From the archives of some theosophical e-mail lists.

English ?enter=theos-l

Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000

Subject: Krishnaji, theosophy, TS and Masters

One of the questions that frequently comes up is the views of Krishnaji about theosophy, Theosophical Society and Masters. Some information has come out in a recently published book by Sunanda Patwardhan. I am excerpting/quoting some of it, which some will find interesting.

MKR (Ramadoss)

During a discussion on December 25, 1980, the question was "What does it mean to say that Krishnaji went through the Theosophical phrase without being affected? Was he really untouched by Theosophy, although he used idioms, ideas, and definitions similar to those of Theosophists? Is it correct to say that what is Theosophical is not just Theosophical, because it is equally Buddhist, Christian, and so on, and so no denominational conditioning went with it? When Krishnaji wrote *At the Feet of the Master*, was he conditioned by his Theosophical training?"

Krishnaji responded:

"I am not conditioned by the teaching, I mean this, it came in and it came out. Sir, I would say that they tried to condition me; they tried to say that this is the line you are going to take. They tried to induce me to accept their church, canons, and all that." Then he added after a moment of reflection "K had that original thing in Ojai, but he was still within the idiom of Theosophy. I would not call that conditioning. He was learning the languages. I can assure you that none of that mattered. All that thing never touched that boy."

To the question that he never denied there are Masters, he replied

"What you think of the Master is not what it is. They personalized something immense into personalities." When one questioner insisted that the belief in Masters was a fundamental part of Theosophy, K responded:

"Listen to what he (K) was saying. He says C W Leadbeater and H P Blavatsky made Masters into something personal. There was certainly a Master here, a Master there, and so on. That was part of Theosophy. But they reduced that immensity to this shoddy little affair."

A questioner again posed "It is one thing to say, ‘Don't deny immensity,' but it is another thing to say you accept the immensity in Theosophical terms."

K's reply was – "Just a minute, Would you grant that the boy was vague, vacant, totally lost, not there? You came along – CWL or Besant. You came along and saw the boy had something, you picked the boy up, put him between the two leaders with his brother, and they pour this thing into him every night – meditation, going to the Masters. The boy repeats all that. It was poured in and poured out."

K continued "Now, I would say a totally independent experience took place at Ojai, you follow? That was original, independent, away from the ambience, away from the influence, away from everything that they put into him. Right? But he was still within the idiom of Theosophy, he broke away ultimately. That's all."