Examining Adyar’s Attempt
To Fabricate the Return of
Christ
Carlos Cardoso Aveline
00000000000000000000000000000
The following article was
first
published at “Fohat” magazine,
00000000000000000000000000000000000000
“Night
before last I was shown a
bird’s-eye
view of the Theosophical
Societies.
I saw a few reliable Theosophists
in a
death-struggle with the world in general,
and
with other - nominal but ambitious - Theosophists.”
H. P. Blavatsky in a letter to William Q.
Judge [1]
Helena Blavatsky (photo) wrote
clear words about the return of Christ
Error
is doomed to imitate 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 still subsists, although in a rather quiet way, and
Mrs. Radha Burnier - the president of the Adyar Theosophical Society since 1980
- is one of its staunchest leaders.
Krishnamurti was 14 years old when he was “discovered” in Adyar by a clairvoyant of lower Iddhis, Mr. C. W. Leadbeater By
then, both Annie Besant and Leadbeater used to have long imaginary conversations with some kind of “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 “Lord
Christ” himself.
It is true that, with regard to the expected return of Christ, H.P. Blavatsky had explained, in plain words:
“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 men; for Christ - the true esoteric
SAVIOUR - is no man, but the DIVINE
PRINCIPLE in every human being. He who
strives to ressurrect 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, H.P.B.’s words had been most clear. Yet, as
the popular saying goes, “there is no one so blind as they that won’t see”. The
Adyar leaders were so busy fabricating Lord Christ that they did not have time to take real 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 Esoteric
School
Mary Lutyens, Krishnamurti’s close friend and main biographer, reports in Chapter One of her book “The Life
and Death of Krishnamurti” that the would-be notes and originals written by
Krishnamurti “disappeared”. The only originals anyone ever saw of that devotional booklet were the ones typewritten by C. W. Leadbeater. Once Krishnamurti reached adultdhood, 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 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 TS. 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”, 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 the
all-powerful 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 a world of
“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-sellling booklet “At the Feet of the Master” was a great and spectacular
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 E. Wood writes about the “Order of the Star”, which was rapidly growing
worldwide:
“Thousands of 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
his 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. 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 been usually 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, an English
theosophist, reports 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 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 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”. Why such a deep contrast between the two
viewpoints? In fact, C. W. Leadbeater - Krishnamurti’s teacher - had failed in discipleship soon after being put
on probation in the 1880s. As a result,
later on, he was never admitted to HPB’s Esoteric School
As to the “God issue”, it is no mere question of “personal opinion”. It is linked to a tecnical and practical matter
of decisive importance in occult learning.
Belief in an all-powerful God - just
as adoring imaginary Adepts of “unlimited power” - is an essential article in the idealized version
of discipleship which Annie Besant and Mr. Leadbeater created in their
messianic attempt. 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 “stricly 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/symbolical name used by the same
Mahatma 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 can often be 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 H.P.B. had simply asked
him to present himself with a “cleaner personal appearance”, in order not to
offend Mr. Sinett’s western prejudices
against “dirty people”. The Master explains to Sinnett that the young disciple would not accept acting
like the chelas of unlegitimate and
rival sects, which do recommend physical cleanliness (see
p. 16 in TUP edition).
The episode shows that both Masters and disciples pay scarce attention
to the question of physical cleanliness or
dirtiness. It also shows that a true Master entirely preserves the
autonomy of a disciple, who is therefore entitled to have and to keep his own prejudices against physical cleanliness. In the same letter, besides admitting his
chela’s mistake, the Master also offers a Western example of “saintly resistance” against 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”
against any physical
dirtiness? In his essay “Totem And
Taboo”, Sigmund Freud offers us a psychiatrical 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]
In reality, 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. Such in fact is the blind-obedience principle of “doing whatever the Master wants”. Of course, the idea has been most convenient to Adyar
leaders, who place themselves as “intermediaries” between imaginary Masters and
the rest of the movement, and thus
concentrate every power in their own hands.
Up to the early 1950s, direct “orders”
coming from supposed Masters were received through the leaders of the Adyar
TS and its esoteric school. The system operated until C. Jinarajadasa’s
time. It formally stopped with N. Sri
Ram by 1953, yet power has since then remained concentrated in the hands of the
international presidents and “heads” of the esoteric school, who, according to
custom, must be implicitly treated as
Popes by the rest of Adyar members - since they behave as “occult
representatives of the Masters”.
In “At the Feet of the Master, as in many other works by Besant and
Leadbeater, one can read a 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 immediately, 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 say
or do under these circumstances?’ For
you must never do or say or think what you can not imagine the Master as doing or saying or thinking.” [16]
The false assumptions in the quotation above deserve some examination.
* First, the text supposes that a disciple is able to fully
understand his Master’s consciousness
and thoughts. The absurd idea is that there is no difference, in mental
horizons or in karma, between an Adept and his poor, ignorant disciple.
* Second, the text supposes that
a disciple should mimick 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.
* This would-be student 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. True, students can’t compare their individual thoughts to the individual thoughts of any Adept. On the
other hand, they can easily 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 if not revolutionary experience.
What the Masters actually teach about
discipleship is absolutely 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
mediumnistic, obedience to an imaginary Master. An Adept of the Himalayas wrote:
“The objections of last year are creeping out also, 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 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]
Conscious individual
responsibility before Life is the basic
and fundamental condition for any student of Theosophy, if he wants to have a reasonable amount of success in his endeavours. The same applies to lay disciples and
aspirants to lay discipleship.
Although the 20th century messianic attempt made by Adyar
leaders and “bishops” clearly failed as a project, its false notions and
unconscious attachment to comfortable
illusions still intoxicate minds and hearts of theosophists, worldwide. Related mayavic trends influence many who are not situated within the Adyar TS itself.
Both truth and illusions are implicity and
thoughtlessly shared by several theosophical groups, at an occult level. Even
now the majority of nominal theosophists
indirectly accept and thus are limited by the same “avataric” and clairvoyant assumptions
and delusions created in the first three
decades of last century. This is one of the reasons why the motto of
every true theosophist must be, as H.P.
Blavatsky states in “Isis ” -
“I accept unreservedly the
views of no man, living or dead”. [19]
Somehow, the movement must thoroughly renew itself in order to take the
necessary steps towards the now seemingly “distant” year of 2075. Fortunately, one can trust that the means for
that self-renewal will emerge at the
right time and in the right way - perhaps unseen,
unperceived,
and little by little ; yet as surely as
the arrival of any new cycle.
NOTES:
[1] These sentences are
quoted in “The Friendly Philosopher”,
Robert Crosbie, Theosophy Co., Los
Angeles
[2] “The Esoteric
Character of the Gospels”, by H.P.B., in
“The Collected Writings of Helena
P. Blavatsky”, TPH, Adyar, 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
[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
[9] “Letters From the Masters of the Wisdom”, 1870-1900, First Series,
transcribed by C. Jinarajadasa, TPH, 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
[11] Living once more
in London after several years in Asia, instead
of having access to HPB’s Esoteric
School
[12] “At The Feet of
the Master”, pages 9-10.
[13] “The Mahatma
Letters”, TUP, see Letter IV, first
paragraph, p. 15-16. In the
Chronological Edition (Philippines
[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
[16] “At The Feet of the
Master”, pp. 13-14.
[17] “The Mahatma
Letters to A.P. Sinnett”, TUP, Letter
LXXII, p. 374. In the
Chronological Edition (TPH Philippines), this is the Letter 95, p. 333.
[18] “Letters From the
Masters of the Wisdom”, transcribed by C. Jinarajadasa, TPH, Adyar, India, second edition, 1973, see Letter 72,
p. 129.
[19] “Isis Unveiled”,
H. P. Blavatsky, Theosophy Company, Los Angeles
0000000000000000000
Always visit www.Esoteric-Philosophy.com , www.TheosophyOnline.com and www.FilosofiaEsoterica.com .
If you want to have access to a daily study of the
original teachings of modern esoteric philosophy, write to lutbr@terra.com.br
and ask for further information on E-Theosophy.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
