Jiddu Krishnamurti y Radha Burnier.

J. Krishnamurti, Theosophy and the Theosophical Society

(Radha Burnier, International President of the TS, answers questions from young Theosophists, San Rafael Theosophical Centre, Argentina, April 2004. Originally published in The Theosophist, August 2005.)

1. Many people say that, when he left the TS, Krishnamurti betrayed the TS and the Masters who instructed him. What do you think about this?

Not many people, but some people say this. I think it is a wrong idea. There was no question of Krishnamurti betraying the TS or the Masters who instructed him. In the TS at that time, there was a group of people who claimed to have contact with the Masters, and who assumed authority for themselves. They believed they were in a position to declare: ‘You have been put on probation; someone else has become a pupil of the Master’, or ‘Now you are an Initiate’. But it could be seen by the behaviour of these people that they did not fulfil the qualifications which are described in The Masters and the Path and other books about what a true disciple of the Master or Initiate would be like. So it became like a drama, a farce, and Krishnamurti disliked all this very much.

Dr Annie Besant was old, and Krishnamurti himself said that for many years she had worked too much — constantly working for the Theosophical Society, for India’s political freedom, and for many other causes, such as women’s upliftment, the antivivisection movement to protect animals, and scouting. The number of causes she championed was amazing; nobody else could have done it. Krishnaji said that when the body became old, she failed to have the same kind of intellectual power that she had previously. So, when this group of people around her were saying all these things, she neither interfered nor put an end to it. My father, who was Annie Besant’s secretary for some time, and who knew her well in the last years, said that she had a very trustful nature. She trusted all people who worked with her — that may have been one reason why she did not oppose these beliefs. Although Krishnaji felt that the Society was going in the wrong direction, he was not able to stop this trend, and therefore left the Society. I believe Annie Besant was not so much upset as deeply concerned about how he would look after himself, for he had not been prepared to look after himself in the turmoil of the world. So she advised some members of the TS to look after him and work for him.

I think the idea that he betrayed the Masters is ridiculous. My personal opinion is that he was in constant touch with the Masters. He knew far better what the Masters were than most of the people who talked much about the Masters and claimed to be their agents. According to Krishnaji, the mistake made in the TS at that time was that the sacred and holy were brought down to a personal and material level. Swami T. Subba Row objected even to HPB talking as much as she did about the Masters, because of the danger of degrading the concept of the Masters. God is said to be made in the image of man; similarly people attribute to the Masters what is familiar to themselves, but it has little to do with what they actually are: very holy, pure, wise people. Madame Blavatsky also made it clear that those who want to contact the Masters must rise to their level, it being impossible to bring them down to the worldly level. But the bringing down was what was happening. Krishnaji rejected the ideas about the Masters, but not the existence of liberated ones.

According to Pupul Jayakar’s account of Krishnaji’s life, when the ‘process’ was taking place, he sometimes said: ‘They are here.’ Who are the ‘they’? ‘They’ were doing something to his brain, and so on. Even just before he died, it is reported that he remarked: ‘I am ready to go. They are waiting for me.’ Another side to the matter was that in the TS too much was made about where the Masters lived, what kind of colour of hair each one had, and that kind of thing. These details, even if accurate, concern only the outer appearance; the Master is really a state of consciousness. He may wear a certain body at some time, and another body at another time. Thinking of the appearance and the physical body as the Master is completely wrong. HPB wrote that the people who say they want to contact the Master do not know what they are talking about, because the body is only a mask, not the real thing. This is true even in our case; the body is a mask, concealing a different reality. In the case of the Mahatmas, the reality is a certain level and quality of consciousness. Perhaps Krishnaji did not like reducing the Masters to these details, and thinking about them as being somewhat like ourselves.

2. Did Krishnamurti keep in touch with the TS in some way?

After he left the TS, there were people in the TS who felt he was creating a disturbance, but there were also people in the TS who felt he was saying something profound and valuable. It is because of them that the ambience was created for Krishnaji to come back much later into contact with the TS. He himself told me that Mr Jinarâjadâsa (whom he called Râjâ) was always very nice to him. They did not have the same ideas; Bro. Râjâ’s conventional Theosophy and Krishnaji’s new presentation did not agree on many things. But he told me that Râjâ was always so affectionate, he would take books and other things for him, send his car and give him money. In those days, Krishnaji was not so well known. When my father became President, he deftly brought a change within the Society in favour of understanding what Krishnamurti was talking about.

3. Did Krishnamurti deny the Mahatmas? Did he deny the path of discipleship?

He used a vocabulary which is not the traditional one. He did not use such words as ‘the path’. In fact, he said ‘Truth is a pathless land’, and many people are still puzzled by it. But from the Theosophical point of view, every Monad is unique and, entering the material plane, follows its own unique path. The development that takes place in every individual is unlike any other — the whole of Nature is like this. Some years ago they said the thumb-print of every one of the millions of human beings is different and identifiable. Now they say they can identify a person by the teeth, the vocal cords, the hair, and so on. That kind of uniqueness exists even at the physical level. So each person has to proceed through his own understanding to the truth. Nobody else can say ‘This is the path you must tread’.

Krishnaji did not talk about either the path or discipleship, because a disciple is supposed to obey; and obedience, particularly if it is blind, is a barrier to the development of true intelligence and intuition for which he used the word ‘insight’. People get set ideas about the meaning of words, and perhaps he used different words to encourage listeners to examine the meaning afresh.

4. Some members of the TS say that Krishnamurti’s work is not related to occultism, which was a word used by HPB and the Mahatmas.

What is occult is what is hidden. There are innumerable things which are hidden from our eyes, ears and other senses which have a limited range. A few hundred years ago, if you had turned the knob of an instrument in order to hear music flow from two thousand miles away, they would have called it magic, but now it is science. When you understand Nature and her laws, more and more of the occult ceases to be so. But the so-called occult may also be what people do not know for themselves, but think they know. They may disseminate wrong information or falsehoods for the sake of gain. Therefore, in the TS we do not encourage too much interest in so-called occult things. Alice Bailey writes about the Rays. How many people know what they are and whether what she says is correct? It is best to keep an open mind on these questions. The same thing applies to Leadbeater, or Madame Blavatsky. We need not reject or accept what is said, but keep an open mind. Holding one’s judgement in sus-pense is very important.

The Buddha’s illustration of a poisoned arrow piercing a person’s flesh must be recalled. Should he be dis-cussing from what direction the arrow came, who was the carpenter who made it, and at what velocity it flew? That would be absurd. He must first remove the arrow and heal the wound. So the Buddha did not talk about abstruse or occult things. Krishnamurti’s approach was similar. He said, ‘Your house is burning’, meaning the world itself is in great danger. Should not attention be directed to this, and not to talking about the occult? He did not allow people to distract themselves. But he was an en-lightened person who knew many things not known to us about the depths and mysteries of life.

5. What do you think Krishnamurti’s feelings were towards the TS?

I think his feeling was friendly, which does not mean that he agreed with what TS members in general said and thought, because, as you know, even among mem-bers, there are all sorts of varying ideas since the TS stands for freedom of thought. Some people hold Theosophy is what Blavatsky wrote and nothing else. This is not different from the Muslim idea that Muhammed was the last and only prophet: ‘After Muhammed, there is nothing further.’ Anything other than Blavatsky is not Theosophy, or should be called pseudo-Theosophy. But others maintain that the wisdom that is Theosophy can come from many sources, in many ages. Even people who are not enlightened may say some things which are wise. So the only reasonable attitude is what HPB described as ‘the open mind, the pure heart’. This needs to be encouraged.

Krishnaji spoke of unconditioning the mind. The TS works for universal brotherhood — without distinction of race, religion and all that divides people, every form of conditioning — the universal mind, the unconditioned mind. I think — I cannot of course speak for Krishnaji — that he appreciated some fundamental approaches of the Theosophical Society. On one occasion, he said to me with a smile: ‘You know, I like the TS.’

6. In your opinion, were the foundation of the TS and Krishnamurti’s work part of the same plan of the Mahatmas, or were these two different things?

When C. W. Leadbeater saw Krishnaji for the first time, there were several people on the Adyar beach. Krishnaji was with his younger brother, and — probably due to malnutrition — looked dull, some people even thought sub-normal in intelligence. His younger brother was brighter and got good marks in school, which Krishnaji could not. He may have been too sensitive to bear what is called the brunt of life. But when Leadbeater saw him, he unhesitatingly said: ‘This is a highly evolved soul, untainted by selfishness and in many incarnations he has had contact with the Masters.’ After Leadbeater wrote to Annie Besant that the two motherless boys were not properly looked after, she made arrangements for them to be taken care of. She and Leadbeater felt that he would be the vehicle of the World Teacher. Even earlier, Annie Besant had been lecturing on the coming of the World Teacher. Before Krishnaji was discovered, another boy had been identified as the vehicle, so some said Leadbeater did not really know, which may not be true; he may have simply realized that he had made a mistake. But when he saw Krishnaji he was absolutely certain and so was Annie Besant, and they did everything they thought fit for Krishnaji.

One common idea which many people have is also wrong — that they said Krishnaji was the World Teacher. They did not say that. He was to be the vehicle of the World Teacher, and at some point his consciousness would blend with that of the World Teacher. On 12 January 1910, Annie Besant wrote to Leadbeater: ‘It is definitely fixed that the Lord Maitreya takes this dear child’s body. It seems a very heavy responsibility to guard and help it, so as to fit it for Him, as He said, and I feel rather overwhelmed . . . .’ (Mary Lutyens, Years of Awakening, ch. I). In 1926, Krishnaji wrote to Leadbeater: ‘I know my destiny and my work. I know with certainty that I am blending into the consciousness of the one Teacher, and that he will completely fill me.’

On one occasion Mrs Jayakar asked Krishnaji: ‘If Theosophists had not dis-covered you, what would have happened?’ He answered: ‘I would have died.’ She replied: ‘No, you would not have died. You would have been like Ramana Maharshi, and people would have come to you.’ Krishnaji said: ‘No’; it sounded as if there was a plan and purpose ac-cording to which his father was brought to Adyar. If Krishnaji had remained in the circle of an orthodox Brâhman family, he may not have been able to feel at ease with the whole world nor, outside the TS, would he have had the necessary inter-national contacts. I am inclined to think that the course of his life was part of the Plan. It is said all the details of the Plan are not fixed in advance, but the general Plan was worked out.

Krishnaji had great admiration and love for Dr Annie Besant. She looked after him and spoke of him as somebody who would be a great teacher even when people laughed at her or upbraided her. Some of her friends in India told her: If you want to sponsor somebody, there are better boys than Krishnamurti. They were angry with her, but she did not change. Krishnaji himself related that at an important banquet in England, where liberal politicians like Lord Lansbury who supported India’s freedom were present, Bernard Shaw taunted Annie Besant, who took Krishnaji with her. Shaw, who always made fun of everything, said: ‘Annie, is this your little Messiah?’, and everybody laughed. But she did not flinch. She did not care what other people’s attitude was, because she was so certain that a great message would be given to the world through Krishnaji. He mentioned this particular incident and said she supported him unfailingly until the end.

http://www.austheos.org.au/topics/RB-TS-and-K.htm

Jiddu Krishnamurti y Radha Burnier.

El 28 de noviembre de 1.979 estábamos en el Valle de Rishi. Radha Burnier había venido desde Madrás para pasar unos días con nosotros. Nos trasladamos al salón principal. Una mañana, durante el desayuno, Krishnaji le preguntó a Radha Burnier si se postularía para la presidencia de la Sociedad Teosófica. Ella contestó que no lo sabía. Él dijo: “¿Qué quiere decir con que no lo sabe?”

Súbitamente, la atmósfera se llenó con una energía nueva. Krishnaji dijo: “Mrs. Besant tenía el propósito de que los terrenos de Adyar fueran para la enseñanza. La Sociedad Teosófica ha fracasado, el propósito original se ha destruido”. Habló del verdadero espíritu religioso que investiga, cuestiona y niega. Y dijo que América no lo había alcanzado. Europa no lo, había alcanzado. Y en la India había sido extirpado y destruido. Sin embargo, ahí estaba en el suelo de la India, aguardando. “¿Podemos hacer algo al respecto?”, preguntó.

Por primera vez el énfasis no estaba puesto en el individuo, sino en el suelo, en la tierra el suelo físico de la India y su santidad, y la capacidad que el mismo tenía para contener la fuente de la creación­. Era como si Krishnamurti hubiera encontrado algo precioso; había en él un gran júbilo, como si el tiempo largamente aguardado hubiera llegado al fin. Apenas si hablábamos. Se volvió hacia nosotros en busca de confirmación. “Pupulji”, preguntó: “¿qué siente usted?” Cuando dije que ésta era una nueva mística, él no lo negó. Después habló nuevamente de la Sociedad Teosófica y de Radha Burnier convertida en presidenta. Le pregunté: “En un punto usted dice que Radha se encuentra profundamente comprometida con la Krishnamurti Foundation, y en otro punto dice que ella debe postularse para la presidencia de la Sociedad Teosófica. ¿Cómo concilia usted ambas declaraciones?”

Él respondió: “Yo puedo decirlo, otros no”. Y repitió: “Yo puedo decir cualquier cosa”. Eso me recordó el verso del Brihadaranyaka Upanishads que, hablando del ser iluminado, dice: “Por lo tanto dejemos que un Brahmana, después de haber cumplido con el aprendizaje, deseé vivir como un niño. Cuando ha realizado el estado de niño y el de aprendizaje, se convierte entonces en el meditador silencioso. Cuando ha cumplido con los estados meditativo y no meditativo, entonces llega a ser un Brahmana. De cualquier modo que se comporte, él está en lo correcto”.


Biografía de J. Krishnamurti.
Pupul Jayakar. Editorial Kier.

 

Jiddu Krishnamurti y Radha Burnier.

RADHA BURNIER

(The Theosophist, marzo 1985)

La conexión entre J. Krishnamurti -Krishnaji, tal como cariñosamente se le conocía- y la Sociedad Teosófica, se rompió, no porque él abandonara tal como muchos miembros creen- sino porque la gente no estaba preparada para escuchar un profundo mensaje dado en términos que no estaban acostumbrados a oír. No es la primera vez que esto ha sucedido. Los judíos no quisieron escuchar a Jesús cuando vino para enseñar... La mayoría de los hindúes no respondió durante mucho tiempo a lo que Buda tenía que decir. La mayoría de las personas gustan de volver sobre sus pensamientos de costumbre, sus hábitos, sus teorías de conveniencia y sus ideas aun cuando se les sacuda, porque el cambio radical es tan difícil como “inconveniente”. Pero todo lo que es profundo es radical. La Verdad no puede contemporizar ni acomodarse, y a nosotros nos gusta contemporizar y tener lo mejor de ambos mundos. En “LAS CARTAS DE LOS MAESTROS” queda muy claro que el que está realmente interesado en el Sendero debe abandonar toda su manera de pensar rutinaria y todo su modo de actuar. Así pues, los miembros de la Sociedad Teosófica deberían haber estado preparados para escuchar un nuevo mensaje. Pero cuando Krishnaji empezó a hablar de una manera radical, hubo muchos que no pudieron escucharle.

El mismo hecho de que él se negara a sí mismo toda autoridad, era radical. Aquellos que esperaban que el “Instructor del Mundo” se manifestara a través de Krishnamurti tenían tal como él mismo declaró en 1927, un retrato en sus mentes de lo que debería decirse y de lo que debería ser la función de Krishnamurti. Un retrato es una forma material, estática, proyectada por la mente, y Krishnaji manifestaba que en tanto que el retrato era estático, la gente era feliz y se sentía satisfecha. Cuando el retrato tomaba vida se sentían perturbados. Evidentemente, es mucho más conveniente tratar con algo que no se mueve ni habla, a menos que la persona lo desee. Una imagen puede ser creada para desempeñar un papel que satisfaga. Se había esperado del “Instructor del Mundo” que dijera a la gente lo que tenía que creer, que definiera la “verdad” y el papel que tenían que desempeñar sus seguidores. A muchos puede que les hubiera gustado un papel importante para ellos mismos como seguidores e intérpretes. Pero cuando llegó la enseñanza y Krishnaji negó su propia autoridad, repudió todo seguimiento, rechazó cualquier interpretación, esto hirió el sentimiento del yo de algunos que se decían seguidores y consternó a otros.

Krishnaji puso claro desde 1927 que él no iba a decir lo que había descubierto. En aquellos días la gente preguntaba: “¿Qué es el Amado del cual usted habla?” Y él contestaba: “Voy a ser deliberadamente impreciso porque aunque yo podría hacer que ello fuera realmente claro, no es mi intención hacerlo así. Una vez que se ha definido una cosa, ésta muere”. La gente quería tener reveladas descripciones maravillosas del Amado, o de lo que fuere que él descubriera. En su AGENDA y en su DIARIO, hay vislumbres de un inmenso, innombrable algo que algunas veces llama el “otro” porque no tenía nada que ver con la actualidad de nuestro mundo. Los Upanishads, también, hablan de “Aquello” que ni la mente, ni las palabras, ni el pensamiento pueden tocar. Lo que se oye con los oídos palabras recordadas y repetidas- son todo parte del cerebro material. La memoria pertenece a la región de lo limitado. Pero a la gente le encantan las descripciones y se sienten atraídos por definiciones y etiquetas. Les hubiera gustado que él se etiquetara. Si hubiera estado etiquetado, automáticamente se hubieran convertido en “discípulos”, en “apóstoles”, o en cualquier otra cosa que ellos mismos hubieran imaginado. Pero él decía: “Cuando empecé a pensar quise descubrir lo que significaba la expresión el Instructor del Mundo... y lo que se quería indicar por su manifestación en el mundo”. Tal vez la manifestación no era de lo que la gente hablaba, sino algo que no puede expresarse en palabras. Cualquiera que quiera encontrar la verdad tiene que aprender a pensar y a descubrir por sí mismo y no aceptar descripciones, definiciones, palabras de otras personas.

Krishnaji dio una pequeña indicación de lo que su Amado era. “Mi Amado es los espacios abiertos, la flor, todo ser humano”. En su vida ésta fue la verdad. No era como una gran afirmación exactamente; la suya fue una vida que en ningún momento mostró ningún pensamiento de que alguna cosa fuera más importante que oír; ningún sentimiento de que unos están arriba y otros abajo. El decía que su costumbre era escuchar siempre a todo el mundo. “Yo deseaba aprender del jardinero, del paria (intocable), del vecino, de mi amigo, de todo cuanto podía contactar, para llegar a ser uno con el Amado”. Finalmente, escuchaba cuidadosamente con atención y con cariño, a todo el mundo, sin distinción de alto o bajo. Respondía con lo que a los ojos de los demás podría parecer una generosidad nada práctica. Observando y escuchando al científico, al intelectual, al político, a todo el mundo, él penetraba en el corazón de las cosas, tal como nos demuestra la lectura de sus COMENTARIOS SOBRE LA VIDA, y otros escritos. Poseía una enorme, tal vez ilimitada capacidad de afecto. La gente utiliza la palabra “amor” con un significado reducido. El amor vulgar permite celos, apego, mezquindad, etcétera. Pero su amor era profundo, derramándose, atento, compasivo, completamente distinto del de los demás.

Muchos de aquellos que le escucharon durante años sintieron el extraordinario poder y elevación que llegaba a través de él en sus charlas, exposiciones y conversaciones personales. A la mayoría de las personas les gusta tener influencia y utilizarla, pero él frecuentemente advertía: “No os dejéis influir por mí”. Bajo su influencia la gente pensaba que comprendía, pero a menudo era una cosa pasajera. Cuando alguien comprende realmente a través de su propia atención, aprendizaje y observación, entonces hay una luz firme y ésa es la que cada uno tiene que encontrar.

Así pues, desde el principio, cuando empezó su trabajo, dejó claro que él no estaba tratando de convencer ni de persuadir a nadie. Todo lo que hacía era tratar de despertar la percepción y el deseo de descubrir la verdad sin apoyarse en la autoridad, sin repetir declaraciones o citas de libros, ni siquiera de los suyos propios. Cuando hay un verdadero deseo de descubrir la verdad, entonces cada persona se hace libre. Cuando hay autoridad, existe el límite del miedo. La autoridad es discutible; crea inseguridad, fanatismo, dogmatismo.

El era como una flor que esparce su fragancia alrededor, no importándole quién pase ni lo que piensen de él los que pasan. Esta es la quintaesencia de la acción sin esperar resultados a la que se refiere el BHAGAVAD GITA. Innumerables personas han hablado sobre ello, han memorizado las palabras y las ideas en importantes libros, pero la verdad está muy alejada de sus vidas. Cuando alguien conoce la verdad, puede o no puede hablar; pero su vida está llena de belleza y de fragancia.

Krishnaji decía que cuando no hay apego, el límite entre la muerte y la vida es muy fino. El mostró la vida y la muerte bajo una luz diferente. Generalmente se piensa que la muerte del cuerpo es una tragedia, algo de lo que se habla durante mucho tiempo. La distancia física también se considera una “separación”. Krishnaji decía que cuando él desapareciera no se olvidaría de nadie. El puede haber estado cerca de todo el mundo siempre, porque era uno con la inmensidad y la infinitud de toda vida.

Algunos preguntan: “¿No era su enseñanza abstrusa, desarraigada de la vida del hombre corriente?” Precisamente era todo lo contrario. Su enseñanza era profunda, pero no abstrusa; estaba relacionada con la vida de las personas ordinarias porque arrojaba luz sobre la problemática del ego, que es el único problema que existe, y el cual origina el temor, el amor al poder, el descontento, la esperanza, el apego, el deseo de continuidad. Así pues, el suyo fue un mensaje para la vida diaria de cada hombre, mujer y niño, pero también fue un mensaje que podía llevar a cada uno más allá de la vida de cada día, hacia el mismo corazón de la existencia, hacia su verdad, su belleza y su paz.

NOTA

Reproducimos el editorial de The Theosophist de la Presidenta de la Sociedad Teosófica Internacional que escribiese la Sra. Radha Burnier, en marzo de 1985. Consideramos que ella ha sintetizado admirablemente el por qué el mensaje de Krishnamurti no fue el principio acogido por los teósofos como se esperaba. Hay que hacer notar que los viejos dirigentes, como la doctora Besant, al Sr. Leadbeater y el doctor Jinarajadasa, más de una vez hablaron a los teósofos y les advirtieron sobre la posibilidad de que Krishnamurti, el Instructor, podría hacer declaraciones que contradijesen lo que ellos esperaban que dijese.

En el reportaje escrito por un viejo amigo de Krishnamurti, el Sr. Asit Chandmal, titulado “El Ultimo Paseo” que este libro reproduce, se pone de manifiesto, la relación afectiva que hubo entre Krishnamurti y la Sra. Radha Burnier. En los últimos días de su existencia, estando Krishnamurti en Madrás, con frecuencia iba caminando hasta la casa de la Sra. Burnier. El mismo Sr. Asit Chandmal, aparece sorprendido por tan frecuente encuentro.
Sea lo que fuere. De nuestra parte, nos permitimos conjeturar que entre esos dos seres humanos, por encima de las diferencias de enfoques o mensajes, hondamente espirituales, su amistad afectuosa, de muchos años, era una realidad vital que les obligaba a actuar como lo hicieron.

SALVADOR SENDRA
IMPACTO DE KRISHNAMURTI
RESPUESTAS DE ESPAÑA, PORTUGAL E IBEROAMÉRICA
EDITORIAL ORIÓN
MEXICO
1987