The demiurgical
powers which Leadbeater arrogated unto himself were nowhere better displayed
than in his promotion of Krishnamurti. The young
Brahmin was his magical tabula rasa, upon whom he could imprint his
magical power, and, through ritual and initiation, cleanse of all impurity (and
indigenousness) and elevate into the high echelons of the Hierarchy. Krishnamurti has been regularly interpreted in messianic
terms, and there can be no doubt that for the popular membership, and certainly
for the media, such was the rôle for which he was
groomed. 1) Yet, in placing Krishnamurti
within the context of a half-century of Theosophy, it becomes clear that for the
leaders of the Society he was, tellingly, the ultimate occultistic
experiment.
There are several
indicators that the Vehicle was engineered to develop into a Master, and not
simply be some form of passive receptacle. Thus, although the dynamics of the Coming
of the Bodhisattva Maitreya were never closely
articulated, it was always assumed that the Vehicle would require significant
preparation to become the requisite worthy tool. Such preparation would be
equivalent to that required for the Palestinian Jesus, who himself was used by
the Lord Maitreya for a comparable purpose.
Consequently, the scholar is aided in assessing the predicted method of the
descent of the Maitreya, and thereby also assess the
relative position of the Vehicle, by reference to the vocabulary of
Christology.
According to
Leadbeater and Besant, Jesus had been prepared for his mission by the Essenes
(who possessed a vast library of occult works, notably those from the
"Trans-Himalayan regions"), and was then initiated into the Egyptian
Mysteries. 2) Exactly what form this training assumed is unknown,
although it is deemed to have been rigorous. At his baptism in the Jordan, the
Lord Maitreya/Bodhisattva/Christ descended upon him
and remained so for the remainder of his three-year ministry. 3) The Maitreya departed from
Jesus at some time during the Passion, certainly by the crucifixion, and Jesus'
physical body died. 4) (The disciple Jesus undertook his Fourth Initiation
during his crucifixion). In reward for his self-sacrifice, Jesus was reborn
only twice more (as Apollonius of Tyana and Ramanujacharya), was granted the Fifth Initiation, and soon
thereafter became the Master Jesus: 5)
In due course [Jesus]
received the reward of his self-sacrifice, and attained the Asekha
Initiation, thereby becoming one of the Masters of the Wisdom. We reverence Him
now, therefore, no longer as the disciple, but the Master Jesus. 6)
There are several
discernibly significant ramifications for Krishnamurti's
candidacy as the Vehicle to be drawn from Leadbeater's and Besant's accounts of
the Palestinian Jesus. In the first place, there is neither a hypostatic union
of substance (ousia), nor an identification of
the Lord Maitreya's nature (his physis) with
that of Krishnamurti. 7) At most, there can be discerned an occasional prosopic union, most readily identifiable as a highly
simplistic Nestorian adoptionism. 8) In other words, the Christ's subtle bodies descended
into Jesus' physical body for a portion of the latter's incarnation; there are
distinguishable occasions when the "divine" Person is speaking, and
other occasions when the human person is speaking. 9)
In accord with such
adoptionism, the preparation of the Vehicle is entirely predictable and necessary;
Krishnamurti would need to be perfectly versed in
Theosophy, and be physically and psychically fit in order "to become the
temple of a loftier Power". 10) Unlike a Spiritualist medium (from whom the
Theosophists were ever ready to separate themselves), Krishnamurti
was not to be occupied or invaded by a spirit entity, but
"overshadowed". To be thus capable, his preparations were presumed to
be identical to those required to become a Master. It is highly
significant in this context that the Palestinian Jesus was very nearly a Master
himself after his service as a Vehicle, and became one very soon thereafter. 11) It is evident that Krishnamurti
was considered by Theosophical elders to be about to be similarly blessed and
exalted.
Within the framework
of Leadbeaterian Theosophy, then, selection as a
Vehicle was tantamount to rapid acceleration of personal evolution and a
virtual guarantee of joining the Hierarchy. Leadbeater's articulation of the
Coming was thus a concomitant descent of the "Master of Masters" and
an engineered ascent of the aspirant-Master, thus creating a full Master
of the Wisdom. The entire process was buttressed from without by Leadbeater's
insistence on the value of causative magical processes; Krishnamurti
would be elevated to the status of a Master by magico-scientific ritual,
whether Liberal Catholic sacrament, Co-Masonic induction or
clairvoyantly-determined initiation. 12) To this degree, Leadbeater's magical apotheosising of Krishnamurti
cannot but be compared with the "god-making" passages of the Hermetic
Asclepius, the golem of Kabbalistic lore, and the Paracelsian homunculus. 13) Crucially, to the degree that Leadbeater's adventism was explained in scientific terms, and founded on
what he considered to be empirical principles, the most significant predicate
may well prove a literary one: Mary Shelley's schauerromantik,
Frankenstein. 14)
Krishnamurti's reluctance to engage in ritualism (aside from the
greater problem: his disavowal of Theosophy) conspired against Leadbeater's
notion that causative theurgy could create a Master. Where the elderly Besant
abdicated from any rôle in refashioning the Theosophical
enterprise following Krishnamurti's apostasy (stating
instead, "I am his inferior and where I do not understand I suspend my
judgment hoping to grow into understanding"), 15) Leadbeater swept away any sense of failure by rationalising the event as a failed scientific experiment.
His next project, the
Egyptian Rite, pointedly removed all contingential
reliance upon the aspirant. As the graded structure of the Rite corresponded
exactly with that of the Great White Brotherhood, and progress from one stage
to the next was determined according to ritualised
initiation, control could be maintained over the development of candidates, and
initiatic grace/power could be conferred via
the initiator, rather than through an exterior party (such as the Lord Maitreya). This last is of great significance because
meta-empirical agency could be assumed to be present by the initiand, but not
required by the initiator - who has arrogated unto himself the function of the
Masters to welcome aspirants into the Hierarchy. The Egyptian Rite constituted
what Leadbeater had always desired: an occult laboratory. Ernest Wood, who
lived for a time at The Manor, later reflected upon his experiences:
[Leadbeater] was
running an occult beauty parlour. The auras may have
come to look prettier to the clairvoyant eye, but it appeared to me that the
people specially cultivated by him lacked in essential qualities of character
as compared with others whom I knew, and that the atmosphere of his community
encouraged the lack. He was painting dolls.
Wood was wrong:
Leadbeater wasn't painting dolls, 16) he was fashioning adepts.
1)
Catherine Lowman Wessinger has gone to some pains to
determine how messianism (normally associated with premillennialism) could be
found to agree with the Theosophical tendency to value human evolution and
progress - which is much more akin to a form of postmillennialism. (It should
be noted that the existence of strains of both forms of messianism in one formulation
is not entirely uncommon). In order to coalesce these otherwise divergent
philosophies, she posits for Besant a "progressive messianism":
Since Besant's
thought combined elements that have in the past been associated by scholars
with pre-millenarianism, i.e., messianism, and a sense of imminence and urgency
of the total, collective, terrestrial salvation, with a belief in history that
acts in a progressive, evolutionary manner, I have elected to call Besant's
final pattern of ultimate concern progressive messianism. This pattern of
ultimate concern was not possible until there was a common belief in progress,
which in the West dates from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Wessinger, Annie Besant and Progressive Messianism,
314-315).
Wessinger's entire thesis is predicated upon the assumption that Krishnamurti is to be interpreted solely as a
Theosophical messiah, for, without a messiah, Theosophical "progressive
messianism" becomes just a form of postmillennialism. If, as is proposed
in the present research, Krishnamurti is interpreted
primarily as being an experiment in Master-making, then external
superhuman agency is removed, evolutionist progressivism is emphasised,
and Theosophical postmillennialism is thus underscored. Consequently, the
"ultimate concern" for Theosophy, which is surely "a common
belief in progress", is maintained without recourse to such arbitrary
compounds as "progressive messianism".
2)
Probably the most straightforward account of Besant-Leadbeater Christian
historiography/historicity is to be found in Besant, Esoteric Christianity,
126-143 et passim.
4)
Leadbeater, The Hidden Side of Christian Festivals, 28-29.
5)
Leadbeater, The Masters and the Path, 285. Besant notes: "Perfecting
his human evolution, Jesus became one of the Masters of Wisdom" (Besant, EsotericChristianity, 141); see also id., The
Masters, 60-61.
6)
Leadbeater, The Hidden Side of Christian Festivals, 29. It might be
noted that Leadbeater here equated the "Masters of the Wisdom" with
the Fifth or Asekha Initiation, not with the
Sixth or Chohan. It appears that even by 1920
he had not fully stratified his initiatory schematics.
7)
The present author is aware of the problematical variety of historical and contemporary
approaches to such terms as ousia and physis,
and the complexities thereby engendered by their use. Nevertheless, employing
such loaded terms in a necessarily broad fashion, they seem to be the most
appropriate for discussing what is, after all, a Theosophical Christology.
8)
Although one hesitates to call Nestorius (d. circa 451) a Nestorian, the
term "Nestorianism" has gained tenure in every Christological debate
and cannot be dislodged. "Nestorianism" is also favoured
because it has become something of a catchall for the multifarious Antiochene Christologies: in the present context the closest
approximation is probably to that of Theodore of Mopsuestia
(d. 428), who advocated a union effected through grace, and not by nature -
although, even here, there is every indication of Theodore's basic orthodoxy
(just a tendency to attempt to rationalise the
abstract through necessarily limited discursive language: a tendency of which
Leadbeater would have thoroughly approved!). It should be noted that Theodore
did not advocate the disengagement of the Logos prior to the
crucifixion, as Theosophists have done. For Nestorius and Theodore see Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 1,
2nd ed., Mowbrays, London, 1975, 488-519; Gerard H. Ettlinger, Jesus, Christ & Saviour,
Michael Glazier, Wilmington, Delaware, 1987, 160ff; Frances M. Young, From
Nicaea to Chalcedon: A Guide to the Literature and its Background, SCM
Press, London, 1983, 199-240.
9)
When Krishnamurti began to teach that he was one with
his "beloved", and spoke consistently in "one" voice, so to
say, Besant began to believe that rather than an occasional message from the
Lord Maitreya, there was to be "more like a
blending of consciousness": Jayakar, Krishnamurti, 72. She further suggested that he had
been accounted worthy to "blend his consciousness with that of a fragment,
an amsa, of the omnipresent consciousness of
the World Teacher": Mary Lutyens, The Life and Death, 73. Such
statements appear suspiciously like ex post facto rationalisations
for a Vehicle "gone off the rails".
10)
Besant, Esoteric Christianity, 130-131.
12)
It should be remembered that Leadbeater considered ceremonial (particularly
Eucharistic services) as a means to speed up evolutionary processes:
The great advantage
of ceremonies is that they offer an easy way of doing a great deal of good in a
short space of time (C. W. Leadbeater, "Ritual and Its Use" in The
Morning Star: Journal of the Eastern Federation of the British Empire. Order of
International Co-Freemasonry, V:2, April, 1939, 32).
13)
For the Hermetic "god-making" see infra ch.
23. One is reminded of Wouter Hanegraaff's
comments in the context of an analysis of the Renaissance Christian Hermetist, Ludovico Lazzarelli
(1450-1500):
The goal was, rather,
the attainment of a superior gnosis, which naturally entailed the
attainment of superhuman powers. The "true human being", who had
"discovered the nature of God" himself, would partake of the latter's
creative/generative power; and he would indeed know "how to make it",
i.e. how to procreate a "divine offspring" (Hanegraaff,
"Sympathy", 30).
Space disallows treatment
of the Golem mythologem as an analogue to Leadbeater's "creation" of Krishnamurti, other than to note certain suggestive
sympathies. First , the creation of the Golem has a relationship of
affinity with the formation of Adam. Thus the fashioning of the artificial
anthropoid is an imitation of the divine activity, and a usurpation of the
divine prerogative. Second , the Golem is invariably silent and remains
the subject of its creator. It cannot - even if it possessed such an Adamic
trait - express free will. Third, the creation of the Golem is
indication of the realisation of mature theosophico-theurgic powers by the magician. Each of these
motivations can be discerned in Leadbeater's magico-scientific attempt to
transform Krishnamurti into a Master. For the Golem gestalt
see Idel's masterful work: Moshe Idel,
Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid,
State University of New York Press, Albany, 1990, esp. 165-195 & part 4;
see also Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah, Meridien,
New York, 1978, 351-355. For the (erroneous) ascription of Golem-making to
Rabbi Yehuda Loew ben Bezalal of Prague (the "Maharal") see Idel, Golem,
251-258; Byron L. Sherwin, Mystical Theology and Social Dissent: The Life
and Works of Judah Loew of Prague, Associated University Press, East
Brunswick, New Jersey, 1982, 17ff; Ben Zion Bokser, The
Maharal: The Mystical Philosophy of Rabbi Juda Loew
of Prague, Jason Aronson, Northvale, New Jersey, 1994, 55-58.
14)
Like the Monster, Krishnamurti also turned on his
creator. For Mary Shelley see infra ch. 29.
15)
Quoted in Wessinger, Annie Besant, 296.
16)
Wood, Is This Theosophy...?, 288.
For updates
click homepage here