Those who met Krishnamurti etc

Then listen to what he says. If you desire a state in which you will ‘become’ someone or something other than what you are, you are ignoring ‘self knowledge’ (what you are) to become something that you’re not. You’re chasing an image of what you think ‘transformation’ is.

If one truly gets “Love is - when the self is not” - then how there will be self-tendencies of anger,irritation,etc…? Just inquire this David.

I will show those with above said situations,

  1. In case when someone speaks bad - there will be no anger - and only compassion that “Could please show me the reason why you speak bad?”

  2. In case someone ignores you - there will be no frustration/sufferings - but only compassion that “Oh my child - why you are so ignorant and sticking to the ‘images/belief’ about ‘me’” - and try to show them - what they really doing.

  3. In case of praise - of course no pride - “as they praise only the ‘image’”

  4. In case of loss of a person who are so close - no sufferings/fear - because of being aware that “One day everyone going to leave/die - as everything (this body/physical) is limited”.

No kind of feelings like anger,sufferings,pride,fear,etc… in this “Where Love is - the self is not”

Only thing separates them from me - is ‘ignorance’ - and only Love/Compassion 24/7 to show their ‘ignorance’.

Yes we get it it, but it’s the self that ‘gets’ it and the self wants nothing to do with ‘love’. The self, me, has its own idea of what love is…

What was “infamous” about it? I can understand the reaction of those whose image of K is hagiographic, but the book just illuminated ed a side of his humanity that they would rather have kept in the shadow.

Hi Inquiry. Could you describe what is shown K’s side of humanity - in the book written by Radha Sloss? You support those acquisitions or against it?

The legal term for it is “adultery”.

You ask if I “support those acquisitions”, and I assume you meant “accusations”. Do you think Ms.Schloss fabricated and dissembled to tarnish Krishnamurti’s reputation? Or is it possible that K’s relationship with her mother was well known to her and she felt it should be brought into the light of what we know about Krishnamurti?

Hagiography: a description of someone that represents the person as perfect or much better than they really are, or the activity of writing about someone in this way

Yes ‘accusations’ - I have some issues in English language. Thanks for understanding and correcting it.

There might be two side. One - Rajagopal’s family being greedy of K foundations and everyone having talks with K - to tarnish the reputation. Another side is - to actually bring out the true character of K.

But every accusations Radha said in that book - are shown by Mary as false accusations - Isn’t it?
Or Mary tried to protect K’s & K foundation’s reputation?

What is the actual truth Inquiry? - I just have to see - what the real intentions of both ‘Radha’ and ‘Mary’ - and is every ‘accusations’ on K is true?

To protect the name, K filed suit against Rajagopal? - Why couldn’t he ‘forgive & forget’ them totally - even mishandling of millions of assets? Why K couldn’t be compassionate towards them - like he been to everyone? - or am I misunderstanding K? K tried to protect them - in his lifetime from the trustees?

What happened actually Inquiry? - I really don’t know - I think I couldn’t grasp the real issue and always comes as a question every day.

Krishnamurti was not perfect. From what I understand from my research is that he was quite passive and allowed Rajagopal to handle all the finances and books, etc., he controlled everything and Krishnamurti trusted him and allowed it to happen. So that was Krishnamurtis mistake, he was too trusting and allowing and did not interfere or check up on Rajagopal. It appears Rajagopal was jealous of Krishnamurti and became power hungry and greedy and took advantage of the situation and even kicked Krishnamurti off the board of trustees and left Krishnamurti with no say or control at all. Rajagopal was also abusive towards Krishnamurti and in the end, it was Rajagopal who was irrational and not willing to settle, when Krishnamurti wanted to settle this without going to court.

1 Like

I listened to a video recently where Mark Lee talks about the Radha Sloss book and he says that during the publication of the book, when it came out, the KFA was deluged with letters, phone calls, visits asking if it was true, or not. Mark says in the end, the general public found nothing wrong with what Krishnamurti did and accepted him and his humanity, his human side. And they overwhelmingly also felt that the Teachings are what is important, not the speaker. He said they kept these letters from the public in the archives.

What is meant by human side? - Then what are two sides?

Is person like K, have a differential character of personal & general?

David, What do you feel about K? - Whether he is 100% pure and not have personal & general differentiation (or) he is 99% pure and caught in the ‘images’ of ‘Rajagopal family’?

Is K attached to K foundations (or) attached to the name and so safeguarded those letters?

Does K feared to open their letters and couldn’t be compassionate to them and call them evil? Is there anything such as good/evil in the teachings? Humans are humans and only differentiation from liberated beings is ‘ignorance’. Then what’s there to call them evil? Because of carrying the burden of past/images? Couldn’t K be aware of those past/images?

Even after 1920s, Does K was more attached to Rajagopal’s and so suffered/feared of their act?

Does the human side means - he is caught in ‘self’?

Does K lived a physically/psychologically secured life in Theosophical society and K foundations? If no foundations/society is incorporated/behind him - what he would have done for food,etc…? Because of fear to live/work in this immoral/inhumane world - K secured him from those? If so, then someone like us - who might understood K - had also to start to spread the love with others and also protect us from immoral society? Will these protection/security last long? - It had worked out for K - but if more people realized what K said - and starts a foundation (to run away from evil/immoral/inhumane world) - can those protect them for their whole life?

What would have K done - if there is no one to support ‘the teachings’ - and no fund is raised - and so no foundation started?

If a person like A/B/etc…, - have realized something - but has no background as how K had in Theosophical society, will anyone support him?

If above are true - does K couldn’t grasp ‘the teachings’ in his personal life?

K, who had not feared to dissolve a big project “order of the star in the east” - was feared (no compassion) to open and read some letters?. I know this sounds ridiculous - It’s like saying “Rahul Dravid having anger issues?” :joy:

As much this questions/doubts raised - will Viswa be called as evil too?. These are only doubts - but not ‘accusations’. Is doubting someone like K - to see the actuality - is an evil act?

What do you think David and @Inquiry?

Viswa, those are all good questions and this is good inquiry. I dont have the answers, I am looking myself at all of this too. I can only go by what I read, from those who knew Krishnamurti well. I never met him and dont know his real personal self, only what I have read.

I did read that he was a normal physical human male and enjoyed the physical companionship of Rosalind, like any male would. He seems to have been very loving towards her and her child Radha. But something seems to have happened between the two, to destroy this loving relationship, again from what I read, it had something to do with Rosalinds jealousy and possessiveness of Krishnamurti.

So Krishnamurti was in some ways just like us. But in other ways, he was very different, his attitude towards his body for instance. He was very detached from it and took great care of it and treated it like a cavalry officer treats his horse. Few of us could live like that, with such detachment towards the body. So Krishnamurti was both human and also beyond the human or detached.

Yes. So, detachments have to happen every second - and it’s not once happening thing.

The ‘Truth’ felt - if we don’t hold on to it (i.e. Practice) - We go into pieces. We will again fall down to human/‘self’/‘I’/‘ego’.

So, Until totally merged with ‘truth’ - there should be the ‘Practice of detachment’ (i.e. Dying every moment)

Mary Lutyens exerted influence on K and she fiercely exercised her power to prevent or attack the publication of anything that, in her mind, tarnished K’s image. For instance, when she felt that David Bohm outshined K in their dialogues, she persuaded K not to publish a significant part of their dialogue that, in her mind, diminished K.

Mary Lutyens felt it was imperative that K’s image should not be tarnished by facts, and Radha Schloss felt that K’s image was foolishness compared to the facts of his life.

What this means? - Can you say how this happened?

Mary,K,etc… strive to preserve name of K foundations. But this ‘image’ has nothing to do about. Whoever serious - will surely inquire the teachings - no matter whatever ‘image’ is - good/bad/beliefs/myths.

But why K/Mary - tried to protect the ‘image’ - though understanding ‘the teachings’?

Why I said - K too tried protect his ‘image’ is - when he comes to know that - Rajagopal’s family tries to deceive them - he may openly stated the public - about his whole personal life - from childhood days to till that date. But because of this ‘protection’ - Sloss used it against him.

But if he revealed this on his own - and not by Mary - then it would have shown his ‘openness’. It would have shown his non-distinguishing nature from ‘Personal to general’. Preserving ‘personal’ by person who understood the ‘teachings’ - is something questionable. Isn’t it?
What was his last comment at his death-bed?

Thanks Shankar for that interesting quora piece.

David Bohm did get a raw deal by that whole editing out mess with Luytens and probably never forgave it. Even though I disagree with her wanting to make sure Krishnamurtis image stays in tact as the teacher, not as the taught, I can appreciate her love and devotions towards Krishnaji. She was quite biased and fallible, in her humanness.

Bohm was a interesting person and seemed quite integrous and well versed and understanding of Krishnamurtis teachings, even if only intellectually. I like the guy a lot and even with some of his flaws, overall, he is a great light in Krishnamurti circles.

Krishnamurti himself was the Great Light and then there have been some lesser lights who have grasped and lived some of the teachings like David Bohm, Rajesh Dalal, Professor Krishna, Mary Zimbalist, Mark Lee, Michael Mendizza, etc.

1 Like

Continuing my studies of Krishnamurti and getting to know him better and his teachings, I continue to read what I can about him and his teachings.

I would like to know if anyone has read any of the following books which I havent yet and would like to know if they are worthwhile or any different than any other books I have read already about Krishnamurti.

Has anyone read Mary Zimbalists Unfinished Memoir?

Mark Lees World Teacher?

Michael Mendizzas Unconditionally free?

Hi @DavidS

Here, a journal by Asit Chandmal - The last walk. K asks a question to him that,

“what are you anchored in sir?”

He replied, “In you sir”

Then K said, “I’m gone”.

So, In my view, just get anchored on the teachings - but not on K (he is just a raft and the raft is no more).

After Inquiring the whole teachings - understanding everything - then it’s Okay to inquire/not-inquire about K.

Yes, Viswa, we see this issue similarly. Asit and all of us cannot be anchored in Krishnamurti, for yes indeed, he is gone. But as you say, we can get anchored on the teachings. So we meet wholeheartedly on this issue!

1 Like