Hi all. I am in a K discussion group, I just joined recently and am unsure whether to stay or leave, as I have always felt that an individual approach to his work is the best approach. In a way, I am still trying to understand whether it serves any purpose or if it is merely an intellectual exercise of mimicking K’s meetings. Anyway, I heard one or two of the participants today, say, as a matter of fact, that he did not write his books himself. Someone added that the only book he ever wrote was the Notebook. I was a bit surprised to hear that because I am not sure this can be stated with any level of certainty. Am I wrong in my perception?
Observe yourself, while participating.
Most of the books are transcriptions from taped talks and/or dialoges.
Before they where taped 4 to 6 people made notitions and those where made into one report.
His so called three diaries are writen or taped by himself.
So it is really about what one want to call written. Do you take those transcriptions who are edited by others as his words or the words of the editors? Do you realize that every writer is edited by the publicers and still they call him/here the writer. So what’s in the name writer?
My condolences that you find yourself among people drawing false conclusions.
The vast majority of books written were transcriptions of his talks. As I had the UK win95 CD-ROM (which I haven’t looked at in many years), there were transcriptions of the book, as well as exact transcriptions of the talks. There were only a few minimal changes between the two versions (slight editing), but in the main, quite exact (such as the book Awakening of Intelligence).
You can make up your own mind.
I believe it was Rajagopal who was the editor of a great many of K’s books.
Don’t believe but check the actuality of thoughts I would say!
This book is edited by : George and Cornelia Wingfield Digby.
Rajagopal had made himself impossible by collecting copyrights from his editing and trying to get ownership of land giving to K for his work. K distanced himself from him which one could see as the second time he freed himself from organisations. Hence the new foundation of KFA. Mary Zimbalist financed lawsuits against this and became his secretary after WW2. There is even daubts if the claimed editing of ‘Commentaries on living’ are true.
Sorry to repeat the question I had asked on the discussion on K’ Notebook. I came across this thread just after I had posted it and think it’s more relevant to repost here. I wanted to know if all of K’s output available in the various archives has been published?
It is with vicarious shame that I must say “no”. In ‘An Uncommon Collaboration’, David Moody describes that Mary Lutyens the first 12 dialogues between David Bohm and Krishnamurti in 1975 - against the publication committee of the time - single-handedly stopped its publication, arguing that it looked too much like Bohm was teaching Krishnamurti and threatening to withdraw from everything if it did get published. Parts of it have since been published in two books. The Audiotapes of it have been released on youtube though. Fair is fair this situation would have been rectified by now.
I believe this is not an isolated case. Discussions . that have meandered, not always taken the path K wanted or where someone stuck to his own view and refused to entertain K’s ideas have never been published. How can a group of people however enlightened decide what the public should read of K? Is this not what is happening in authoritarian organisations and governments all over the world?
Supposedly, Krishnamurti wrote the “Commentaries” because Aldous Huxley encouraged him to. Whether it’s true or not, the Commentaries revealed a lot about K’s stream of consciousness and observations.
That’s true and K wanted to remove Rajagopal from the next reprint but he had claimed the copyrights.
You can watch most of K’s video recordings on https://youtube.com/kfoundation. Subtitles are also available in text format on https://krishnamurtisubtitles.info. Body language and intonation sometimes matter.
Be light on to one self. No guru. No outside help. Books of JK are dialogues his talks.
One can watch video recording of JK, one can directly listen to what he said. No interpretation/interpreter is required.
A book on dialogues of JK is like in a printed form, it gives a chance to check and recheck the truth that is being said.
What matters is truth of what being said. Whether it is JK or a farmer or x,yz. It does not matter.
K always said that the speaker is not important. So let’s not make the speaker important .