HOME : : NEW : : ABOUT ALPHEUS : : CONTACT US : : SEARCH   

 Site for Esoteric History 

 Articles

Source Materials

Communications

Bibliography

Reviews

Links

Theosophy

Krishnamurti

Ascended Masters

Esoteric History

Parapolitics

Philosophy

Dossiers

Krishnamurti and the

World Teacher Project:

Some Theosophical Perceptions.

Main Text

Introduction 

With the centennial of Krishnamurti's birth concluded it might be a good idea to present an overview of the different ways he has been perceived in the Theosophical

movement.(1) As there is such a wide variety of Theosophical ideas about the person Krishnamurti and his teachings, I propose to limit the scope of this paper to the

perceptions of Krishnamurti, which primarily concern themselves with the metaphysical status of Krishnamurti as a spiritual teacher. Those views primarily concerned

with the metaphysical importance of his teachings will be left out. It is inevitable, though, to include some quotes dealing with the content of his teachings to

clarify the views about Krishnamurti. Having limited the field of inquiry, I propose the thesis that the vast majority of these views can be differentiated according

to a matrix determined by the way Theosophists answered two basic questions concerning Krishnamurti.

The first question concerns the expectation of and preparation for the coming of a great spiritual teacher as was announced by Annie Besant, then President of the

Theosophical Society. During a lecture at Madras on December 31, 1909, she made the statement that a great "Teacher and Guide....will deign once more to tread our

mortal ways." (2) Together with her colleague and friend Charles W. Leadbeater, Besant propagated the idea that the young Jiddu Krishnamurti would be the vehicle

through whom this teacher, the Christ or the Lord Maitreya, would manifest, as he had done two thousand years earlier when he had worked through Jesus of Nazareth

during his ministry in Galilee. They then founded the Order of the Star in the East, with Krishnamurti as its head, in order to bring together those who believed in

the coming of this teacher. The important question for many Theosophists at the time was, and for some still is: Was this project genuine or not? The term genuine does

not necessarily refer to the correctness of how Annie Besant and C. W. Leadbeater perceived and propagated this project, but it refers to whether the project was

perceived as having its origin in a transcendental source of supreme intelligence regardless of how it was interpreted by human agents.

The second question was and is perceived by Theosophists as even more important. It concerns the result of this project: Was the outcome of the project successful or

not?   Here again the term successful does not necessarily refer to the way in which the project was expected to be successful, but rather to the fact that the outcome

of the project was perceived as having fulfilled the original intention of the transcendental source of intelligence. The point of this nuance about the meaning of the

concepts "genuineness" and "success" is to be able to include viewpoints which do not exactly corroborate, but are close to Besant's and Leadbeater's statements about

the project.

1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The possible answers to these two questions generate the four following positions:

1) The project was perceived as genuine and successful;

2) The project was perceived as genuine, but failed;

3) The project was perceived as not genuine and failed (of course); and

4) The project was perceived as not genuine, but succeeded! 

The Theosophical commentators and ideas presented in this paper are classified accordingly. This treatment is not exhaustive; many views are excluded. The criteria of

selection are: importance of the source, in the sense that the person propagating the view is regarded important as an independent teacher of Theosophical ideas;

originality of the view, in the sense that the view helps to open up the complexity and multi-dimensionality of the whole issue; and accessibility of primary sources

to avoid erroneous hearsay. (3) In some cases I included Krishnamurti's own reply to the views put forward.

As position two is taken by many persons it is inevitable to give that relatively more space, as is inversely the case with position four. The view of each person

discussed will be presented as much as possible in his or her own words. In the cases where a "Master of Wisdom" or "Adept" is quoted, nothing definite is implied

about his ontological status or the veracity of his statements. Krishnamurti's view of himself is included in this discussion. His view can be seen as belonging to

position one.

The article will close with four additional views of Krishnamurti, which are all important from an epistemological perspective. The first two are not rooted in a

Theosophical world view but are based on direct observations of Krishnamurti and as such not classifiable in the proposed matrix. They are important, however, because

any future Theosophical theory about the metaphysical status of Krishnamurti will have to take these observations into account. They provide building-blocks, yet

uncolored by Theosophical concepts, to be incorporated in a Theosophical or psychological theory. The third view is Theosophical and is important because it makes a

beginning with putting the two non-Theosophical views in a Theosophical perspective, though not in such a way as to be classifiable according to the matrix. In fact it

takes an interesting epistemological meta-position about the matrix in its entirety, as does the last view. These last two views belong to a classification, which

encompasses at least three different epistemological attitudes towards metaphysical knowledge. 1) Theosophical: One has access to and knowledge about the metaphysical

realm of noumena. Intuition, deep speculative reasoning, clairvoyance and revelation provide us with that access. 2) Agnostic: One acknowledges the possibility of

access to and knowledge about the metaphysical realm, but does not have it (yet). 3) Kantian: One can not have access to and knowledge about the metaphysical realm.

Knowledge can be attained only about phenomena, not about noumena.

2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIEW ONE: THE PROJECT WAS GENUINE AND SUCCESSFUL

Krishnamurti.

Those who have read the second volume of Krishnamurti's biography by Mary Lutyens (4) will probably remember the extraordinary last two chapters, in which Krishnamurti

is questioned by his friends Mary Lutyens and Mary Zimbalist about who he really was, what the "other" was behind him and what "it" was that protected him.

Krishnamurti himself stated that he was unable to find that out, because "water can not know what water is." However he expressed his conviction that if someone else

would find out, he could corroborate it. He also stated that "it" was "there, as if it were behind a curtain...I could lift it but I don't feel it is my business to."

Even so, Krishnamurti did lift the curtain a little. He admitted that the "Besant-Leadbeater theory of the Lord Maitreya taking over a body especially prepared for his

occupation" was the most simple and likely explanation. Krishnamurti did not think this theory was correct, and anything simple was suspect in Krishnamurti's view.

Although he said that Maitreya as explanation "is too concrete, is not subtle enough," he did consider it the most plausible one.(5) It must be remembered that

Krishnamurti never denied being the World-Teacher. In 1931 he told Lady Emily, the mother of Mary Lutyens to whom he was very close, "You know, mum, I have never

denied it, I have only said it does not matter who or what I am but that they should examine what I say which does not mean that I have denied being the W.T." (6)

Krishnamurti revealed to Mary Zimbalist another intriguing indication of his self-perception when he discussed with her in May 1975 his forthcoming biography by Mary

Lutyens. She had asked him why the Masters, if they existed, had spoken in the old days, but not recently. "There is no need for them now the Lord is here" was

Krishnamurti's reply. Mary Lutyens did not think it was a serious remark, because of the tone of his voice. (7) The same idea appeared, this time apparently in a

serious way, in a dialogue between Krishnamurti and some persons at Brockwood Park, England, in the autumn of 1975, when the subject of his biography came up: "there

is the idea that when he [the Bodhisattva] manifests all the others [the Masters] keep quiet." Is Krishnamurti referring to himself? When reading the whole dialogue

that specific question arises irresistibly. The just-quoted sentence was preceded by an elaboration of the idea of the Bodhisattva: "There is a very ancient tradition

about the Bodhisattva that there is a state of consciousness, let me put it that way, which is the essence of compassion. And when the world is in chaos that essence

of compassion manifests itself. That is the whole idea behind the Avatar and the Bodhisattva. And there are various gradations, initiations, various Masters and so

on..." (8) I think Krishnamurti does refer to himself, but he is not doing so explicitly, because for him it was "irrelevant," though not irrelevant enough not to

mention it.

3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reinforcing this view is an interesting, and at first sight puzzling, remark Krishnamurti made about Annie Besant and the Theosophical Society during an equally

interesting conversation in 1979 with his friends, Radha Burnier and Pupul Jayakar, while discussing Burnier's possible candidacy for the presidency of the

Theosophical Society. "Mrs.Besant intended the land at Adyar [the T.S. international headquarters] to be meant for the teaching. The Theosophical Society has failed,

the original purpose is destroyed." (9) This remark contains many assumptions and finds its proper context in Besant's understanding of the mission of the Theosophical

Society and the role of Krishnamurti therein. Annie Besant thought she was fulfilling a mission of the Theosophical Society, which was not stated as one of its

official objectives, but was given to it by Helena P. Blavatsky--one of the founders of the Theosophical Society and the society's main source of ideas--when she, at

the close of her life, announced the coming of a "torch-bearer of Truth" for the later part of the twentieth century. The mission of the Theosophical Society,

according to Blavatsky, was to prepare the way for this "new leader" and prepare "the minds of men....for his message." At his arrival the Theosophical Society would

be available to him to remove the "merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from his path." Indicating the possibility of a glorious long-term goal of

this plan, she states that if "the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its mission...earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first century." (10) When Besant

was challenged about her involvement in the Order of the Star and her speaking of "the T.S. as being the Herald of the coming Teacher," (11) she defended herself by

referring explicitly to Blavatsky's view about the future mission of the Theosophical Society: "My crime is that I share it, and do what my poor powers permit in

preparing the minds of men for that coming." Besant wrote 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." (12)

I think it is reasonable to state that the particulars of Blavatsky's and Besant's views were picked up by Krishnamurti during his formative years. He might even have

read Blavatsky's statement referred to above. If so, this might provide the ground to put Krishnamurti's remark in historical perspective, and to explain the

underlying structural similarity between his remark and Blavatsky's vision. With this in mind a reconstructed reading of Krishnamurti's statement would result in the

following: "Mrs.Besant [and Blavatsky] intended [subscribed to the view that] the land at Adyar [the Theosophical Society] to be meant [to be available] for the

teaching [for the teacher]. The Theosophical Society has failed [did not to cooperate], the original purpose [the mission of the Theosophical Society to herald and aid

the teacher] is destroyed [has not been fulfilled]." The point of this digression is to show that implicit in this remark is the self-perception of Krishnamurti as the

teacher, who was expected and did come, but found the Theosophical Society not cooperative.

4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annie Besant

Of all the leading theosophists Annie Besant was the most loyal to Krishnamurti during and after his repudiation of his mission in 1929. After hearing Krishnamurti

speak at Krotona, California, in 1927 she told another Theosophist: "The Lord has spoken. I am now satisfied. This is the beginning of all that I have foreseen and

worked for." (13) Besant was so convinced that she declared herself to be his "devoted disciple," (14) closed the Esoteric Section--the heart of the Theosophical

Society and its link with the Masters--because only Krishnamurti should be allowed to teach, (15) and even considered giving up the presidency of the Theosophical

Society to follow him. She adhered to the idea that a "fragment of the World-Teacher's consciousness is in him [Krishnamurti], and his own is merged in it." (16)

Though she would reopen, allegedly on orders of her Master, the Esoteric Section and stayed on as president, she remained devoted to Krishnamurti, because he had,

according to religious scholar and Theosophist Catherine Wessinger, "fulfilled her expectations concerning the World-Teacher in several basic respects." (17) To bridge

the points where Krishnamurti's teachings and Theosophy differed Annie Besant applied her usual largesse of mind and logic: "Say, if you like, that we are two sides of

one work. Dr.Besant is at the head of one side and Krishnaji of the other. One is the work of the Manu, the other of the Bodhisattva." (18) Until the very end of her

life Annie Besant tried to rise above all factions and schisms and as such was the embodiment of the first object of the Theosophical Society--Brotherhood.

 Charles E. Luntz

Around 1929 a lively debate about Krishnamurti was held in the pages of The Theosophical Messenger, the official journal of the Theosophical Society in America, then

edited by its national president, L.W.Rogers. An original contribution to this debate came from Charles E.Luntz with his "New Theory Regarding Krishnamurti and His

Teaching," named "The Great Testing." According to this spiritual Darwinian theory, Krishnamurti's remarks about Theosophy and the Theosophical Society were "a strange

and unlooked for testing," and "an onslaught designed to test its [the Theosophical Society's] very soul," with the purpose to make "the first great separation of the

fit from the unfit (insofar as the Theosophical Society is concerned)." As the "weaklings drop out in their hundreds and even thousands, glad perhaps of the excuse

this [Krishnamurti's] extraordinary condemnation of all organizations gives them to relinquish the burden," the "faithful few carry on," with "wills of tempered steel"

to perform the work of the "building of the new Root Race... under the direct guidance of the Manu"--a work which "calls for workers of courage, of self-sacrifice, of

utter obedience and above all of Supreme Conviction of its transcendent importance."

5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Krishnamurti know that he was the great tester? Not according to Luntz. It was his "well-reasoned belief that....the World Teacher, whose consciousness informs

Krishnaji, has deliberately shut off from the latter's physical brain the knowledge of the true reason for his attacks on the Theosophical Society." (19)

Interestingly, there is the record of Krishnamurti's reaction to this theory when he was asked in Adyar in 1933 "is the ruthless manner of the presentation of your

views merely a test of our devotion to the Masters and our loyalty to the Theosophical Society...?" Part of Krishnamurti's answer was: "I have told you what I really

think. If you wish to use that as a test to fortify yourselves, to entrench yourselves in your old beliefs, I cannot help it." (20) But this answer was anticipated by

Luntz in his 1930 article: "If by any chance this hypothesis comes to the attention of Krishnaji he will undoubtedly deny it... Those who accept it need not be

concerned, recognizing that if it be true it must be denied by him in all sincerity or the test would fail."

This theory puts Krishnamurti in the strange position that, if he effectively wanted to refute the theory, he only had to contradict the expected behavior by saying

that Luntz was right! Any attempt by Krishnamurti to refute this theory by saying it was not true would be futile. The adherents of the theory would see in that effort

a confirmation of their idea.

 Radha Burnier

After Annie Besant died in 1933 relations between Krishnamurti and the Theosophical Society were severed although he would still have private contacts with individual

members. Krishnamurti did not visit the Theosophical compound at Adyar for forty-six years. When his close friend Radha Burnier, who worked for the Krishnamurti

Foundation while being head of the Esoteric School of the Theosophical Society at the same time, became president of the Theosophical Society in 1980, an event he

wished for and apparently actively promoted, (21) Krishnamurti agreed to visit the grounds of the Theosophical headquarters again. For the rest of his life, whenever

he was in Madras, he would go there for a walk along the beach, the very same place where he was discovered by Leadbeater.

Under the leadership of its present president, Radha Burnier, the Theosophical Society seems to come back from an ambivalent position towards Krishnamurti and a

consensus seems to be emerging, at least at the international headquarters of the Theosophical Society, to accept Krishnamurti as the prophesied teacher. Two special

issues of The Theosophist, one an obituary to Krishnamurti and the other dedicated to Krishnamurti's centennial, are both endorsements of Krishnamurti's teachings and

both suggest that he should be regarded as the World-Teacher. (22) In the first one Burnier, who is the editor of The Theosophist, wrote that the "connection between

J.Krishnamurti... and the Theosophical Society was broken, not because he left--as many members believe--but because

Kantian: One can not have access to and knowledge about the metaphysical realm.

Knowledge can be attained only about phenomena, not about noumena.

2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIEW ONE: THE PROJECT WAS GENUINE AND SUCCESSFUL

Krishnamurti.

Those who have read the second volume of Krishnamurti's biography by Mary Lutyens (4) will probably remember the extraordinary last two chapters, in which Krishnamurti

is questioned by his friends Mary Lutyens and Mary Zimbalist about who he really was, what the "other" was behind him and what "it" was that protected him.

Krishnamurti himself stated that he was unable to find that out, because "water can not know what water is." However he expressed his conviction that if someone else

would find out, he could corroborate it. He also stated that "it" was "there, as if it were behind a curtain...I could lift it but I don't feel it is my business to."

Even so, Krishnamurti did lift the curtain a little. He admitted that the "Besant-Leadbeater theory of the Lord Maitreya taking over a body especially prepared for his

occupation" was the most simple and likely explanation. Krishnamurti did not think this theory was correct, and anything simple was suspect in Krishnamurti's view.

Although he said that Maitreya as explanation "is too concrete, is not subtle enough," he did consider it the most plausible one.(5) It must be remembered that

Krishnamurti never denied being the World-Teacher. In 1931 he told Lady Emily, the mother of Mary Lutyens to whom he was very close, "You know, mum, I have never

denied it, I have only said it does not matter who or what I am but that they should examine what I say which does not mean that I have denied being the W.T." (6)

Krishnamurti revealed to Mary Zimbalist another intriguing indication of his self-perception when he discussed with her in May 1975 his forthcoming biography by Mary

Lutyens. She had asked him why the Masters, if they existed, had spoken in the old days, but not recently. "There is no need for them now the Lord is here" was

Krishnamurti's reply. Mary Lutyens did not think it was a serious remark, because of the tone of his voice. (7) The same idea appeared, this time apparently in a

serious way, in a dialogue between Krishnamurti and some persons at Brockwood Park, England, in the autumn of 1975, when the subject of his biography came up: "there

is the idea that when he [the Bodhisattva] manifests all the others [the Masters] keep quiet." Is Krishnamurti referring to himself? When reading the whole dialogue

that specific question arises irresistibly. The just-quoted sentence was preceded by an elaboration of the idea of the Bodhisattva: "There is a very ancient tradition

about the Bodhisattva that there is a state of consciousness, let me put it that way, which is the essence of compassion. And when the world is in chaos that essence

of compassion manifests itself. That is the whole idea behind the Avatar and the Bodhisattva. And there are various gradations, initiations, various Masters and so

on..." (8) I think Krishnamurti does refer to himself, but he is not doing so explicitly, because for him it was "irrelevant," though not irrelevant enough not to

mention it.

3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reinforcing this view is an interesting, and at first sight puzzling, remark Krishnamurti made about Annie Besant and the Theosophical Society during an equally

interesting conversation in 1979 with his friends, Radha Burnier and Pupul Jayakar, while discussing Burnier's possible candidacy for the presidency of the

Theosophical Society. "Mrs.Besant intended the land at Adyar [the T.S. international headquarters] to be meant for the teaching. The Theosophical Society has failed,

the original purpose is destroyed." (9) This remark contains many assumptions and finds its proper context in Besant's understanding of the mission of the Theosophical

Society and the role of Krishnamurti therein. Annie Besant thought she was fulfilling a mission of the Theosophical Society, which was not stated as one of its

official objectives, but was given to it by Helena P. Blavatsky--one of the founders of the Theosophical Society and the society's main source of ideas--when she, at

the close of her life, announced the coming of a "torch-bearer of Truth" for the later part of the twentieth century. The mission of the Theosophical Society,

according to Blavatsky, was to prepare the way for this "new leader" and prepare "the minds of men....for his message." At his arrival the Theosophical Society would

be available to him to remove the "merely mechanical, material obstacles and difficulties from his path." Indicating the possibility of a glorious long-term goal of

this plan, she states that if "the Theosophical Society survives and lives true to its mission...earth will be a heaven in the twenty-first century." (10) When Besant

was challenged about her involvement in the Order of the Star and her speaking of "the T.S. as being the Herald of the coming Teacher," (11) she defended herself by

referring explicitly to Blavatsky's view about the future mission of the Theosophical Society: "My crime is that I share it, and do what my poor powers permit in

preparing the minds of men for that coming." Besant wrote 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." (12)

I think it is reasonable to state that the particulars of Blavatsky's and Besant's views were picked up by Krishnamurti during his formative years. He might even have

read Blavatsky's statement referred to above. If so, this might provide the ground to put Krishnamurti's remark in historical perspective, and to explain the

underlying structural similarity between his remark and Blavatsky's vision. With this in mind a reconstructed reading of Krishnamurti's statement would result in the

following: "Mrs.Besant [and Blavatsky] intended [subscribed to the view that] the land at Adyar [the Theosophical Society] to be meant [to be available] for the

teaching [for the teacher]. The Theosophical Society has failed [did not to cooperate], the original purpose [the mission of the Theosophical Society to herald and aid

the teacher] is destroyed [has not been fulfilled]." The point of this digression is to show that implicit in this remark is the self-perception of Krishnamurti as the

teacher, who was expected and did come, but found the Theosophical Society not cooperative.

4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annie Besant

Of all the leading theosophists Annie Besant was the most loyal to Krishnamurti during and after his repudiation of his mission in 1929. After hearing Krishnamurti

speak at Krotona, California, in 1927 she told another Theosophist: "The Lord has spoken. I am now satisfied. This is the beginning of all that I have foreseen and

worked for." (13) Besant was so convinced that she declared herself to be his "devoted disciple," (14) closed the Esoteric Section--the heart of the Theosophical

Society and its link with the Masters--because only Krishnamurti should be allowed to teach, (15) and even considered giving up the presidency of the Theosophical

Society to follow him. She adhered to the idea that a "fragment of the World-Teacher's consciousness is in him [Krishnamurti], and his own is merged in it." (16)

Though she would reopen, allegedly on orders of her Master, the Esoteric Section and stayed on as president, she remained devoted to Krishnamurti, because he had,

according to religious scholar and Theosophist Catherine Wessinger, "fulfilled her expectations concerning the World-Teacher in several basic respects." (17) To bridge

the points where Krishnamurti's teachings and Theosophy differed Annie Besant applied her usual largesse of mind and logic: "Say, if you like, that we are two sides of

one work. Dr.Besant is at the head of one side and Krishnaji of the other. One is the work of the Manu, the other of the Bodhisattva." (18) Until the very end of her

life Annie Besant tried to rise above all factions and schisms and as such was the embodiment of the first object of the Theosophical Society--Brotherhood.

 Charles E. Luntz

Around 1929 a lively debate about Krishnamurti was held in the pages of The Theosophical Messenger, the official journal of the Theosophical Society in America, then

edited by its national president, L.W.Rogers. An original contribution to this debate came from Charles E.Luntz with his "New Theory Regarding Krishnamurti and His

Teaching," named "The Great Testing." According to this spiritual Darwinian theory, Krishnamurti's remarks about Theosophy and the Theosophical Society were "a strange

and unlooked for testing," and "an onslaught designed to test its [the Theosophical Society's] very soul," with the purpose to make "the first great separation of the

fit from the unfit (insofar as the Theosophical Society is concerned)." As the "weaklings drop out in their hundreds and even thousands, glad perhaps of the excuse

this [Krishnamurti's] extraordinary condemnation of all organizations gives them to relinquish the burden," the "faithful few carry on," with "wills of tempered steel"

to perform the work of the "building of the new Root Race... under the direct guidance of the Manu"--a work which "calls for workers of courage, of self-sacrifice, of

utter obedience and above all of Supreme Conviction of its transcendent importance."

5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did Krishnamurti know that he was the great tester? Not according to Luntz. It was his "well-reasoned belief that....the World Teacher, whose consciousness informs

Krishnaji, has deliberately shut off from the latter's physical brain the knowledge of the true reason for his attacks on the Theosophical Society." (19)

Interestingly, there is the record of Krishnamurti's reaction to this theory when he was asked in Adyar in 1933 "is the ruthless manner of the presentation of your

views merely a test of our devotion to the Masters and our loyalty to the Theosophical Society...?" Part of Krishnamurti's answer was: "I have told you what I really

think. If you wish to use that as a test to fortify yourselves, to entrench yourselves in your old beliefs, I cannot help it." (20) But this answer was anticipated by

Luntz in his 1930 article: "If by any chance this hypothesis comes to the attention of Krishnaji he will undoubtedly deny it... Those who accept it need not be

concerned, recognizing that if it be true it must be denied by him in all sincerity or the test would fail."

This theory puts Krishnamurti in the strange position that, if he effectively wanted to refute the theory, he only had to contradict the expected behavior by saying

that Luntz was right! Any attempt by Krishnamurti to refute this theory by saying it was not true would be futile. The adherents of the theory would see in that effort

a confirmation of their idea.

 Radha Burnier

After Annie Besant died in 1933 relations between Krishnamurti and the Theosophical Society were severed although he would still have private contacts with individual

members. Krishnamurti did not visit the Theosophical compound at Adyar for forty-six years. When his close friend Radha Burnier, who worked for the Krishnamurti

Foundation while being head of the Esoteric School of the Theosophical Society at the same time, became president of the Theosophical Society in 1980, an event he

wished for and apparently actively promoted, (21) Krishnamurti agreed to visit the grounds of the Theosophical headquarters again. For the rest of his life, whenever

he was in Madras, he would go there for a walk along the beach, the very same place where he was discovered by Leadbeater.

Under the leadership of its present president, Radha Burnier, the Theosophical Society seems to come back from an ambivalent position towards Krishnamurti and a

consensus seems to be emerging, at least at the international headquarters of the Theosophical Society, to accept Krishnamurti as the prophesied teacher. Two special

issues of The Theosophist, one an obituary to Krishnamurti and the other dedicated to Krishnamurti's centennial, are both endorsements of Krishnamurti's teachings and

both suggest that he should be regarded as the World-Teacher. (22) In the first one Burnier, who is the editor of The Theosophist, wrote that the "connection between

J.Krishnamurti... and the Theosophical Society was broken, not because he left--as many members believe--but because

7

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

people were not ready to listen to a profound message given in terms they were not accustomed to hearing. It is not the first time that this has happened. The Jews

would not listen to Jesus when he came to teach. The majority of Hindus did not respond for long to what the Buddha had to say." (23) In short, Krishnamurti did his

job as messiah and the Theosophists lacked the insight to recognize him as such.

 Jean Overton Fuller and Krishnamurti again

In an obituary for Krishnamurti published in Theosophical History, Jean Overton Fuller, a scholarly Theosophical author, passed on a view which she heard from some

French Theosophists and later from an English professor. She stated that Besant and Leadbeater were not necessarily wrong "when they thought they recognized in him the

World Teacher." They were even "right, in the first moment in which they recognized him as who he was," but were "wrong in practically everything they did in

consequence." In the beginning Krishnamurti "seemed to go along with their way of thinking, but as he matured, he began to show skepticism concerning the build-up of

which he was the centerpiece." (24) In other words, Krishnamurti was from the beginning the expected teacher, but was in no need of special training. Nor did he need

any special organization to proclaim his coming. When he himself realized he was the teacher he gradually broke away from all the erroneous concepts and structures

built around him.

Gregory Tillett conceived a similar possibility, though he seems not quite sure: "Was Krishnamurti a genius from birth who could have achieved international status as

a philosopher regardless of who had taken him out of his environment of poverty, or did he become what he is as a result of Leadbeater's training?" (25)

In an indirect way, Krishnamurti himself also suggested the same idea. In the same conversations referred to above between Mary Lutyens, Mary Zimbalist, and himself,

he delved, in a very subtle way, into the question of the "boy" Krishnamurti, his vacant mind, and the power that protected him. "The boy was affectionate, vacant, not

intellectual, enjoyed athletic games. What is important in this is the vacant mind. How could that vacant mind come to this [the teaching]? Was vacancy necessary for

this to manifest?... How was it that the vacant mind was not filled with Theosophy etc.?" According to Krishnamurti this "vacancy was guarded," "the vacancy has never

gone away," "the boy was found, conditioning took no hold--neither the Theosophy, nor the adulation, nor the World Teacher, the property, the enormous sums of money--

none of it affected him." (26) He said that in spite of his upbringing in Theosophy, his mind was kept vacant and protected by a higher power to facilitate the

transmission of a teaching. He seemed to imply that that would have happened regardless of "Theosophy etc."

8

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIEW TWO: THE PROJECT WAS GENUINE, BUT FAILED

Charles Webster Leadbeater

Many Theosophists believe that either because of Leadbeater's clairvoyance or a transcendent power acting upon him, he perceived the potential spiritual greatness in

Krishnamurti when they met on the beach next to the international headquarters of the Theosophical Society in May 1909. At that time Krishnamurti was an underfed,

scrawny and dirty teenager. As for his mental capacity, Krishnamurti was even considered dim-witted by Theosophist Ernest Wood, who tried to help him with his

homework. Leadbeater also was the first one to communicate the idea that Krishnamurti was to be trained as the vehicle for the Lord Maitreya. (27) As the allegedly

clairvoyant and prescient originator of the project of the coming of a great teacher, Leadbeater's views on the project's fulfillment carry a certain weight. There is

a problem though in evaluating his articles and public statements, for Leadbeater would always support Annie Besant's position in public even when he thought that she

was wrong. (28) As Besant was convinced that Krishnamurti was the World-Teacher, Leadbeater would not let her down. In his most important article on the subject, "`Art

Thou He That Should Come?,'" he stated, referring to Krishnamurti: "This is He who should come, and there is no need to look elsewhere; as I have said, I know that the

World-Teacher often speaks through Krishnaji," and then comes the twist, "but I also know that there are occasions when He does not." (29)

What Leadbeater really thought was only expressed in private, for example in 1927 at Adyar to Adrian Vreede, a colleague-bishop in the Liberal Catholic Church, to whom

he confided that "The Coming had gone wrong." (30) Because Leadbeater kept his views to himself it is hard to find out why he thought the coming had gone wrong. He was

visibly perturbed by the 1925 occult revelations originating from the Theosophical estate in Huizen, Holland, where Theosophist George Arundale and others were

transmitting messages from the Masters. (31) Allegedly on the Masters' orders Arundale appointed ten apostles, announced the passing of initiations, consecrated an

Abbess, and gave many instructions. These messages were never accepted by Leadbeater as genuine and Krishnamurti himself reacted skeptically, even sarcastically.

Krishnamurti said that "everything was spoiled." (32) Besant, though, did accept them and divulged much of their content in her public addresses, which put

Krishnamurti in a extremely difficult situation. Leadbeater told Adrian Vreede that "this explosion [of questionable revelations] has done more to hinder the coming of

the Lord than anything else."(33) To summarize, it is clear that Leadbeater believed that the project was genuine, that Krishnamurti was occasionally overshadowed by

Maitreya, but that something had gone wrong.

9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leadbeater blamed not only Krishnamurti himself for the failure of the project, but also deluded influential Theosophists.

 Geoffrey Hodson

A clairvoyant description of an address by Krishnamurti at the Star-camp at Ommen in 1927 can be found in Geoffrey Hodson's article "Camp-Fire Gleams." (34) His

visions of Krishnamurti being overshadowed by the Christ or Lord Maitreya might have convinced many people that the coming was a success. But was Hodson himself

convinced? Initially he was, but not so later on, if one believes John Robertson, who wrote an unpublished biography on Hodson's life. Robertson was told by Hodson

that the coming had not been "fulfilled strictly in the terms of the original pronouncement;" that "on certain rare occasions this overshadowing was experimentally

begun," but these manifestations were "both gentle and brief." As for the reasons for terminating the experiment, Hodson thought that "perhaps the strain proved too

great for Krishnamurti." Hodson told Robertson that Krishnamurti's doctor had said that (quoting Hodson) the "strain upon Krishnamurti's nervous system and psychology

was very great, even after only a few minutes use of his vehicles by a higher Being." Another factor were circumstances and actions which had "deeply hurt his

susceptibilities" (probably referring to the Huizen-manifestations). Or the death in 1925 of his beloved brother Nityananda, whose life Krishnamurti thought to be

crucial to his destiny, was a factor "in his decision to withdraw from the role that might have been his." According to Robertson, Hodson also said that "this does not

in any way deny the fact that the original plan of a wholly `experimental' attempt to use Krishnamurti as a vehicle was formed and communicated by a Master to

C.W.Leadbeater. In fact, Mr.Hodson stated that he has reason to be firmly convinced that this was indeed the case." (35)

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out by German author Peter Michel, many of Hodson's writings containing his views on Krishnamurti have not been published. (36)

These include "The Unforgettable Years," a manuscript containing his remembrances and visions from approximately the period 1923-1930, the entries of his "occult

diary" for the same years which were not included in the publication edited by his wife, (37) and his biography "Aquarian Occultist." He did publish a little booklet

in 1935, Krishnamurti and the Search for Light, in which he defended Theosophy and the Theosophical Society against Krishnamurti's iconoclasm, because he felt that

"the principles of justice, fair play and common courtesy have been so flagrantly outraged for some seven years that at last I am moved to a reply." As a member of the

Theosophical Society he had "not always been able to achieve the philosophic calm of the leaders," so he had to express his view on Krishnamurti's teachings. According

to Hodson the teachings of Krishnamurti were "an extraordinary blend of rare flashes of transcendental wisdom, penetrating intelligence, incomprehensibility,

prejudice, intolerance and vituperation." (38) Later in life Hodson took a milder view. He stated that "the splendid

11

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

teachings, verbal and written,.. demonstrate that he is indeed, in his own right, an advanced Soul with an aspiring message to deliver to mankind." (39) Based on his

clairvoyance Hodson accepted the project as genuine, saw the Christ working through Krishnamurti, but later he had reasons to conclude that Krishnamurti had rejected

his role. Despite this and the fact that Krishnamurti became prejudiced against Theosophy, Hodson thought he had something important to say.

 Cyril Scott

Between 1920 and 1932 the English composer and Theosophist, Cyril Scott, anonymously wrote three still popular occult books, which tell the story of a poet, Charles

Broadbent, and his spiritual teacher, Justin Moreward Haig (who himself was a initiated disciple of a Master of Wisdom, named "Sir Thomas"). (40) Considered by many as

fiction, the author himself stated about the last book of the series, that the "various situations in the book were correctly portrayed, but the characters for obvious

reasons had perforce to be camouflaged." (41) In this third book, The Initiate in the Dark Cycle, two chapters were entirely dedicated to Krishnamurti, (42) and "its

most valuable portions were contributed by the Initiate's Master." (43) Early in the recorded conversation in the second of the two chapters, Haig stated that "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." Haig then stated that Krishnamurti is teaching the Advaita (monist) version of Vedanta philosophy. "Sir Thomas" added that

this is a "philosophy for chelas, and one of the most easily misunderstood paths to Liberation." He also warned those who climb Krishnamurti's "incomplete stairway to

God" of two dangers. "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." As his final evaluation when asked if Krishnamurti's "mission must be regarded as a total failure," he stated "True, true. A success while

still overshadowed by the World-Teacher,... a failure afterwards." (44) In short, Krishnamurti rejected his role, dug up an old teaching and turned it into something

dangerous.

During a talk in 1936 Krishnamurti was asked his reaction to the allegation in The Initiate in the Dark Cycle that what he is teaching is "Advaitism, which is a

philosophy only for yogis and chelas, and dangerous for the average individual." Krishnamurti's answer was as follows. "Surely, if I considered that what I am saying

is dangerous for the average person, I wouldn't talk. So, it is for you to consider if what I say is dangerous. People who write books of this kind are consciously or

unconsciously exploiting others. They have axes to grind, and having committed themselves to a certain system, they bring in the authority of a Master, of tradition,

of superstition, of churches, which

12

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

generally controls the activities of an individual. What is there in what I am saying that is so difficult or dangerous for the average man?" (45) The question about

the difficulty of Krishnamurti's teaching was answered in "Sir Thomas"' last words about Krishnamurti in Scott's book: "Because he has reached a certain state of

consciousness and evolution, in his modesty he fails to see that others have not reached it likewise. Therefore he prescribes for others what is only suitable for

himself." (46)

 David Anrias

One of the characters in Scott's initiate-books is an astrologer named David Anrias. His real name was Brian Ross, an English Theosophist who had worked for Annie

Besant in India. (47) He claimed to have been in contact with the Masters, some of whose messages and portraits he published in Through the Eyes of the Masters. In a

later book Anrias let it be known that this book "was partly inspired with the object of counteracting the doubt cast by Krishnamurti upon the power of the Masters to

further the evolution of mankind." (48) The most important message came from Lord Maitreya himself and dealt almost exclusively with Krishnamurti. Maitreya said that

he was "limited by Karma in the choice of [his] Medium," that he had to use "a physical body selected by the Lords of Karma," which was "untrained in many respects for

the difficult task of a Spiritual Teacher." Because Krishnamurti had taken initiations along the line of the Deva-evolutions, "it became all but impossible for him to

be used any longer as my medium." His main criticism was that "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."(49) Briefly stated: Krishnamurti was a deficient

vehicle, took the wrong initiations, and promulgated a big error.

 Alice Bailey

Alice Bailey claimed to have been contacted by the Tibetan Master Djual Kul, who transmitted to her a voluminous body of teachings. In Djual Kul's teachings the Christ

played a prominent role and was expected to return to earth. This return "will be expressed... by an upsurging of the Christ consciousness in the hearts of men

everywhere" and many "will be `overshadowed' by Him." In this way "He will duplicate Himself repeatedly." His work with Krishnamurti was one of the first experiments

as a means of preparation, but it "was only partially successful. The power used by Him was distorted and misapplied by the devotee type of which the Theosophical

Society is largely composed, and the experiment was brought to an end." (50) Bailey's position seems to be that the project was genuine but experimental, and was

terminated because Theosophists were not of the right type.

13

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guy Ballard

According to Guy Ballard, an American mining engineer with an interest in the occult, the Adept Saint Germain approached him with the request to become a messenger for

the Adepts. This happened in the summer of 1930 on the slopes of Mount Shasta, California, almost exactly a year after Krishnamurti had dissolved the Order of the

Star. Ballard agreed, wrote Unveiled Mysteries under the name Godfré Ray King and founded with his wife Edna the "I AM" Movement. (51) Three ex-members of the "I AM"

Movement I met, who remembered the 1920s and 1930s and had some knowledge about Theosophy and Krishnamurti, agreed that the reason for the founding of the "I AM"

Movement was the failing of Krishnamurti--the Masters of Wisdom had to open a new channel to give a new teaching, because Krishnamurti would not do so. There is no

direct reference to Krishnamurti in the literature of the "I AM" Movement to support that view, and its present day leaders, when asked about the possible connection

of Krishnamurti's alleged failure and the founding of the "I AM" Movement, could only state that somehow Theosophy had failed and that was the reason why the Masters

turned to Ballard. Nevertheless some passages found in the "I AM" literature have a direct bearing on our subject. They can be found in "Kuthumi's Discourse," a

message by the Adept Kuthumi given through Ballard on December 19, 1937, in Los Angeles. Though Krishnamurti was not mentioned by name and the passage refers to

possibly a multitude of individuals, the plausibility that it refers also to Krishnamurti has to be considered seriously.

In Our Endeavor to assist and bring forth through Theosophy the Glory and right Understanding of Life, up to the time when We could have brought forth this Truth,

still again humanity would not give sufficient obedience. Why will not mankind, precious mankind, give obedience to the Law of Life--love each other, so that it makes

it possible for the great Truth to come forth untouched, unadulterated by human opinions!... Beloved Ones, for more than six hundred years the Great Ascended Masters

have tried to open the way for this greater Understanding to come to mankind; but no sooner did this Mighty Truth begin to expand Its Light, than individuals with

human opinions seized upon It and tried to make It obey them, instead of obeying It... Do you realize, Beloved Ones, what it means to Us, to Morya and Myself--We two

who were so earnest and sincere? Yet, Our beloved Saint Germain has accomplished more in three years than We did in the many years of Our humble Efforts. (52)

The last sentence sounds boastful, but is not without substance if one considers the observation about the "I AM" Movement by religious scholar and Theosophist Robert

Ellwood that "at its apex in the late thirties, it must have represented the greatest popular diffusion Theosophical concepts ever attained." (53)

Did Krishnamurti try to subsume the revelations, which initially came through him, under his own opinions, and because of that could not give the full truth, which was

then revealed through

14

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

another vehicle? Krishnamurti's anticipation to a part of this criticism can be found in the very last sentences of his famous speech dissolving the Order of the Star.

"For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form

other organizations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, [and] new decorations for those cages." (54)

 Elizabeth Clare Prophet

As the leader of a new religious movement Elizabeth Clare Prophet claims to be the Messenger for the Great White Brotherhood and as such "takes dictations" from

different Masters of Wisdom. The movement, known formerly as the Summit Lighthouse and more recently as Church Universal and Triumphant, has its roots in Theosophy and

the "I AM" Movement. (55) With the latter the Summit Lighthouse has so much in common that a Dutch study of the organization stated that one could perhaps see the

Summit Lighthouse as the "I AM" Movement "risen from its ashes." (56) The dictations have been published on a weekly basis for the last thirty-five years. In 1975

Kuthumi delivered a message with a couple of paragraphs dedicated to Krishnamurti. He stated forthrightly ("let the chips fall where they may") that Krishnamurti was

"the instrument of a philosophy that is not and does not in any way represent the true teachings of the Great White Brotherhood" and that Krishnamurti presented

"calculated and cunning detours for souls searching for truth." Regarding the coming and its failure Kuthumi stated that though Krishnamurti was "selected to take the

training for the calling of representing the World Teachers and the coming Buddha, Lord Maitreya," he "failed the test of the intellect and of the subtleties of

spiritual pride," with the result that he is now "denounced by the Brotherhood," while he himself "denounces the true teachers and the path of initiation." (57)

Earlier in the same year El Morya allegedly privately dictated a series of letters to Prophet. In the last letter of the series he gives a chronological overview of

the different projects the Masters had been involved with, starting with Blavatsky and Mary Baker Eddy. About these two spiritual pioneers he said that though they

were "at times beset with their own preconceptions and the burden of the mass consciousness, these witnesses codified the truth and the law of East and West as the

culmination of thousands of years of their souls' distillations of the Spirit." In the next paragraph he then makes what one can only take as a veiled reference to

Krishnamurti. "Such messengers are not trained in a day or a year or a lifetime. Embodiment after embodiment, they sit at the feet of the masters and receive the

emanations of their mantle in the power of their word and example. A number of others who were selected to perform a similar service for hierarchy failed in their

initiations through the pride of their intellect and their unwillingness to submit identity totally unto the flame. They have become thereby totally self-deluded and

they continue to draw innocent souls into the chaos of their delusion." (58) For two reasons this paragraph can be construed as referring to Krishnamurti. The

15

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

strongest one is the key phrase "at the feet of the masters," which is also the title of Krishnamurti's first publication, and regarded a Theosophical classic. The

second reason is the place the paragraph takes in the chronological overview. It is placed between the paragraph about Blavatsky and Eddy, and a paragraph about Guy

and Edna Ballard, who are presented as "representatives tried and true of Saint Germain." (59) This suggests to look for these allegedly failed messengers in the

period between Blavatsky's death in 1891 and the meeting between Guy Ballard and Saint Germain in 1930. This period covers exactly the time beginning with the

leadership of the Theosophical Society by Besant and ending with the abrogation--or culmination, depending on one's view--of her world teacher project in the

dissolution of the Order of the Star in 1929 by Krishnamurti himself. If these two reasons hold, and the paragraph is really a reference to Krishnamurti, then it is

the most severe evaluation of him on record.

In short, according to Prophet's Masters, Krishnamurti was selected and trained by the Masters for an important role, subsequently tripped over his pride and deceived

vulnerable souls with a subtle but erroneous philosophy.

[See also text of a little lecture by Elizabeth Prophet on Krishnamurti not used in the above paragraphs]

 Peter Michel

Among the many studies about the life and teachings of Krishnamurti, perhaps one stands out because of its exploration of a very wide variety of subjects and issues

connected with Krishnamurti. It also stands out because it is very sympathetic to Theosophical concepts and experiences, while at heart being in accord with

Krishnamurti. This study by the German author Peter Michel is titled Krishnamurti--Love and Freedom.

Regarding the idea of the coming of a great spiritual teacher Michel states that it is likely that the origin of the idea of the World-Teacher in Besant's and

Leadbeater's worldview "can be found in their inner experiences" of communication with the Masters. For him it even "seems to make no sense to consider an outer source

to account for the idea of the World Teacher." As for his views on the success of the coming, he observes the paradox, that "Krishnamurti regarded himself more as a

World Teacher later--in his own right--than the Theosophists, whose messianic ideal he had rejected inwardly and outwardly for several years, ever did." He quotes

Krishnamurti, seemingly in agreement, from an interesting interview Krishnamurti gave to an American journalist. "The teachers of all ages have repeated the same

essentials but we never seem to understand them, perhaps because of their very simplicity. And so, when it becomes necessary for humanity to receive in a new form the

ancient wisdom someone whose duty it is to repeat these truths is incarnated." (60) Answering his own question "if K was `the teacher' like Christ or Buddha," Michel

agrees "with Scott and Anrias that he was not," to which he added the observation that "K himself would reply: Is this of any importance?" According to Michel,

16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Krishnamurti "might have been the `teacher,'" if "he would have been able to combine his position (the non-esoteric K) with the best of the esoteric tradition, as it

maybe was planned." (61) Peter Michel's position seems to be very close to the one described above for Hodson, i.e., Krishnamurti was not the expected teacher, but his

teachings are important. The difference between Hodson and Michel is that Hodson's sympathy is more with Theosophy and Michel's sympathy is more with Krishnamurti.

 VIEW THREE: THE PROJECT WAS NOT GENUINE AND FAILED

 Rudolf Steiner

The founding of the Anthroposophical Society in 1912 by Rudolf Steiner was a direct consequence of the views he held about the second coming of the Christ. When the

Order of the Star was founded, the Council of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, of which Steiner was then general secretary, declared that no one could

be simultaneously a member of the Star and the German TS. Besant reacted by revoking their charter, which officially took effect on March 7, 1913. Meanwhile, Steiner

had founded the Anthroposophical Society on December 28, 1912, and the majority of German Theosophists followed him. (62)

His differences with Besant and Leadbeater regarding the nature of the Christ were fundamental. In a series of lectures given in 1911, when he was still with the

Theosophical Society, he stated that the first coming of the Christ, "the Christ-Event," was a unique unrepeatable cosmic event. "An incarnation of the Christ-Being in

a human body of flesh could take place only once in the course of the Earth-evolution." The essential event of the coming happened during the crucifixion, when the

earth was redeemed by the influx of the spirit of Christ. The second coming meant for Steiner "the renewal of the [first] Christ-Event" and would happen "towards the

end of the twentieth century," this time not in a physical way, but "in the world of the etheric." This "second Christ-Event" would consist of Christ becoming "Lord of

Karma for human evolution" and would have the effect that more and more people would be able to perceive "the significance and the Being of Christ." (63)

Steiner also differed with Besant and Leadbeater on the question of who Christ was. Besant and Leadbeater identified him with the Bodhisattva Maitreya. Steiner said

they were two different, but related, beings; Christ was not a highly evolved human soul as the Theosophist saw him, but an infinitely higher cosmic being. The

Bodhisattva Maitreya, "who succeeded Gautama Buddha," was