Blavatsky's Prophecy and Krishnamurti
Jun 20, 1996 02:54 PM
by alexis dolgorukii
A message with this title has appeared both on "theos-list" and "alt.
theosophy" several times lately so I would assume everyone who is interested
in the subject has read it and I shan't re-print it.
With all due respect and affection for Mr. Ramadoss. It is clear to me (at
least) that his enormous affection and admiration of Krishnamurti has
blinded him completely and he hasn't allowed reality to intrude on his
enthusiasms. There is simply no possible way in which Mr. Krishnamurti, no
matter how one may view him, can be seen to fulfill Blavatsky's prophesies.
Blavatsky feared greatly, and also prophesied, that The Theosophical Society
would take a "wrong turn" and become a religion (which it has) and therefore
"fade away" (which it is in the process of doing) while theosophy would
continue to go on forever, as it had forever existed. She said that in any
case the "Great White Brotherhood" would send a new messenger after 1975 in
the "last quarter of the 20th century". That hardly fits Krishnamurti in any
way. His prime notoriety was in the first quarter of the 20th century. By
the time 1975 rolled around his life was drawing to a close.
Mr. Ramadoss comments that Blavatsky had said that the messenger would, if
the society didn't "self-destruct" find an organization "ready and waiting
to serve him". But as Dr Alan Bain so clearly pointed out: "Krishnamurti
walked out on that organization" to which I'd like to add that Krishnamurti
missed no opportunity for the rest of his life to repudiate theosophy.
The place where Mr. Ramadoss goes furthest from reality is in assuming a
world-wide notoriety and fame for Krishnamurti which just never existed. One
of the great problems with small, closed, incestuous societies, of which
Theosophy is a good example, is that, because they generally only
communicate with one another, the members of that closed group make the
entirely false assumption that "everyone" thinks as they do. This is equally
true of all fundamentalist groups. It's why the religious "right" in the USA
is always being surprised by it's relative lack of power. It's why the
people in the "Patriot" and "Militia" movements are always so astonished to
find that most of their fellow-citizens think they're insane.It's really
important to realize that, just as most people have never heard of
Theosophy, even fewer people have ever heard of Krishnamurti. It's probably
safe to say that for every million people who have heard of Michael Jackson
there is one whose heard of Krishnamurti. And for every one that has heard
of Krishnamurti, it must also be acknowledged that very few of them feel
towards Krishnamurti the way Mr. Ramadoss does. Most people found
Krishnamurti rude, arrogant, boring, evasive, dogmatic and uncaring. As a
scholar I have never found anything particularly important in Mr.
Rajagopal's editions of his speeches which are actually all the greatest
majority of his published works seem to be.
No, I don't think Krishnamurti was the "World Teacher", nor did he give any
indications of fitting any rational definition of "Adept hood". I respect,
like, and admire Mr. Ramadoss, but i am afraid that Jiddu Krishnamurti was
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application