Govert Schuller’s article “Jean Overton Fuller, Master Narayan, and the Krishnamurti-Scott-Anrias Issue” is unlike most past articles appearing in this journal, mainly because it does not conform to its usual historical subject matter. This article is about the identification of a Master, in this case Narayan, who is generally not mentioned in most academic references to Masters. Just who is Narayan? Is he identified with two yogis, Tiravala and Nagaratnaswami, as Jean Overton Fuller contends? Why is this important? The issue surrounds Krishnamurti’s intended role as World Teacher and what was written about him by two “Theosophically-minded” writers, Cyril Scott and David Anrias, in two books written in the early 1930s, The Initiate in the Dark Cycle and Through the Eyes of the Masters. Since both Scott and Anrias took a negative view of Krishnamurti, a view based upon a Master’s opinion communicated to Anrias, then the question must be raised: “Who was the Master?” What proceeds is a complicated story that is given in great detail by Mr. Schuller. This topic alone will certainly raise questions from non-Theosophical historians as also the methodology employed. For one, it may be objected that this is not a proper topic for an academic study since Masters are presumed by many of the more sceptical historians to be fictional characters invented by H. P. Blavatsky. Second, Schuller incorporates his beliefs into the study. Third, the format of the study may appear to be theological in nature, not academic in scope.
The article requires a few observations apropos Theosophical studies. While some readers may not be convinced that the subject of this article does not fall within the scope of legitimate academic study, Mr. Schuller addresses this argument by employing academic sources that reject such reductionist approaches. Most academicians today discuss Theosophical topics from either sociological or historical
perspectives. This is understandable since both are empirical in kind, with the former primarily data-based and statistical and the latter based upon the written record. It is true that Mr. Schuller takes the position that Cyril Scott and David Anrias “were the chosen vehicles of the Masters to make their assessment of Krishnamurti known,” an assessment, incidentally, that is negative. If this were the central focus of investigation, then the article would be inappropriate for this journal. The main thrust of the article, however, is the identification of the Master Narayan based upon Theosophical accounts, including those of H.P. Blavatsky, H.S. Olcott, Ernest Wood, and co-authors Scott and Anrias. Mr. Schuller is careful in his examination of the written sources, allowing him to make reasoned judgments on the evidence presented. What I look for in investigative articles is the author’s command of the subject matter, the comprehensiveness and command of the primary and secondary material, the evaluative quality of the conclusions, and the honesty of the author. Regarding the last point, if investigators are relatively free of an ideological stance, their personal beliefs are irrelevant; if they have personal beliefs and opinions that are freely admitted, however, the value of their work rests on the cogency and breath of their research and conclusions. What is important in this whole matter is whether the conclusions are based upon the evidence uncovered, which must be comprehensive and not selective, and whether their conclusions are properly derived from the evidence and not forced to conform to a predetermined conclusion.
It is my opinion that Mr. Schuller succeeds in this study. Rather than ignoring a vast swath of Theosophical literature as not fitting for academic study because it is dissociated from empirical reality, this article points to the possibility that such studies can be proper subjects for academic research. This article is not the first to discuss such topics in an academic manner. I also consider K. Paul Johnson’s two books, The Masters Revealed and Initiates of Theosophical Masters, to be models for such studies. I do not expect many studies of this sort, but if executed in the manner described above, they will be welcomed.
The second offering is Leslie Price’s communication, “A Theosophical Scientist,” which mentions the recent publication of William H. Brock’s William Crookes and the Commercialization of Science. Mr. Price adds to the value of the biography by clarifying some of Brock’s observations pertinent to Theosophy.
Finally, mention is made of the most recent study on the Theosophical movement in the form of a Ph.D. dissertation, The Theosophical Revival in Denmark, written by René Dybdal Pedersen. Mr. Pedersen passed his oral defense dissertation at the University of Aarhus in June 2009 and has since been awarded the Ph.D.
* * * * *
Rene Guenon (1886 – 1951) continues to wield immense influence through his "Traditionalist" principles and the "Perennialist" school that follows them. A secret Islamic initiate from his early years, he later lived openly as a Muslim, and his Western followers have mostly chosen the same path. A fierce opponent of Theosophy (see his Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion), of Spiritualism, and of all occultist movements, Guenon laid down a rigid principle: that spiritual seekers must follow one of the great realigions, and that esoteric aspirations are worthless without exoteric practice.
Marco Baistrocchi (1941 – 1997), a diplomat by profession, was a traditionalist of a contrary kind: a scholar and enthusiast for the Greco-Roman tradition, its revival in Renaissance Neoplatonism, and for Asiatic wisdom, especially Buddhist. Respectful of Guenon's achievement and insights, he wondered how such an intelligent man could have fallen or the absurd myth of Agarttha, the underground kingdom with its science-fiction trimmings and apocalyptic "King of the World." Baistrocchi puts the Agarttha myth's origins and Guenon's agenda under merciless scrutiny , and concludes that the whold affair was a deliberate manipulation, designed to shut off Western seekers from Eastern wisdom and to divert them, first into Catholicism, then into Islam.
Whether or not the reader agrees with all of Baistrocchi's arguments, they are an education in the uses of myth and the undercurrents of modern estoericism.
This Occasional Paper includes a Foreword by Dr. Piero Fenili, collaborator with the author on the journal Politica Romana, and Afterword by the Translator, Joscelyn Godwin.