How about Blavatsky and Krishnamurti?

Oh boy. Seriously. I love H.P. Blavatsky’s work. I think she was a marvelous person and had a lot to say. The very fact that discussing ‘Theosophy’ implies discussing the old lady says something about her stature. But I do think it says something about the dogmatic nature of our movement that the first question anybody asks is: how about Blavatsky…

For the TS Adyar the next one is … How about Krishnamurti.

Either one gets annoying when asked too often.

So here goes.

Blavatsky and the Theosophical Movement

From her work it is very clear that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky did NOT mean for her work to become the end all be all for the Theosophical Movement. And really, if what we are doing is searching for truth, how can we collectively afford to only look at what Blavatsky wrote? And if for arguments sake we DO only look at Blavatsky, what distinguishes our movement from a religion? There is no way to limit our research to Blavatsky and still be ‘undogmatic’.

If this movement is going to come alive and stay alive, it is going to have to open up and discuss what matters to people today. And since Blavatsky lived over a century ago, she did not provide answers for every thing we might want to talk about.

Jiddu Krishnamurti and the Theosophical Society

Now there’s a totally different can of worms.

As most of you know, Jiddu Krishnamurti was raised by theosophists of the Theosophical Society Adyar to be a Messiah, a world teacher. He did become a world teacher, but only after dismantling the organization the theosophists had built for him. The TS Adyar has not recovered since.

The fact is: Krishnamurti is only a problem for the TS if we take him seriously as an authority. Since he didn’t want to be one, who cares? Thousands do: lots of theosophists have studied Krishnamurti’s teachings, have integrated them with the other spiritual literature they read and adore him.

I think it’s an intrinsic problem with Krishnamurti’s teachings that he did not want people following gurus, but was available all his life to be followed. It’s an intrinsic issue that he dismantled one organization, only to have several others built in his name later. Anyone who thinks the man was a genius has to deal with those inconsistencies. Once they are dealt with, the TS is no more a problem than the Krishnamurti foundations are, or the churches.

The fact of the matter is: people will come together. They will form herds. People are herd beings. This is only natural. The Theosophical Society is only another such herd. In this case: of people searching for truth. Usually because they are dissatisfied with the religious and spiritual truths they grew up with. There is no problem with that, unless one starts thinking the TS has The Truth, and nobody else has any. The TS has a bit of it perhaps, but only in the form of the collective knowledge of its members. Only to the extent that we are wise, tolerant, and knowledgeable, can truth be found in our midst.

One thought on “How about Blavatsky and Krishnamurti?”

  1. You write :
    “I think it’s an intrinsic problem with Krishnamurti’s teachings that he did not want people following gurus, but was available all his life to be followed”.

    I was in Saanen one time in 1980’s listening to Jiddu. The main thing I remember is what he said at the beginning of his conference when I was there : “Hello, I see many of the people who are following me around the world – they have not understood me.”

Comments are closed.