Examining Adyar’s
Attempt
To Fabricate the
Return of Christ
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
Jiddu Krishnamurti and Annie Besant
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
The following text reproduces Chapter
Fifteen of
the book “The Fire and Light of Theosophical
Literature”,
by Carlos Cardoso Aveline, The
Aquarian Theosophist, Portugal, 255
pp., 2013.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
“Night before last I was
shown a bird’s-eye view of the
Theosophical Societies. I saw a
few earnest, reliable Theosophists
in a death-struggle with the world
in general, and with other - nominal
but ambitious - Theosophists.”
(H.P. Blavatsky [1])
Whether in tragic
or comic ways, error imitates truth, and real Theosophy has always been
surrounded by a host of often brilliant or spectacular forms of
pseudo-theosophy. One significant example of this occult law can be found in
the creation of a theosophical cult
around the personality of Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986). Even now the Krishnamurtian creed subsists, although
in a rather quiet way.
Krishnamurti was 14 years old when he was “discovered”
in Adyar by C.W. Leadbeater. By then, both Annie Besant and Leadbeater used to
have long imaginary conversations with some “Lord Christ”. Soon after the discovery, the boy was officially presented to the world as being a
high initiate and future avatar - the vehicle for the second coming of the Lord
himself.
With regard to the expected return of Christ, H.P.
Blavatsky had explained:
“Two things become evident to all (…..): (a) ‘the coming of Christ’, means the presence of CHRISTOS in a
regenerated world, and not at all the
actual coming in body of ‘Christ’ Jesus; (b)
this Christ is to be sought neither in the wilderness nor ‘in the inner chambers’, nor in the
sanctuary of any temple or church built by man; for Christ - the true esoteric
SAVIOUR - is no man, but the DIVINE PRINCIPLE in every human being. He who strives
to resurrect the Spirit crucified in him
by his own terrestrial passions, and buried deep in the ‘sepulchre’ of his
sinful flesh; he who has the strength to roll back the stone of matter from the door of his own inner sanctuary, he has
the risen Christ in him. (‘For ye
are the temple of the living God’ - II Cor.,
VI, 16).” [2]
In this as in other occasions, HPB’s words had been
most clear. But the Adyar leaders were so busy following their own fancies that
they did not have time to take Theosophy into consideration.
A “Liberal Catholic Church” was then organized to
serve as a “vehicle” for Krishnamurti, the Christ. The Order of the Star was to
be the main messianic organization. The Adyar Theosophical Society and its
Esoteric School were transformed in auxiliary instruments for the Adventist
experiment. The new Master’s catechism was to be the little book “At the Feet
of the Master”, cleverly written by Leadbeater and presented as being the
result of instructions of an Adept-Teacher to Krishnamurti, who then supposedly
had taken notes.
Mary Lutyens, Jiddu Krishnamurti’s close friend and
his main biographer, reports in Chapter One of her book “The Life and Death of
Krishnamurti” that the would-be notes written by him “disappeared”. The only
originals anyone ever saw of that devotional booklet were the ones typewritten
by C.W. Leadbeater. Once Krishnamurti reached adulthood, he denied being the
author of “At the Feet of the Master”. The booklet was never included among
Krishnamurti’s works. Krishnamurti Foundations do not sell it. Yet its
“authorship” is still nominally ascribed by the Adyar publishers to “Alcyone”,
which is the pseudonym created by Leadbeater for Krishnamurti in his phantasy-book
“The Lives of Alcyone”.
Written in Leadbeater’s unmistakable style, “At the
Feet of the Master” repeats many of his misconceptions about the spiritual
path. The false authorship of this
little book is one of the leading literary frauds in the long career of
“Bishop” Leadbeater. Since its first edition, the booklet has been put in a
very special place by members of the Adyar T.S. Thousands of theosophists still
believe in the authenticity of such a book. Few of them have read the testimony
given by the former international secretary of the Adyar Society, Ernest Wood,
who for long years was a personal assistant to C.W. Leadbeater. In his
autobiographical book, Wood relates the story of a distinguished young Adyar
Theosophist, Mr. Subrahmanyam. In 1910-1911 Subrahmanyam happened to be the
witness of a revealing conversation between young Krishnamurti and his father.
Questioned in Subrahmanyam’s presence about the authorship of “At the Feet of
the Master”, Jiddu Krishnamurti answered to his father, in Telugu language:
“The book is not mine; they fathered it on me.”
Deeply surprised, Subrahmanyam related the dialogue to
his close friend Wood. “Bad news run
fast”, according to a popular saying. As soon as Mrs. Annie Besant was informed
of the fact, she called Subrahmanyam to her presidential office. Mrs. Besant
told him that it was simply “not possible” that Krishnamurti had ever said such
a thing. She then presented Subrahmanyam
with the alternative of “immediate recantation - or banishment from Adyar”.
Unfit to live in an atmosphere heavy with officially
idealized fancies, Subrahmanyam resisted the pressure. He did not recant and,
therefore, had to leave Adyar at once and for good. He returned to his native
town, and Wood reports that, for some reason, Subrahmanyam - “died there
shortly afterwards, while still himself little more than a boy”. [3]
Since its appearance in 1910, the best-selling booklet
“At the Feet of the Master” was a great event. Its success gave strength to the
creation of the messianic organization “Order of the Star in the East”. From the viewpoint of Mrs. Besant, the
creation of a new Messiah could never be disturbed by such uncomfortable facts
like that dialogue witnessed by Subrahmanyam. The mere idea that a young boy
had written a “grown-up text” was used and presented as a “phenomenon” in
itself. It was something “quite extraordinary”. It seemed to be a hard evidence
that Christ/Maitreya had indeed decided to come back. All that people had to do
was to believe in the pyrotechnic
display of imaginary wonders.
Ernest Wood writes about the “Order of the Star”,
which was growing worldwide: “Thousands of the members of the Theosophical
Society flung themselves into the new movement. Some held aloof, among them
myself. Some few criticized it on various grounds. One or two pronounced the
opinion that Krishnamurti did not know enough English to write the sentences in
the book. I quite agreed with them, but I explained the difficulty away to
myself by saying that the preface announced that Krishnamurti had not written
it himself - they were the words of the Master. Still the difficulty remained
that Krishnamurti could not have linked the sentences together and punctuated
them so well. Nor could he have written the preface, in my opinion. These
problems I left in suspense. We could very well wait to see if the Teacher
came.” [4]
Ernest Wood found that the book was too simple and too
narrow to have such an importance as a social event. Wood narrates a frank
conversation he had with Leadbeater:
“I delivered my opinion - a delightful little book,
but extremely simple. Would the instructions contained in it be sufficient to
bring one to the ‘Path proper’, to the First Initiation, which Mrs. Besant had
described in her book? Yes, said Mr. Leadbeater, more than that, if completely
carried out these instructions would lead one to Adeptship itself.”
Here Leadbeater spoke as if he were a great sage.
Self-importance fancies were so strong in Adyar that some years later, in 1925, Annie Besant would
announce a most remarkable fact: she herself, as well as C.W. Leadbeater, J.
Krishnamurti, George Arundale and others, had all achieved Adepthood and were
now “Masters and Initiates of the fifth circle”. For some reason, though, soon
after that announcement it became obvious that Besant had lost both her mind
and her balance, as duly reported by Mary Lutyens and Ernest Wood.
Mr. Ernest Wood goes on describing his conversation
with Leadbeater:
“I remarked that there were one or two curious things
about the manuscript. It was very much in Mr. Leadbeater’s own style, and there
were some sentences which were exactly the same as in a book of his which we
had already prepared for the press. He told me that he wished indeed that he
might have been able to write such a book himself. As to the sentences I
mentioned, he had usually been present when Krishnamurti was being taught in
his astral body by the Master; he remembered these points...”[5]
Leadbeater explained everything away. As to Annie
Besant, Wood reports that she herself decided for the title “At the Feet of the
Master”. Of course, at that age, Krishnamurti was not very interested in books
or in writing. All he was expected to do was to play the outer role of a young
Initiate and future Messiah. On the other hand, what the booklet says is also
very different from the teachings of the Masters. Ms. Jean Overton Fuller reported
on a talk to Ms. Lutyens:
“I talked with Mary Lutyens about this. She inclined
to think the composition was very largely Leadbeater’s.” [6]
The content of the booklet confirms that idea. In “At the Feet of the
Master” the word “God” is used a number of times. “God has a plan”, says the
booklet. “If [anyone] is on God’s side he is one with us”, it insists. Its
author says: “For YOU are God, and you will only what God wills”.[7] Moreover, in the foreword, Krishnamurti is made to say: “These are not
my words; they are the words of the Master who taught me.”
It is worth examining what the very same Master who according to
Leadbeater dictated the booklet to Krishnamurti had to say about God, in his
famous Letter 10 in the “Mahatma Letters”. The real Adept said:
“Neither our philosophy nor ourselves believe in a God, least of all in
one whose pronoun necessitates a capital H.” [8]
Leadbeater - the undercover author of the booklet - makes his imaginary
Master say: “…Listen to His voice, which
is YOUR voice” (p. 9). On the other hand, the real Adept teaches:
“A CONSTANT sense of abject dependence upon a Deity which he regards as
the sole source of power makes a man lose all self-reliance and the spurs to
activity and initiative. Having begun by creating a father and guide unto
himself, he becomes like a boy and remains so to his old age, expecting to be
led by the hand on the smallest as well as the greatest events of life.”[9]
Leadbeater makes his “Master” say: “God is Wisdom as well as Love; and
the more wisdom you have the more you can manifest of Him” (p. 12). Whereas in
the ML Letter 134 (the Prayag Letter)
one reads this from a Mahatma:
“Faith in the Gods and God, and other superstitions attracts millions of
foreign influences, living entities and powerful agents around them, with which
we would have to use more than ordinary exercise of power to drive them away.
We do not choose to do so.”[10]
The Master thus explains that Adepts can hardly get
near persons who believe in superstitions like “God or Gods”. The deep contrast
between the two viewpoints can be explained by the fact that C.W. Leadbeater -
Krishnamurti’s teacher - had failed in discipleship soon after being put on
probation in the 1880s. As a result, he was never admitted to HPB’s Esoteric
School, as long as she lived.[11]
As to the “God issue”, it is no mere question of
“personal opinion”. It is linked to a practical matter of decisive importance
in occult learning. Belief in an all-powerful God or adoring imaginary Adepts
of “unlimited power” is an essential article in the idealized version of
discipleship which A. Besant and C.W. Leadbeater created. According to them,
individual autonomy is to be entirely left aside “out of devotion”. In this, as
in other aspects, they thought very much like Vatican priests.
Issue by issue, “At the Feet of the Master”
contradicts real Theosophy. The booklet says, for instance, that an extreme
physical cleanliness is of great “occult” importance. Leadbeater was slightly
obsessive about that, and in “At the Feet of the Master” the following
recommendation is made to all aspirants to discipleship:
“The body is your animal - the horse upon which you
ride. Therefore (.....) you must feed it properly on pure food and drink only,
and keep it strictly clean always, even from the minutest speck of dirt. For without a perfectly clean and healthy
body you cannot do the arduous work of preparation, you cannot bear its
ceaseless strain.”[12]
Let’s remember the words “strictly clean always” as we
see what the Masters themselves say about personal hygiene at the physical
plane. In the “Mahatma Letters”, an Adept explains to Mr. Sinnett:
“Our best, most learned, and holiest adepts are of the
races of the ‘greasy Tibetans’; and the Penjabi Singhs - you know the lion is
proverbially a dirty and offensive beast, despite his strength and courage.”[13]
The word “Singh” as used here is a mystical name used
by the same Master of the Wisdom who writes the letter. The metaphorical
identity between the Mahatma and “lions” comes from the fact that in Sanskrit
the word “Singh” means “lion”.
From this we may conclude that Eastern Adepts often
are physically “greasy” and dirty. Their regular disciples sometimes even
refuse to present themselves in clean clothes, as the Mahatma narrates in the
same letter. In fact, one of his chelas emphatically refused to deliver a
letter to Alfred Sinnett, the reason being that HPB had asked him to present
himself with a “cleaner personal appearance”, in order not to offend Mr.
Sinnett’s Western prejudices against
“dirty people”. The Master explains to
Sinnett that the young disciple would not accept acting like the chelas of
illegitimate rival sects, which do recommend physical cleanliness (see p. 16 in
T.U.P. edition).
The episode shows that both Masters and disciples pay
scarce attention to the question of physical cleanliness or dirtiness. It also
indicates that a true Master entirely preserves the autonomy of his disciples,
who are free to have and to keep their
own prejudices against physical cleanliness. In the same letter, besides
admitting his chela’s mistake, the Master refers to a Western example of saintly resistance to physical
cleanliness:
“Prejudice and dead letter again. For over a thousand
years, - says Michelet, - the Christian Saints never washed themselves!”[14]
What is the real reason, then - one may ask - for
Leadbeater to recommend such an “occult phobia” regarding physical
dirtiness? In his essay “Totem and
Taboo”, Sigmund Freud offers us a psychiatric explanation. Such a phobia, Freud
says, is connected to compulsive neurosis: “The most common of these obsessive
acts is washing with water (washing obsession).”[15]
Discipleship or esoteric learning is an inner process
which not only preserves but enhances the learner’s autonomy; and this is quite
the opposite of what one can find in “At the Feet of the Master” and other
books dating from the Besant period.
According to most Adyar authors, the would-be disciple
should develop a total and automatic obedience to the supposed Master. This,
they say, must be done out of devotion. The idea has been most convenient to
the Adyar leaders who wanted to place themselves as “intermediaries” between
imaginary Masters and the rest of the movement.
Up to the early 1950s, direct “orders” coming from
supposed Masters were received through the leaders of the Adyar T.S. and its
esoteric school. The system operated until C. Jinarajadasa’s time. Although would-be communications with Masters
formally stopped with N. Sri Ram by 1953, power has since then remained
concentrated in the hands of the international presidents and “outer heads” of
the esoteric school, who, according to custom, are implicitly treated as Popes
by the rest of the Adyar Society members, and behave as “occult representatives
of the Masters”.
In “At the Feet of the Master”, one can read this
direct recommendation of devotional blind obedience:
“When you become a pupil of the Master, you may always
try the truth of your thought by laying it beside His. For the pupil is one
with his Master, and he needs only to put back his thought into the Master’s
thought to see at once whether it agrees. If it does not, it is wrong, and he
changes it instantly, for the Master’s thought is perfect, because He knows
all. Those who are not yet accepted by Him cannot do quite this; but they may
greatly help themselves by stopping often to think: ‘What would the Master
think about this? What would the Master say or do under these circumstances?’
For you must never do or say or think what you cannot imagine the Master as
doing or saying or thinking.” [16]
The false assumptions present in the above sentences
deserve examination.
* First, the text supposes that a disciple is able to
fully understand his Master’s consciousness and thoughts. This point of view
denies the fact that there is a vast difference, in mental horizons and in karma,
between an Adept and his poor, ignorant disciple.
* Second, the text supposes that a disciple should
mimic his Master trying to imitate his thoughts, his words and actions. In
reality, since master and disciple are two different beings who have widely
different amounts of wisdom, they must inevitably think, speak and act in
different ways, if they are true to themselves.
* The false disciple totally renounces thinking for
himself, or being responsible for his own life and actions. He hides behind
that which he fancies to be his Master’s thoughts. Of course, in order to make
“discipleship” easier, such “thoughts from the Masters” will be implicitly or
explicitly “transmitted” to him by the popish Adyar authorities. It is enough
for him to “believe”.
Things are much deeper than that in esoteric
philosophy, and more democratic, too. Students can’t compare their individual
thoughts to the individual thoughts
of any Adept. On the other hand, they can compare their views about
discipleship to the general teachings of the Masters on the same subject, as
they are safely recorded in the Mahatma
Letters and elsewhere.
Such a comparative study is a revealing
experience. What the Masters actually
teach about discipleship is antithetic to what one sees in “At the Feet of the
Master” and - alas - in many other
“later time” writings. As early as 1882, the Masters were directly fighting the
“blind obedience heresy”, which can also be called the “mental laziness
principle” of mechanical, if not mediumistic, obedience to an imaginary Master.
An Adept of the Himalayas wrote:
“... You have a letter from me in which I explain why we never guide our chelas (the most advanced even); nor do we forewarn them
leaving the effects produced by causes of their own creation to teach them
better experience. Please bear in mind that particular letter. Before the cycle ends every misconception
ought to be swept away. I trust in and
rely upon you to clear them entirely in the minds of the Prayag Fellows.”[17]
This central pedagogical Principle of the Autonomy of the Learner is scattered all over
HPB/Masters writings. In the “Letters from The Masters of the Wisdom”, for
instance, one reads this appeal made by a Mahatma to a certain lady of
altruistic intentions: “You have offered yourself for the Red Cross; but,
Sister, there are sicknesses and wounds of the Soul that no Surgeon’s art can
cure. Shall you help us teach mankind that the soul-sick must heal themselves?”[18]
A conscious individual responsibility before Life and
the Law of Karma is the fundamental condition for every student of Theosophy.
The same applies to lay disciples and aspirants to lay discipleship.
Although the 20th century messianic attempt made by
Adyar leaders clearly failed, its false notions still intoxicate minds and
hearts of theosophists worldwide. Similar mayavic ideas influence many who are not situated within the Adyar T.S.
itself.
Due to the magnetic mechanisms of collective karma,
both truth and illusions are implicitly shared by several theosophical groups
at an occult level. As a result of this, the need for individual discernment is
unavoidable. It is worthwhile to follow H.P. Blavatsky’s example, who wrote in
“Isis Unveiled”:
“I accept unreservedly
the views of no man, living or dead”. [19]
In the next Chapter, we will follow that advice and
examine the “teachings” of Jiddu Krishnamurti from the point of view of
esoteric philosophy. [20]
NOTES:
[1] These two sentences are quoted in “The Friendly
Philosopher”, Robert Crosbie, Theosophy Co., Los Angeles, 1945, p. 389. They
are part of a letter from HPB to William Judge, dated August 12, 1887, which
had its entire text published at “Theosophical History” magazine, January 1995
edition, pp. 164-165.
[2] “The Esoteric Character of the Gospels”, in
“The Collected Writings of H.P. Blavatsky”, T.P.H., USA, volume VIII, p. 173.
[3] “Is This Theosophy?”, Ernest Wood, London: Rider &
Co., 1936, Paternost House, E.C., reprinted by Kessinger Publishing LLC, MT,
USA, 318 pp., see p. 163.
[4] “Is This Theosophy?”, see p. 162.
[5] “Is This Theosophy?”, Ernest Wood, see p. 161.
[6] “Krishnamurti and the Wind”, by Jean Overton Fuller,
The Theosophical Publishing House, London, 2003, 300 pp., see p. 23.
[7] “At the Feet of the Master”, by Alcyone, The
Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, IL, USA, Pocketbook edition, 1984, 32
pp. See page 9.
[8] “The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett”, T.U.P.,
Pasadena, CA, USA, 1992, 494 pp., see Letter X, p. 52. The quotation is in the
opening lines of the letter. In the Chronological Edition of the “Mahatma
Letters” (T.P.H. Philippines), it corresponds to Letter 88.
[9] “Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom”,
1870-1900, First Series, transcribed by C. Jinarajadasa, T.P.H., Adyar, Madras
(Chennai), India, 1973, see Letter 43, p. 95.
[10] “The Mahatma Letters to A. P. Sinnett”, T.U.P.,
Letter CXXXIV, p. 462. In the Chronological edition, Philippines, Letter 30, p.
95.
[11] Living once more in London after several years in
Asia, instead of having access to HPB’s Esoteric School, Leadbeater joined the
“Inner Group” of Mr. Alfred P. Sinnett, as Sinnett writes in his
“Autobiography” (Theosophical History Center, London, 1986, 65 pp.). It was in
that group that Leadbeater developed his lower siddhis, during mesmeric and mediumistic sessions in which they
talked to false Adepts. By that time, Sinnett’s group was already inimical to
HPB’s work. In 1894, three years after HPB’s death, Annie Besant joined that
group of deluded people. Coincidence or not, in that same year Besant started
her persecution against William Q. Judge, who was loyal to HPB.
[12] “At the Feet of the Master”, pages 9-10.
[13] “The Mahatma Letters”, T.U.P., see Letter IV, p. 15.
In the Chronological Edition (Philippines T.P.H.), Letter 5.
[14] Same Letter IV, p. 16.
[15] “Totem and Taboo - Resemblances Between the Psychic
Lives of Savages and Neurotics”, by Sigmund Freud, Dover Thrift Editions, Dover
Publications, Inc., Mineola, New York, USA, 1998, 138 pp., see p. 25.
[16] “At the Feet of the Master”, pp. 13-14.
[17] “The Mahatma Letters to A.P. Sinnett”, T.U.P., Letter
LXXII, p. 374. In the Chronological
Edition (T.P.H. Philippines), this is the Letter 95, p. 333.
[18] “Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom”, transcribed
by C. Jinarajadasa, T.P.H., Adyar,
India, second edition, 1973, see Letter 72, p. 129.
[19] “Isis Unveiled”, H.P. Blavatsky, Theosophy
Company, Los Angeles, vol. I, p. X.
[20] An initial version of the above Chapter
was published as an article at “Fohat”
magazine, Canada, Fall 2007 edition, pages 64-68.
000
In September 2016, after a careful analysis of the state of the
esoteric movement worldwide, a group of students decided to form the Independent Lodge of Theosophists,
whose priorities include the building of a better future in the different
dimensions of life.
000
