Accusations that J. Krishnamurti did not write At the Feet of the Master remain today a ready basis for impugning his spiritual life, and it destroys Krishnamurti’s integrity as well. This paper comments on issues raised in the S. Lloyd Williams’ paper, "Did J. Krishnamurti write At the Feet of the Master" ?

Who wrote the small booklet, At the Feet of the Master, is truly another episode in Theosophical history that has had enormous implications for the Krishnamurti Foundations as well as for the Adyar Theosophical Society. In trying to understand the issue of who wrote the small booklet, Lloyd Williams has had to draw various strands together. First, he shows obviously a thorough knowledge of the history of the Adyar Theosophical Society, its leaders at the time, and the life of J. Krishnamurti. For the issue to be finally laid to rest, Williams gives an impartial evaluation, in which testimony from published studies and opinions of various critics of the authorship of the work is taken into consideration. Unfortunately, the paper leaves out very important facts, the documentation of Krishnamurti’s notes/manuscript from 1910. A question needs to be asked, why after nearly a century later, the present leader of the Adyar Theosophical Society will not disclose the papers of Krishnamurti’s notes. To censor or withhold documents is a serious responsibility. Could it be that the early written notes have been destroyed, as so many of the early documents of the Society have been, or the uninitiated should not see it, it is too personal, or she believes that the "publication raises the question of the ethicality of making public material which was meant only for private eyes, and which Krishnaji himself may not have appreciated in print."1 Although, the young Krishnamurti said, "These are not my words," in the Foreword of the small booklet, we can see that the similarity to ancient Sanskit words is correct. But today, because it is phrased in simpler English, does not invalidate the worth of the message, whether for a Hindu youth, or for those of Western culture. Krishnamurti has shown the way, and if his words are not distorted through interpretation over time, they will give sustenance and encouragement to those who may be receptive. But the accusation that J. Krishnamurti did not write this small booklet is not correct, as Williams’ paper indicates, for Krishnamurti provided the key to the ancient path. Perhaps his words are not perfect, but his intent is pure. The language of evolution evolves, at first ill fitting, until the mind has evolved to contain it. The early writings can be considered a practice lesson, much as in Victorian times school children were given proverbs to copy, so that at the same time they were learning handwriting, they were also imbibing moral training. In view of his destiny, Krishnamurti needed practice in English and composition, so that his early writings can be seen as practice in expression, though yet containing within them moral worth. The formative years before 1933 are a necessary preparation for his mission to bring about a mutation in oneself. We should be aware that his early writings are from the apprentice years. Perhaps Krishnamurti is telling us that the early writings should be dispensed with, for the Teachings are not the books. The only Teaching is to observe oneself. There is the light that is true life and is free. Unless the early writings are used as a sort of mirror in which we see the facts as a guide to something that is beyond the words, they may not really help. Life is more important than any beliefs or rules, and to allow to life its full fruition we must liberate it from authority and tradition. But those who are bound by the early writings will have difficulty in understanding what Krishnamurti is really telling us. It is understandable that the early writings would bear the stamp of Dr. Besant, C.W. Leadbeater, or even G.S. Arundale. The perceptive reader will see the evolution in Krishnamurti’s consciousness and message and may form his own conclusion if he or she has within the necessary qualities to do so.

One should bear carefully in mind when pondering what is, and what is not, authentic in his writings, as Williams’ paper indicates, that one should hold to the fact, pure and simple, trying to proclaim the principle embodied, and the truth whenever found. To divide along these lines’ disaster comes and it is here that any organization is menaced. The making of claims will bring about a very dangerous condition. As critical writers have already observed, much has been systematically distorted about J. Krishnamurti and his work, and wrongly interpreted not only by his enemies, but also by some who profess to be his friends. As Williams has done a great service for researchers, by indicating the year periods, and the readers may form their own conclusion.

The real gravity is the motive of the nature of the editing, not the fact that it occurred. Brief editing does not decrease the value of Krishnamurti’s teachings, but the documentation of the editing is crucial, and should not be overemphasized. It is important only in a biographical sense. An example would be at the time when Krishnamurti could see that he was being pushed into being just another saint as in Christianity or any other religion. He had to change the emphasis from "following" to "seeing," observing oneself, attention to every aspect of one’s endeavor. Only by total awareness can one mutate. Rightly understood, "Follow Him" can be justified, but the masses cannot easily be brought to the necessary understanding, therefore it was necessary to take a different approach. Krishnamurti had to break that direction and put the responsibility back onto the shoulders of the hearers, and so began the change of his message — the change to attention and total awareness in every action and thought. To avoid distorting the teachings, we must avoid the risk of profanation like the indifferent and the critical writers have done in other biographies with second, even third-hand hearsay offered as evidence. As William states, "Bad history makes bad philosophy." We must not create another myth or mystery in the sense that the conscious mind can ever understand it. There is no mystery! The difficulty with some people, they are simply too lazy to undertake necessary research, so they want the work to be done for them. However small the particle of gold lost in a ton of rubbish, it is the noble metal still, and worthy of being dug out even at the price of some extra trouble. Perhaps, that is why when a historian publishes evidence that this history or that history is flawed, and we do not agree with it, then personal abuse is always a convenient alternative. The best procedure is to keep the original works intact.

The material presented in Williams’ paper, gives a comprehensive array of evidence that J. Krishnamurti authored the small booklet, At the Feet of the Master. There is also a fortune of interesting, detailed information about J. Krishnamurti’s life that has been hard to find otherwise. It is critically important to show all the evidence, so as not to put J. Krishnamurti's authorship, or accusation of misconduct in a bad light that he purposely deceived the public. For it would not only destroy the credibility of the Krishnamurti Foundation and the Adyar Theosophical Society as caretakers of K’s legacy. Naturally the authorship is just one piece in a much larger puzzle, of the many inaccuracies about Krishnamurti’s early life, and are consequently not substitutes for our own research into the history of J. Krishnamurti. One can never please all the viewpoints, but more important, we must remember that the maturing of his spiritual message took place over many years. So, if there is ever a complete early works edition of J. Krishnamurti’s writings made available to a wide spectrum of readers, they should be preserved at their face value, for they are all part of the gestation of a "Lightbringer" to humanity.