatsky, Esoteric Instruction, No. 1., 1889.)

“By pandering to the prejudices of people, and especially by adopting the false ideas of a personal God and a personal, carnalized Saviour, as the groundwork of their teaching, the leaders of this ‘swindle’ (for such it is) are endeavoring to draw men to them and in particular to turn Theosophists from the true path.” (H.P. Blavatsky, Esoteric Instruction No. 1., 1889.)

This is 1889—10 years before this issue begins to initiate, hence H.P.B. is aware of the issue.

“(…) Nothing is more dangerous to Esoteric Truth than the garbled and distorted versions disfigured to suit the prejudices and tastes of men in general.” (H.P. Blavatsky, Esoteric Instruction, No. 1., 1889.)

Blavatsky pleads!

“(…) save us from the impudent distortion of our theosophical teachings (…)” (Helena P. Blavatsky, The Year Is Dead, Long Live The Year!, Lucifer, London, January, 1889.)“(…) deliver us (…) from (…) the ‘Solar Adepts’ as they dub themselves, and their sun-struck followers (…).” (Helena P. Blavatsky, The Year Is Dead, Long Live The Year!, Lucifer, London, January, 1889.)

“These are the ‘Solar adepts’ (…) No event could vindicate the policy of our journal [Lucifer] better than the timely exposure of these pseudo-adepts, those ‘Sages of the Ages’ who bethought themselves of trading upon the public hunger for the marvellous ad absurdum.” (On Pseudo-Theosophy, Lucifer, London, March, 1889.)

Even the Ojai Krishnamurti organizations hardly go into this conflict. We are aware, that Theosophy is not taken seriously within scholarship. The opinion about Theosophy is formed by research about the first Hodgson report, and the Besant-Leadbeater period.

The origin of the conflict between Jiddu Krishnamurti and the Theosophical Society should be laid out. Judging from Jiddu Krishnamurti’s attitude to religion in general, he himself mirrors statements expressed by the theosophical pioneers.

So then comes Jiddu Krishnamurti repeatedly denouncing the entire tradition of masters and discipleship in all religion. The denunciations have valid points, despite its reactionary tone, partly because of the cocooned life he was subjected to, and the lies told to him. Like himself, Theosophy and the Vedanta Philosophy aims to breed a sense of lion’s power and self-reliance, as those masters advise against the worship of gods and men. However, as said regarding his anti-mind approach, his practice of thoughtlessness, or his mystical negation of thought would not be able to advance his students. He teaches them to leap, that they could attain immediate direct experience.

By the admittance of Krishnamurti himself, of his reluctance to read most books, though Mary Lutyens demonstrates he did read books, it seems he never really studied Theosophical literature. Krishnamurti was raised in a cocoon of what Charles W. Leadbeater wanted him to know. So, what he knew he rejected, and perhaps as he claims, he did read the Theosophical literature and decided to blow it all up. Although, years later Krishnamurti actually maintained relations with the Theosophical Society privately.

Hence, it is clear that people who write about the T.S. history and Krishnamurti think it was a fraud, because Jiddu Krishnamurti said so. Then, we show, how it morphed into a cult after the death of Blavatsky, under the influence of the promising Besant, and Charles W. Leadbeater who lied about his life story to Theosophists.

The Theosophical Society was not founded upon the expectation of a coming Messianic figure, or World Teacher. Helena P. Blavatsky did believe however, that Theosophy in its original direction and mission would become noticeable to the extent, that it would cultivate minds more prepared for future individuals who would definitely prove the validity and existence of the Wisdom Tradition. This would prepare them to be taught by real “Rosicrucian Illuminati” and may encourage such hidden adepts to reveal themselves. There will be inevitably such minds among the people to come. At this period in time, the T.S. operation failed, and such similar effort, if it be serious and genuine must bide another time.

ISSUES WITH KRISHNAMURTI’S INFLUENCE

The disdain for ancient philosophers in the discourse and rhetoric of Jiddu Krishnamurti clashes with this, when it is taken seriously, rather than his attempts at preventing the listener from being distracted with the method of comparative religion.

Jiddu Krishnamurti, in a way embodies the attitudes of many people today. Many have adopted Jiddu Krishnamurti’s way of thinking. A new generation finding him show a disdain for intellectual thinking, systems, forms, and organization, and many have used J.K. to disregard the importance of theosophical associations. As theosophy is the compendium of all Wisdom, it possesses more experience than one man, who himself did not want to be worshiped. The higher spiritual development must be accompanied by intellectual development. Within discipleship, it was stated, even physical and physiological health is important.

Now, Krishnamurti sometimes did say things not quite different from H.P. Blavatsky, such as the illusions of the lower self, when Blavatsky had written, that the consciousness of the brain-mind with all its desires, our character and the individual we believe ourselves to be is conditioned, or based on memory in the past.

“the personal self is the creature of its environment and the slave of the physical memory.” (H.P. Blavatsky, The Key to Theosophy)

We could argue, contrary to Krishnamurti, his approach is not more or less better than the intellectual approach of Theosophists, establishing the fundamentals of Theoretical Occultism, or using descriptive concepts and complex terminology that have long linguistic history, where Krishnamurti does not.

He himself rejected the division of the esoteric and the exoteric, yet his teachings, that are the result of his own efforts however resembles the Advaita Vedanta. He denied that his teachings are unlike any philosophy, despite scholars in discourse with him after listening would say, ‘but sir, you are teaching exactly what we teach.’ To his dismay, this consequently confused his own audiences, who as stated relayed that they could hardly understand his teachings.

Krishnamurti was a great man with an amazing story, and became a teacher in his own right, but his teaching can, and has in some bred an anti-intellectualism, or disdain for book learning. The intellectual development has to be met also by the development of our intuition, and the process is a flowering, or gradual one. It is not always a violent, traumatic altered consciousness, which leads to the acquisition of a special awareness of movements and laws in nature, in ways we do not ordinarily see nor sense. Occult Philosophy is not for mental sluggards, or those who are not willing to strive and break their perceived limits. There is no turning-back nor are there any short-cuts.

“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.B., The Esoteric Writings of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky: A Synthesis of Science,
Philosophy and Religion, p. 414)

Krishnamurti rejects the method of contrasting, which is a rejection of esotericism itself, of the method of the Analogeticist. This serves a purpose for Theosophists demonstrating the connections of human history and thought. Yet, privately, Jiddu Krishnamurti taught one thing. Publicly, he taught another thing, indicating he indeed had read some literature, or heard certain concepts around him, which he contrasted with his own view.

For example, take this passage:

“So again one can see the falseness of the systems offered. Then there are other systems, including Zen and the various occult systems wherein the methods are revealed only to the few. The speaker has met with some of those but discarded them right from the beginning as having no meaning.” (Jiddu Krishnamurti, Stanford 1969: Talk no. 4)

Yet, he himself told things only to the few he knew, that he did not reveal publicly. He is one man, out of so many before him, and in some sense, he’s a prodigal babe.

“The undeniable existence of great initiates — true “Sons of God” — shows that such wisdom was often reached by isolated individuals, never however, without the guidance of a master at first.” (Helena P. Blavatsky, Key to Theosophy, 57-58.)

In other words, there have been many before him whom he disregards, and disrespectfully. At other times, he asks the scholars in discourse, has comparing ever helped them to acquire, he’d say, lucidity. He merely considers the comparisons an escape. The teachings regarding the dual-mode of mind, or of conquering the lower self were ridiculed by him. This attitude is unfortunately shared by certain quasi-spiritual anti-intellectuals who teach others to negate intellect and empty their mind. The latter effectively creates a sense of void, or space for brainwashing.

Theosophists on the other hand teach, that the mind is the only link between our divine connection to the stars and Heavens and the mortal on Earth. “Thought is the real plane of action.” (THEOSOPHY, Volume 6, 1918). It is not through emptying the mind and thought, that one is released from the trappings and binds of thinking.

People could not understand what Krishnamurti often said, because at his high points he is speaking from a deep attention to a state of conscious action, but he provides no bridge; and did not even consider his “teachings” a philosophy.

While a reluctant Messiah, in some way though, Jiddu Krishnamurti still believed he was fulfilling a mission of his own, and Mary Lutyens books demonstrate this.

Recommendations

• Theosophy versus Neo-Theosophy: On Religion; On Founders of Religion; and Churches and Priests
• E.L. Gardner, There is no Religion higher than Truth: Developments in the Theosophical Society
• The Truth about the Future Maitreya Buddha in Theosophical Writings
• Alpheus: Comparison Column between Krishnamurti and Theosophy