Theos-Talk Archives (December 1994 Message tl00076)

Dear Liesl--

I think you are being quite unfair in taking personal offense at
my characterization of a period of history which you were no part
of (were you?).  The reference was specifically to the period
when the TS became publicly associated, much to its detriment,
with a collective obsession that K.  was the World Teacher as
defined by CWL.  Yes, he did the right thing and put an end to
it, thereby saving the TS, in my opinion.  But how does that
absolve those who were responsible for promoting this obsession
in the first place? CWL's clairvoyance led him to conclude that
K.  was destined to play the role he later rejected, and his
alleged communications with the Masters encouraged him in this
belief, which was relentlessly promoted in the TS by him, Besant,
Arundale, et al.  If Art has feelings of discomfort with the
concept of the Masters, it behooves us to admit that it has been
abused in the past in our society.

Whether CWL's pupils are capable of being effective healers or
Theosophical leaders is quite irrelevant to the question of
whether or not the Krishnamurti business was a most unfortunate
period of collective madness.  I would be interested in any
effort at reasoned defense of CWL's role in it.  But what we have
seen in the past on this net suggests to me that his admirers,
when faced with legitimate criticism of him, react not by
reasoned argument, but with hostility and insistence that his
critics have no right to discuss him at all.

Whatever guidelines you wish to propose as to defining "a civil
tongue" will receive my respectful consideration.  But an effort
to stifle open discussion by personal hostility and intimidation
will not.

Sincerely
Paul